[Senate Hearing 113-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-5
IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO INDIAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND FINDING
SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 10, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-495 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Mary J. Pavel, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 10, 2013................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 9
Statement of Senator Heitkamp.................................... 9
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 8
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 5
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 7
Witnesses
Boyd, Rodger J., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native
American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Bryan, Annette, Executive Director, Puyallup Nation Housing
Authority...................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Causley, Cheryl A., Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing
Council........................................................ 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Iron Cloud, Paul, CEO, Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing, Pine Ridge
Reservation.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Sossamon, Russell, Executive Director, Choctaw Nation Housing
Authority...................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Appendix
Association of Alaska Housing Authorities, prepared statement.... 53
Brooks, Hon. Paul, Chairman, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina...... 74
Cooper, Gary J., Executive Director, Housing Authority of the
Cherokee Nation................................................ 69
Delgado, Hon. Ed, Chairman, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. 72
Hoopa Valley Tribe and Housing Authority, prepared statement..... 57
Loza, Moises, Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council,
prepared statement............................................. 56
Navajo Housing Authority, prepared statement..................... 63
Response to written questions submitted to Rodger J. Boyd by:
Hon. John Barrasso........................................... 77
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 80
Response to written questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to:
Cheryl A. Causley............................................ 82
Russell Sossamon............................................. 86
Response to written questions submitted to Paul Iron Cloud by:...
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 76
Hon. Tim Johnson............................................ 77
Torres, Hon. Edward Paul, Governor, Pueblo of Isleta............. 75
Worl, Ricardo, President, Tlingit Haida Regional Housing
Authority (THRHA), prepared statement.......................... 59
Zion, James W., Attorney and Jurisconsult, prepared statement.... 60
IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO INDIAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND FINDING
SOLUTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
The Chairwoman. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will
come to order.
This is an oversight hearing on Identifying Barriers to
Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions. I want to
thank all the witnesses for being here today and we look
forward to hearing your testimony.
This afternoon, as I said, the Committee is holding an
oversight hearing on Indian housing. This is the Committee's
first hearing of this session, so I am very much looking
forward to working with all our committee members and Vice
Chairman Barrasso, and addressing many issues that are
important to tribal governments and will help improve the lives
of Native Americans.
One of these issues that we must address early this year is
the Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act,
which expires in September of this year. Since this Act was
implemented in 1998, 31,000 Indian families now live in newly-
constructed housing units and another 64,500 Indian families
have been able to rehabilitate their homes through the Indian
Housing Block Grant Program.
Through the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program,
18,000 loans have been guaranteed for a total of more than $2.9
billion to tribal recipients. Despite this progress, the
housing needs in Indian Country remain great. Currently,
American Indians make up 8 percent of the Nation's homeless
population, despite being only 1 percent of the general
population.
Nearly 64,000 American Indians live in overcrowded
conditions, and nearly 25 percent live in housing units that
have severe structural needs. So today's hearing is an
important first step in identifying areas where housing
programs are working well and determining where improvements
can be made.
The Committee will look at programs across the Federal
agencies to see where processes can be streamlined and run more
efficiently. As you can see, there are going to be some
examples today on the construction of homes that can involve
tribal governments and four different, separate Federal
agencies.
We also want to make sure that tribes have flexibility that
they need to make sure that the improvement in these programs
comes along with innovation and improving housing conditions.
Recently, the Makah Tribe in Washington State announced that it
was using a combination of its block grant funding and low-
income housing tax credits to develop 21 low-income housing
units in Sail River Heights, a tribal housing development
started by the Tribe in 2007.
So we want to make sure that we are looking at what is
needed in this reauthorization to ensure that all tribes and
their members are provided safe and affordable housing, and
that housing programs meet the needs of tribal members well
into the future. Today we will hear from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Office of Native Programs on
their recommendations for what can be done legislatively to
improve housing programs. We will also hear from National
American Indian Housing Council, the largest tribal
organization representing tribes and tribal housing entities.
Finally, we will hear from three tribal housing directors from
the Puyallup Tribe of Washington, and I want to specifically
welcome them, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Choctaw Tribe.
These housing directors manage three different programs,
and I am pleased that they are here today, because they are
going to share a broad perspective of their experiences and
recommendations for ways that the Committee can improve the
housing programs in the reauthorization.
Now I would like to ask the Vice Chairman, Senator
Barrasso, if he has an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. I do, thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing on Indian
housing. The National American Indian Housing Council estimates
that there is a need for about 250,000 new housing units
throughout Indian Country. This is a significant need, but
tribes have been working hard to address it. The Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act is up
for reauthorization this year. I know that NAHASDA is one of
the most effective Federal Indian programs, not perfect, but
very succesful. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
estimates that in the last 15 years alone, which is about as
long as NAHASDA has been in effect, tribes have used this
funding to build or acquire more than 31,000 affordable housing
units and rehabilitate more than 64,500 units.
I want to emphasize that this is housing primarily for low-
income Indian families. Much of this progress has been possible
because NAHASDA is carried out 100 percent on the local level,
by the tribes themselves, as opposed to by the Federal
Government. From the planning phase to implementation, home
design and construction through management and ongoing
maintenance, all carried out locally by the tribes.
Of course, any program can be improved. So I hope to hear
today from the witnesses on how this program can be made more
effective and more efficient. In the past, a major bottleneck
in the housing development process has been land leasing. That
is why this past Congress I introduced Senate Bill 703, known
as the HEARTH Act. The nearly identical House version of the
HEARTH Act was signed into law last July. The law allows tribes
to bypass Secretarial approval for leases, rendering NEPA
inapplicable to the land leasing process. Instead, the tribes
use their own environmental review process. So I anticipate
that the efficiencies of the HEARTH Act will significantly
increase home ownership on tribal lands.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today. I look
forward to hearing the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Do any other members have an opening statement? Senator
Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, and Vice
Chair Barrasso.
I want to thank the Chair for holding this important
hearing today. I look forward to working with you and the Vice
Chair and other members of the Committee with the same spirit
of cooperation that characterized the work of two former Chairs
and long-serving members from the State of Hawaii on this
Committee: Senators Inouye and Akaka. While their decades of
service to our Nation, the Congress and this Committee are
unparalleled, I am committed to move forward their fight to
ensure that the Federal Government upholds its trust
responsibility to the indigenous people of what is now the
United States of America.
I am also determined to advance parity in Federal law and
policy for Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people are the
only federally-recognized Native people without a government-
to-government relationship with the Federal Government. This
injustice must be addressed by the Congress.
American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face
unique barriers to housing development, and their communities
face the highest rates of national poverty. The Chair
delineated some of those alarming statistics. While the
national statistics are a stark reminder of existing housing
disparities between Native and non-Native communities in the
United States, the numbers for the State of Hawaii are even
worse. A 2012 report on ``The State of Poverty in Hawaii''
noted that Hawaii has the third highest homelessness rate in
the country. Native Hawaiians account for a far greater share
of the homeless population than other groups.
A recent study found that while Native Hawaiians make up 22
percent of the population, they account for 48 to 59 percent of
the residents in transitional shelters. According to a 2010
report, Hawaiian families rank last in the Nation in average
annual pay, while Hawaii's home ownership rate ranks 47th out
of 50th. This, and a lack of affordable housing,
disproportionately impacts Native Hawaiians who face the
highest rates of inadequate housing, overcrowding and
homelessness in the Nation.
Just last month, the median sales price for a single family
home on Oahu was $640,000. In 2011, HUD's published rates for a
one-bedroom was $1,400, two-bedroom $1,700, and $2,500 for a
three-bedroom. Given this startling reality, it is critical to
sustain and strengthen the HUD housing assistance and loan
guarantees that have been successful in helping Native Hawaiian
families and so many American Indians and Alaska Native
families gain access to much-needed housing.
In Hawaii, I have witnessed the success of these HUD
programs, how they have benefited Native Hawaiian communities
and increased home ownership, improved living conditions and
changed lives. I would like to thank Rodger Boyd for his
participation today and for his many years managing the Office
of Native American programs, including Native Hawaiian housing
block grant and Native Hawaiian loan guarantee programs. I
appreciate his many years of collaboration with Native
Hawaiians and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and look
forward to working with him and Secretary Donovan to improve
further housing conditions for Native Hawaiian families in my
State.
I also want to recognize Ms. Cheryl Causley, Chair of the
National American Indian Housing Council, for her work to
promote self-determination and support for making culturally
relevant and quality affordable housing available to American
Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. We will need
concerted and collaborative efforts of the Administration and
the Congress, Native leaders, tribes, tribal organizations, and
housing authorities, and the advocacy of all stakeholders,
including the Chair and Vice Chair, especially, to improve
housing opportunities.
Thank you, Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Schatz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian Schatz, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
I want to thank the Chair for holding this important hearing today.
I look forward to working with you, Senator Cantwell, and with Senator
Barrasso, and the other members of the Committee, with the same spirit
of cooperation that characterized the work of two former Chairs and
long-serving members of this Committee: Senator Inouye and Senator
Akaka.
While their decades of service to our nation, the Congress and this
Committee are unparalleled, I am committed to move forward their fight
to ensure that the Federal Government upholds its trust responsibility
to the indigenous people of what is now the United States of America.
I am also determined to advance parity in federal law and policy
for Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people are the only
federally-recognized Native people without a government-to-government
relationship with the Federal Government and this injustice must be
addressed by the Congress.
American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face unique
barriers to housing development and their communities face the highest
rates of national poverty. The most recent data available from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Census Bureau, and the
Government Accounting Office illustrate the widely disproportionate
unmet needs of Native Americans:
Approximately 28 percent of reservation housing units lack
adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities, a rate five times
greater than the national average;
Nearly 46 percent of Native households are overcrowded, a
rate almost three times greater than the rest of the country;
and,
While Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the
general population, they comprise 8 percent of the country's
homeless.
While these national statistics are a stark reminder of existing
housing disparities between Native and Non-Native communities in the
United States, the numbers for the State of Hawaii are even worse. A
2012 report on The State of Poverty in Hawaii, noted that Hawaii has
the third highest homelessness rate in the country. Native Hawaiians
account for a far greater share of the homeless population than other
groups. A recent study found that while Native Hawaiians make up 22
percent of the population they account for 48 percent to 59 percent of
the residents in transitional shelters.
According to a 2010 report, Hawaiian families rank last in the
nation in average annual pay, while Hawaii's homeownership rate ranks
47th out of 50. This, and a lack of affordable housing,
disproportionately impact Native Hawaiians who face the highest rates
of inadequate housing, overcrowding and homelessness in the nation.
Just last month the median sales price of a single-family home in Oahu
was $640,000. In 2011, HUD's published rates for the Fair Market
Monthly Rent for Honolulu County was $1,396 for a 1-Bedroom, $1,702 for
a 2-Bedroom and $2,470 for a 3-Bedroom.
Given this startling reality, it is critical to sustain and
strengthen the HUD housing assistance and loan guarantees that have
been so successful in helping Native Hawaiian families and so many
American Indians and Alaska Native families gain access to much needed
housing. In Hawaii, I have witnessed the success of these HUD
programs--how they have benefited Native Hawaiian communities,
increased homeownership, improved living conditions, and changed lives.
I would like to thank Mr. Rodger Boyd for his participation today
and for his tenure managing the Office of Native American Programs,
including the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian
Loan Guarantee programs. I appreciate his expertise and many years of
work in Native Hawaiian communities and collaboration with the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I look forward to working with him
and Secretary Donovan to improve further housing conditions for Native
Hawaiian families in my State.
I also want to recognize Ms. Cheryl Causely, Chair of the National
American Indian Housing Council, for her work to promote and support
self-determination, and culturally relevant, affordable, and quality
housing for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
Thank you to all of the witness who traveled here to participate in
this hearing. Your contributions will be important to the Committee as
we move forward on Native American housing assistance reauthorization
legislation.
We will need the concerted efforts of the Administration, the
Congress, Native leaders, tribes, tribal organizations and housing
authorities, and the advocacy of all stakeholders, including the Chair
and the Vice Chair, to sustain and improve housing opportunities, build
stronger and more self-sufficient Native communities, and create a more
vibrant national economy.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski?
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and to the
Vice Chairman, thank you for the hearing this afternoon
focusing on housing.
I appreciate the attention that you are giving this in my
State. Clearly in so many of those of us around the dais here,
this remains a challenge. In parts of my State, it is an
absolute crisis. We hate to use that word, unless it is truly
that. I would like to take just a few minutes here to speak to
some of the issues that we are facing in Alaska.
First, I would like to make sure that the testimony of the
Association of Alaska Housing Authorities is made part of the
Committee record. I do understand that the Association supports
the work of the National American Indian Housing Council in
drafting the reauthorization. I understand it has been a long
process in coming. But I would want to make sure that testimony
is included.
The situation in Alaska is a tough one. In nearly 200 of
our rural communities, I think it is fair to call housing a
crisis. And a crisis in housing means a crisis in the safety
and the education and the health care of our Native families.
In rural Alaska, we have multiple generations living in
substandard, dilapidated housing. I think all of us could share
similar stories.
But when I use the word substandard, I have learned that
the definition is different depending on where you are. One-
third, Madam Chairman, one-third of the homes in rural Alaska
do not have a flush toilet, do not have running water. So when
you talk about spread of disease, and you can't wash your
hands, you are talking about not only a housing situation, but
you are talking about a health care situation.
For far too many families in our villages in these remote
communities, the chore for the children is not just taking out
the trash, it is taking out the human waste that is in a bucket
in the corner. We call it a honey bucket. And the kids, part of
their job is to haul that honey bucket down the boardwalk or,
if they have a road, haul it down the road and dump it. That is
part of what they do. We have talked for decades about retiring
the honey buckets to the museums. I wish that I could say that
we are there, but we are not yet there.
I had no idea, coming to the United States Senate 10 years
ago, that one of my proudest moments would be when I got a call
from an elder in Buckland, Alaska, letting me know that, Lisa,
I got my flush toilet today. For eight years we had been
working to get Buckland hooked up to water and sewer. And it
has been at incredible cost. But when you go into a community
and you sit down in the gym bleachers, and you have a tiny
Native woman just kind of whisper in your ear and say, Lisa,
all I want before I die is a flush toilet, I don't think that
is too much for me to be working on.
So it has become an issue that, when I think about how we
provide for the safety of our families, some of it is pretty
basic stuff. Another area where we have some really very
horrible statistics, and Madam Chairman, you helped lead on
this issue just this past month, this is as it relates to
domestic violence. Nearly one out of two women and one out of
four men in Alaska have experienced physical or sexual violence
in their lifetime. We have over a 100 communities without law
enforcement. part of the problem in keeping law enforcement is
we don't have housing for our law enforcement personnel. So how
we are able to deal with that has been a critical challenge for
us.
Just last week, I was out in Bethel, Alaska, probably our
fourth largest community in the State, major regional hub.
Domestic violence issues that they deal with, but they have a
very nice shelter, a really good shelter that we helped them
get funding for. And they work with these women who come in
from the villages, leaving their home, leaving the abuser. And
they come into the shelter.
But then, when they have healed and go to leave the
shelter, there is no home for them. There is no housing in
Bethel, there is no housing in their village. They can't afford
to fly to Anchorage or to Fairbanks and to live there. So what
they do is they go back to live with their abuser. So we have
this cycle where we are not able to help these victims, because
of the lack of housing.
So when we think about housing, it is such, so much a
bigger picture than just a physical structure over our heads.
So Madam Chairman and Vice Chair, I thank you again for
highlighting some of this. We need to do better. I know that we
will. It is not just the structures, it is what we do with
weatherization, it is what we do with rehabilitation of our
homes. In some of our homes, we have families that are spending
50 and 60 percent of their family income just to keep warm. We
know that we can do more, we know that we do more to help these
families who are paying more to keep their house heated on a
monthly basis than they are paying for their mortgages.
So when we talk about housing crisis in our Native
communities, I think we need to remember that it is also a
public safety crisis, a health care crisis, and we can do more.
Thank you for your leadership and the leadership of so many who
are working on these important issues. I appreciate it.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Tester, did you want to make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Yes, very quickly. And I want to thank you
for holding this hearing on a very important issue, housing.
Before I get to my testimony, though, I want to recognize
someone sitting in the audience from Montana, Tom Acevedo, who
is part of the management team of Salish and Kootenai
Technologies, it is an Indian-owned company in Montana and
really a bright light and a great example for other Indian-
owned companies in the State. Thanks for being here, Tom.
Housing is important, there are no ifs, ands or buts about
it. We need it for safety, we need it for happiness, we need it
for health, we need it for employment. Unfortunately, way too
many places in Indian Country the housing does not meet the
needs that are out there.
And in places like Montana and other places around the
Country, they face geographic challenges, far, far away from
towns, economic centers where they can really put some economic
advantage as far as building houses. The statistics are
startling and they are not fun. And I have seen this my whole
life. In Rocky Boy Indian Reservation, it is 20 miles from my
farm, housing has been something that has been a concern
forever. We need to deal with it, we have dealt with it in a
couple of ways, with the HEARTH Act that the Ranking Member
talked about, critically important. Once this thing gets
implemented, I think there are some good things that will come
of it.
And I think most of the folks in this room understand that
the NAHASDA, the Native American Housing bill, will expire the
end of September. Before then, and that is probably why the
witnesses are here, and thank you for being here, we need to
hear from you about what the challenges are on the ground. We
need to know what to do to be able to improve that law, to make
sure that we are doing the right thing from a policy level to
empower you on the ground. That is why this panel is so
important here today.
I know money is going to be a big part of the discussion.
Everybody can use more, there is never enough. In a perfect
world, we would have all the money. But this isn't a perfect
world that we live in. So I would ask you to realize, and I
know you do, because you are at the front lines of
sequestration, but realize that we need to figure out ways to
do more with less. I need your help to do that. And this
Committee needs your help to do that.
There are a lot of states in this Country which do not have
an Indian population, or don't at least have an Indian
reservation, let's put it that way. We need to educate every
member of Congress, we need to make every dollar count. We need
to be able to streamline your programs so that they are easier
for you to work with. We need to reduce administrative costs,
we need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, all those good
government things. And we need to identify the programs that
can be cut and money can flow more to you for housing, because
it does cost money to do.
I just say thank you all for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony. This is an important issue and
hopefully we can find some solutions. Thank you all.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Senator Johnson?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, for
holding this hearing on the housing crisis in Indian Country.
I would like to welcome Paul Iron Cloud from Pine Ridge,
South Dakota. Paul is Chief Executive Officer of the Oglala
Sioux Lakota Housing Authority, serving the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. Paul is a dear friend, and is a tireless advocate
for Indian Country.
As you know, Madam Chairwoman, this a very critical issue,
especially in my home State of South Dakota. Statistics have
repeatedly shined a light on, and I have seen first-hand the
critical need for housing in Indian Country. As an original
House co-sponsor of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996, I look forward to working with
you, Madam Chair and colleagues, to reauthorize the program
this year.
It is also vital that we engage tribes and relevant
agencies in this process. As chairman of the Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in last Congress I held two
hearings addressing the dire state of Indian housing. In 2010,
I chaired a joint Banking and Indian Affairs committee field
hearing on Indian housing in Rapid City, South Dakota. HUD
Secretary Donovan was able to see the immediate housing
challenges on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation prior to our
hearing.
With a number of members overlapping on the Indian Affairs
and Banking Committees, I look forward to our continued
collaborative efforts to provide effective legislation for
housing assistance. The testimony today will greatly help us in
learning how we can improve housing for Indian Country.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Are there any other statements
by members? Senator Franken?
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. I want to associate myself with all the
remarks I have heard thus far, and Senator Murkowski, you are
so right that housing has to do with so much besides housing. I
wrote a housing provision in the VAWA bill that I was very
proud of, because you are so right, that a woman shouldn't have
to decide between living with her abuser and living in a car,
and her children shouldn't have to live with that, either. And
you are so right about when we have had hearings about law
enforcement, about how difficult it is to attract law
enforcement, good law enforcement people, because of lack of
housing. Same with teachers. And the same with doctors. Because
there isn't the housing there.
I don't want to get between us and the witnesses. I thank
all the witnesses for being here today and I am eager to listen
to your testimony. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Senator Heitkamp?
STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Heitkamp. Just quickly, we failed. You cannot look
at the statistics of housing in Indian Country, certainly in my
State, and not get an acute sense of failure. We have
homelessness that far outstrips, even in my State, which we
have a growing housing crisis, even in my State. And so I am
very, very interested in your testimony.
But I also would ask, Madam Chairwoman, if as we are
talking and as we are thinking, if you can think about the
other housing programs. I think way too often in Indian Country
we think about that program that is NAHASDA, we think about the
special program at the Small Business Administration or we
think about the special Indian program, and we forget, we have
first time homeowners, we have Section 8, we have all of the
affordable housing programs that cities and counties and
organizations across our boundaries are able to access. How are
we using those programs?
When I was attorney general in my State of North Dakota, I
served on the board of directors for the housing finance
agency. We tried for eight years to get a couple projects with
first time homeowners on Indian Country. I would love to tell
you that I was enormously successful, but I failed. I failed to
make those programs accessible.
So I am interested not only in what is happening right now
with the programs that have been designated to encourage Indian
housing, but how we haven't been able to access traditional
affordable housing programs and how we haven't been able to
leverage those programs.
So I look forward to your testimony and look forward to
having a dialogue after this opportunity. Thank you very much
for bringing this very, very important issue to the forefront.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator.
So we are going to work on this in the reauthorization, but
let's hear from our witnesses. We are going to start with you,
Mr Boyd, and go right down the line. We appreciate your
submitting your written testimony, so you can sum up whatever
you want to from that written testimony. We are asking people
to keep within five minutes. You see a little clock there to
help. We do want to get through everybody and we want to give
members a chance to get questions.
You certainly can be shorter if you want to be. We very,
very much appreciate your being here and look forward to your
testimony. Mr. Boyd, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Boyd. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice
Chairman Barrasso and Committee members.
Before I start, I would like to commend and recognize my
fellow panelists, many whom I have worked with in our
respective communities and through negotiated rulemaking. I
really commend their commitment and the hard work that they do
within their committees, their communities and in working in
partnership with HUD.
This afternoon, I would like to talk about and focus on the
Indian housing programs that provide the tools to us to work in
this partnership with Indian tribes and to identify barriers
and find solutions to further develop better affordable housing
for Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Our
programs are available to 566 Federally-recognized tribes, 5
State-recognized tribes and of course, the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands.
From HUD's perspective, our Indian housing programs provide
solutions to the barriers to Indian housing development. These
programs have and are making great progress in providing
housing opportunities to Native American families across the
Country, because we do not take a one size fits all approach to
Indian Country. Our programs provide the flexibility of our
grant and loan recipients to design their housing programs
based on their unique tribal housing and economic development
needs. We continue to build upon this program by identifying
new ways to work in partnership with tribes, and we work
together to build better living environments in Native American
communities through creating greater sustainable economic
communities.
We do administer a number of programs. The details of those
programs are in my written testimony. In implementing these
programs, the Department recognizes the right of tribal self-
governance and the unique relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
One of the tools that we use, certainly, in working with
tribes is negotiated rulemaking. HUD, in accordance with
Section 106 of NAHASDA, has conducted negotiated rulemaking
with tribes on three separate occasions and on both
programmatic and formula issues. These sessions highlight and
respect the government-to-government relationship that HUD has
with these tribes. Using the collaborative approach, and a tool
to overcome barriers in Indian housing development, HUD and the
tribes have produced great results, bringing efficiencies to
the program and resolving administrative challenges.
The most recent negotiated rulemaking committee addressed
the 2008 amendments to NAHASDA. The committee was composed of
25 tribal representatives and two HUD representatives and
achieved over a 90 percent consent rate on all issues. Many of
the issues with NAHASDA were addressed, including the adoption
of a provision to streamline guaranteed planning and reporting
requirements while at the same time expanding upon quality and
data collection.
A main barrier to Indian housing development is accessing
capital on reservations. HUD, in partnership with tribes, has
attempted to overcome this barrier by providing assistance in
building capacity for tribes to gain private capital through
the sources such as low-income housing tax credits and Title 6
within the program and Section 184, guaranteed loan program. A
growing number of tribes are using these and other Federal and
State tools to leverage private funding on reservations and
tribal lands.
Tribes are also looking beyond just individual housing
units to expand the level of capital in their communities. More
and more tribes and TDHEs are becoming strategic in their
efforts to create sustainability in their economies and
communities. As evidence to this, tribes have applied for and
received HUD funding for sustainable planning and construction
grants.
In closing, HUD strongly supports reauthorization of
NAHASDA, which authorizes the single largest source of Federal
funding for housing in Indian Country. We have seen great
strides and have seen many tribes under this legislation set
great examples, not only for their communities but the other
tribal communities throughout the United States.
We look forward to working with the Committee and tribes to
secure authorization this year. Thank you again, Chairwoman
Cantwell and members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodger J. Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Introduction
Good Morning Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to provide comments
on how HUD's Indian housing, loan guarantee, and community development
programs provide the tools for us to work in partnership with Indian
tribes to identify barriers and find solutions to further the
development and prosperity of Indian and Alaska Native communities.
It is a pleasure to appear before you, and I would like to express
HUD's appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the housing
conditions of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
My name is Rodger Boyd, and I am Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) at HUD. ONAP is responsible
for the management, operation, and oversight of HUD's Native American,
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs.
These programs are available to 566 federally recognized Indian
tribes; 5 state-recognized tribes, formerly eligible under the United
State Housing Act of 1937; and the State of Hawaii's Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands. We serve these entities directly, or through their
tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs), by providing grants and
loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community
development activities, as well as identifying other HUD programs that
our clients may access. Our partners are diverse; they are located on
Indian reservations, in Alaska Native Villages, and on the Hawaiian
home lands.
From HUD's perspective, our Indian housing programs are making
great progress in providing housing to Indian families across the
country because we do not take a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to
Indian Country. Our programs provide the flexibility for our grant and
loan recipients to tailor their housing programs to address their
unique housing and economic development needs. We continue to build
upon the programs by identifying new ways to work in partnership with
tribes as we work together to help build a better living environment in
Native American communities through creating sustainable tribal
communities and tribal economies.
Housing Need in Indian Country
To effectively administer Indian housing programs, it is vital to
understand the current state of housing in Indian Country. In order to
do so, HUD, through its office of Policy Development and Research, is
developing a study on the extent of housing needs in Indian Country and
for Native Hawaiians in Hawaii. The last comparable study was conducted
in 1996.
Overview of Hud Native American and Native Hawaiian Programs
Increasing homeownership and providing safe, culturally-appropriate
housing in Indian Country is top priority. Our Native American housing
and loan guarantee programs are the basis for accomplishing this within
Indian Country.
HUD administers four programs specifically targeted to American
Indian and Alaska Native individuals and families:
The Indian Housing Block Grant program
The Federal Guarantees for Financing Tribal Housing
Activities, also known as the Title VI Loan Guarantee program
The Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing program, also known
as the Section 184 Loan Guarantee program, and the
Indian Community Development Block Grant program (ICDBG).
In implementing these programs, the Department recognizes the right
of tribal self-governance and the unique relationship between the
Federal Government and tribal governments, established by long-standing
treaties, court decisions, statutes, Executive Orders, and the United
States Constitution. Each of the 566 federally recognized tribes has
its own culture, traditions, and government. The Department strives to
balance respect for these individual tribes with regulations and
procedures that ensure accountability and consistency.
HUD also administers two programs specifically targeted to Native
Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands--the Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and the Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee
Program. The block grant program for Native Hawaiians is administered
through the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and is
augmented by the home loan guarantee program.
Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996, as amended, or NAHASDA, provides formula-based housing block
grant assistance to Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing
entities through the Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG). Prior
to NAHASDA, Indian housing authorities received funds under the
authority of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (1937
Act).
The IHBG is ONAP's largest program, both in terms of dollars
appropriated and population served. Grants are awarded to eligible
Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) for
a range of affordable housing activities that primarily benefit low-
income Indian families living on Indian reservations or in other Indian
service areas. The amount of each grant is based on a formula that
considers local needs and the number of units developed with 1937
Housing Act funding that are currently managed by the tribe or its
tribally designated housing entity.
The IHBG formula was developed by a negotiated rulemaking committee
composed of representatives from HUD and from tribes across the
country. Program regulations require that HUD periodically review the
allocation formula with the consultation and involvement of the tribes.
We are now in the process of reviewing nominations for the next formula
negotiated rulemaking committee, and we expect to hold the first
meeting this summer.
The block grant approach offers each tribe the flexibility to
design, implement, and administer unique, innovative housing programs,
based on local need. Grantees have received more than $9.9 billion in
16 years of funding (1998-2013), and with few exceptions, have been
using the funds in a timely and effective manner. Overall, the IHBG
program has a 94 percent expenditure rate.
Under the Recovery Act of 2009, our recipients spent nearly 100
percent of the $520 million received within the prescribed 3-year
period. Recovery Act funds made possible the development of almost
2,000 new affordable units, and more than 13,000 were substantially
rehabilitated. Energy conservation enhancements made more than 2,300
affordable units energy efficient.
As of March 2013, IHBG recipients had built or acquired more than
35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country, and substantially
rehabilitated more than 65,000 since the inception of the program in
1998. IHBG recipients also currently maintain more than 52,000 ``HUD
units'' that were funded before NAHASDA was enacted.
Tribal recipients have been very innovative in their use of IHBG
funds, particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and green
projects. For example, the Ho-Chunk Housing Authority of Wisconsin has
developed housing projects that include green, energy-efficiency
enhancements, including super-insulation, passive-solar design,
geothermal systems, and solar hot-water heaters.
The Choctaw Housing Authority of Oklahoma has recently built 24 new
units that are all Energy Star Certified.
Just one year ago, the Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority, in
Juneau, Alaska, celebrated the Grand Opening of its Five Star Plus,
energy efficient Saxman Senior Center. And the Ketchikan community, in
southeast Alaska completed a 12-unit, condo-style building to house
elders, which is the first building in that area to be certified LEED
Silver.
The Puyallup Tribe in Tacoma has 10 units of new affordable housing
that is certified LEED Platinum.
The Isleta Pueblo in New Mexico has used the innovative method of
lava block construction to build 20 single-family homes. They realized
a 50 percent cost savings over conventional construction techniques.
The homes have maintenance-free exteriors, Energy Star appliances and
fixtures, and the materials are termite-resistant and impervious to
wind damage. The development created job training and employment
opportunities for local community.
These are just a few examples of the thoughtful, and forward-
thinking designs that our tribal grantees have incorporated into their
low-income housing projects, emphasizing sustainability and responsible
stewardship of natural resources.
We have seen the great strides that have been made in Indian
housing under this seminal piece of Indian legislation, even in
challenging fiscal environments. Therefore, HUD strongly supports the
reauthorization of NAHASDA this year.
Title VI Loan Guarantee Fund--Federal Guarantees for Financing for
Tribal Housing Activities
NAHASDA also authorizes the Title VI program, which offers
recipients of the IHBG (tribes and their TDHEs) a loan guarantee
program that encourages long-term projects and the leveraging of a
variety of funding sources. Under Title VI, HUD can guarantee 95
percent of a loan for affordable housing activities. Borrowers pledge a
portion of their current and future IHBG funds as security. This
program has provided an incentive for lenders to get involved in the
development of tribal housing.
Since its first year of funding, in the year 2000, 72 Title VI
loans have been guaranteed by HUD for about $180 million. These loans
have financed more than 2,700 affordable homes, and enabled borrowers
to leverage almost $74.7 million for housing and community development.
Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund--Section 184
The Section 184 program was authorized by the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992, as amended. Like NAHASDA, HUD strongly
supports the reauthorization of this program this year. Since its
inception, the program has guaranteed more than 20,800 loans with a
total value of $3.32 billion.
Section 184 is a single-family mortgage loan program that provides
a 100 percent guarantee for private mortgage loans issued to eligible
borrowers. Eligible borrowers include American Indian and Alaska Native
families and individuals, Indian tribes, and TDHEs. There are no income
limits. Loans are used to purchase, construct, rehabilitate, refinance,
or purchase and rehabilitate a home located on a reservation or within
an Indian area. A one-time, guarantee fee is charged; it can be
financed or paid in cash at closing. The maximum mortgage term is 30
years.
Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program
The ICDBG program provides federal aid for Indian tribes and Alaska
Native Villages to develop viable Native American communities.
Competitive grants are awarded to eligible Indian tribes and Alaska
Native Villages to improve the housing stock, provide community
facilities, make infrastructure improvements, fund micro-enterprises,
and expand job opportunities. Eligible activities include housing
rehabilitation, acquisition of land for housing, and assistance for
homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons,
construction of single- or multi-use facilities, streets and public
facilities, and economic development projects--especially those
sponsored by nonprofit tribal organizations or local development
corporations.
In the last 20 years, Indian Country has received more than $1.2
billion in ICDBGs. In the last 5 years, recipients have used ICDBGs for
a variety of projects, including the substantial rehabilitation of more
than 2,000 affordable housing units, and the construction of almost 200
community buildings for the benefit of low-income housing residents.
In FY 2012, 76 recipients received more than $56.2 million to fund
projects that will improve their communities. A tribe in Wisconsin
plans to use its 2012 ICDBG to install solar photovoltaic panels on
low-income, single-family homes and apartments to decrease energy
costs. A tribe in Alaska will build a group home to reduce the number
of homeless native youths. A tribe in California will upgrade its
reservation's old sewer lines. And a tribe in Iowa will construct a
travel center/truck stop that will include a convenience store, a
branch bank, and car and truck fueling stations.
In FY 2012, more than $3 million in ICDBG funds were also awarded
to nine recipients to address emergencies and imminent threats to their
communities, such as floods, fires, windstorms, and contaminated water
systems.
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program (NHHBG)
The NHHBG program, Title VIII of NAHASDA, was authorized by the
Hawaiian Home Lands Homeownership Act of 2000. The Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) is the sole recipient. The NHHBG is designed
to primarily benefit low-income Native Hawaiians who are eligible to
reside on the Hawaiian home lands. Eligible activities are the same as
for the IHBG program. DHHL provides many housing services, including
counseling and technical assistance to prepare families for home
purchase and ownership. About 90 percent of NHHBG funds have been used
to build new homes and develop the related infrastructure.
In 8 years of program activity (2005-2012), more than 500
affordable homes have been built, acquired, or substantially
rehabilitated on the Hawaiian home lands. Approximately 1,400
individuals and families have received pre-and post-homebuyer
education, financial literacy training, and/or self-help home repair
training to sustain safe, decent housing. Three community centers have
been rehabbed, and more than 300 lots have been improved with
infrastructure to support construction of new homes.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands continues to work
successfully with many Hawaiian organizations, civic groups, and
service agencies in the public, private, and government sectors.
Partners have included the Habitat for Humanity, the County of Hawaii,
the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture--Rural Development, and many others.
HUD strongly supports the reauthorization of this highly successful
block grant program.
Section 184A--Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program
Section 184A was established by Section 514 of the American
Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, which amended the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The program is similar
to Section 184, but is intended for Native Hawaiians eligible to reside
on the Hawaiian home lands. In its 8 years of operation, the program
has guaranteed 276 loans for more than $69.5 million.
Helping Tribal Communities Succeed in Affordable Housing and Economic
Development
We would like to share with you some perspectives on how tribal
communities overcome barriers to Indian housing development and
succeed.
We encourage tribes to look to federal resources such as HUD's
Indian Housing Block Grant and Title VI programs, but to also consider
other opportunities. Tribes and TDHEs are looking beyond just building
individual houses and are becoming more strategic in their efforts to
create more sustainability in their economics and communities.
Tribes from the southwest to the northeast have leveraged HUD
programs outside of ONAP such as the those sponsored by the Office of
Sustainable Housing and Communities, and Green Construction grants
administered by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research.
Additionally, Tribes are applying for and receiving assistance from
federal and state programs that support housing, such as grants or
loans from Federal Home Loan Banks, USDA's Rural Development, and the
Department of Energy. In addition, they are receiving allocations of
Low Income Housing Tax Credits that can attract investment to Tribe-
sponsored affordable housing projects.
We have engaged in marketing and outreach activities designed to
make tribes and TDHEs more familiar with our programs, particularly
those with federal guarantees to lower the risks that have
traditionally made the private sector shy away from partnering with
tribes.
We can also assist with advice on how to leverage private-sector
capital to create more housing on reservations. As we move forward,
we're cognizant of, and will work within, the government-to-government
relationship that exists between this Department and the Federally
recognized Indian tribes we serve.
For various reasons, housing development on reservations has been
viewed by many as a ``social program,'' and not as an engine for
economic development. We need to advance our collaboration with tribes,
other Federal agencies, and the private sector to clearly establish
housing development as a key component, a building block, in the
creation of sustainable economies on Indian reservations.
Over many years, we have concentrated on the development and
management of HUD-assisted housing; now we need to develop the capacity
to expand beyond that. Through the leveraging of federal financial
resources with private capital, we can create greater opportunities for
housing, new businesses and jobs . . . all contributing to the creation
of sustainable economies.
We have identified some key building blocks to establish the
foundation for developing more sustainable economies. These are:
creating institutions
investing in human capital
strengthening legal frameworks
leveraging sources of capital
fostering economic diversity
HUD's goal is to use its Native American programs as catalysts for
economic development, and to contribute to building sustainable
economies within Native American communities.
How do these programs contribute to sustainable economies?
Homeownership programs build equity and promote asset building for
Native American families. As a result, there is a greater level of
commerce and expenditures within the community, and at Native American-
owned businesses. Developing housing also greatly assists in creating
permanent local jobs.
Not only do these programs provide an influx of funds into Indian
communities, but they can also be used to attract other sources of
capital. This ability to leverage other federal money as well as state
funds and private capital is key to building a sustainable economy that
is not solely dependent on federal funds.
Today, there are more ways to leverage federal funds than ever
before, such as using low-income housing tax credits, other federal and
state programs, and partnerships with the private sector. HUD
encourages tribes to look beyond their grant funding and to use these
resources and other sources of capital to make possible mixed-use
development and the overall expansion of economic development to Indian
Country.
Indeed, there are dozens of tribes that are now using these
strategies successfully. But overcrowding, substandard housing, and
dire poverty are still prevalent in much of Indian Country, and these
challenges will no doubt be with us for many years to come. The block
grant program, and other federal support programs provide these Native
communities with a solid foundation on which to build their futures.
Closing
Thank you again, Chairwoman Cantwell, and members of the Committee,
for the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
continuing to work with you and your staffs on these issues. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
Now we are going to hear from Ms. Cheryl Causley, who is
the Chairperson of the National American Indian Housing
Council. Welcome, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. CAUSLEY, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN
INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL
Ms. Causley. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cantwell,
Vice Chairman Barrasso, distinguished members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for conducting this
oversight hearing.
My name is Cheryl Causley. I am an enrolled member and
Director of Housing for the Bay Mills Indian Community.
I appear before you today in my capacity as Chairwoman of
the National American Indian Housing Council. NAIHC was founded
in 1974 and serves its members by providing invaluable training
and technical assistance to its tribes and its tribal housing
entities. Our membership is expansive, comprised of 274
members, representing 473 tribes and tribal housing
organizations.
NAIHC's member tribes span the entire Country and reside in
each State represented by members of this Committee.
The barriers in the Indian housing development are many,
but they can be broken down into four categories: Federal
delays in providing necessary approvals and funding; lack of
technical capacity enabling tribes to maximize scarce
resources; lack of physical infrastructure; weak tribal
economies that fail to provide jobs and income to Native
families, resulting in an ongoing inability to finance homes
and related capital assets.
There is a consensus in Congress, the Federal Government,
with tribal leaders and organizations that there is a severe
housing shortage in tribal communities. Many homes, as a
result, are overcrowded, in need of substantial repair, and
many homes lack basic amenities, such as complete kitchens and
plumbing.
The estimate is around 250,000 new units of housing. We
hope to have a better estimate at the conclusion of HUD's needs
study.
These issues are further complicated by the status of
Indian lands, which are held in trust or restricted fee status
by the United States for benefit of the tribes and their
members. As a result, private financial institutions are leery
of lending for new construction or home improvements. Private
investment, therefore, in real estate in Indian Country is
virtually non-existent. Tribes almost entirely are dependent
upon the Federal Government for financial support in meeting
their growing housing needs.
In 1996, Congress passed NAHASDA to address the housing
crisis in Indian Country, by consolidating and block granting
Federal housing programs directly to Indian tribes or their
tribally-designated housing entities. NAHASDA represents a
positive and a welcome change in Federal Indian housing policy
and embraces the principles of tribal self-determination,
including local decision-making and reduced administrative
bureaucracy.
The results have been impressive, with more than 110,000
new homes built, acquired or renovated for American Indian and
Alaska Native families. However, because of the sheer scale of
the need and lack of sufficient funding, housing conditions in
Native communities remain some of the worst in the Nation. To
further address ongoing barriers to the delivery of Indian
housing, additional funding for our NAHASDA Indian housing
block grant is required. In the absence of the additional
funding, modest legislative reform, such as that within the
draft reauthorization bill, presented by NAIHC, will provide
opportunities to reduce barriers to the delivery of safe,
affordable housing for Native communities.
Some examples of the important reforms that will improve
the delivery of housing are to simplify the environmental
review requirements, eliminating conflicting Federal labor
standards, modernizing the 30 percent rule. Tribal housing
entities are encouraged to leverage their funds to secure
sources of financing, such as Title 6, 184 and low-income
housing tax credits to combine funding streams from multiple
sources, from USDA, CDFI, Federal Home Loan Bank, private
foundations and commercial banks.
Even a simple pooling of existing resources is difficult
because compliance requirements actually vary from program to
program, presenting barriers to efficient administration of
multiple funding streams, and limit the ability of tribes to
access multiple programs in an effort to reach adequate scale.
In closing, I would like to congratulate you, Chairwoman
Cantwell, as the first woman Chair of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs. Thank you to all the members of this Committee
for holding this hearing. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Causley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl A. Causley, Chairwoman, National American
Indian Housing Council
Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to help the Committee to
identify barriers to Indian housing development as well as propose
solutions to these difficult challenges.
My name is Cheryl Causley and I am the Executive Director of the
Bay Mills Indian Housing Authority. I am an enrolled member of the Bay
Mills Indian Community located in Brimley, Michigan, and am here today
in my capacity as Chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing
Council (NAIHC).
Background on the National American Indian Housing Council
The NAIHC was founded in 1974 and for nearly four decades has
served its members by providing invaluable training and technical
assistance (T&TA) to all tribes and tribal housing entities; providing
information to Congress regarding the issues and challenges that tribes
face in terms of housing, infrastructure, and community and economic
development; and working with key federal agencies to address these
important issues.
The membership of NAIHC is expansive, comprised of 274 members
representing 473 \1\ tribes and tribal housing organizations. NAIHC's
member tribes span the entire country from Florida to Alaska, from New
Mexico to Maine, and reside in each and every state represented by the
Members of this Committee. Our members are deeply appreciative of the
consistent leadership this Committee provides in Congress related to
issues affecting tribal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska
Native villages in the United States, all of which are eligible for
membership in NAIHC. Other NAIHC members include state-recognized
tribes eligible for housing assistance under the 1937 Housing Act and
that were subsequently grandfathered in the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996; and the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands, the state agency that administers the Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIHC's primary mission is to support tribal housing entities in
their efforts to provide safe, decent, affordable, and culturally
appropriate housing for Native people.
As this Committee knows, tribal communities suffer from some of the
worst housing conditions in the United States. The causes are many, but
can be broken down largely into four categories:
1. Federal delays in providing necessary approvals and funding;
2. Lack of technical capacity enabling tribes to maximize
scarce resources;
3. Lack of physical infrastructure; and
4. Weak tribal economies that fail to provide jobs and income
to Native families, resulting in an ongoing inability to
finance homes and related capital assets.
Solutions include new and innovative partnerships between the
federal and tribal governments--as well as the private sector--that
could provide tribal communities the tools they need to meet the
longstanding housing challenges and build better housing environments.
Tribal Surface Leasing Authority: Potential for Expedited Lease
Approvals
In the last session of Congress, the NAIHC was the lead proponent
of the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership
Act (HEARTH Act), one of only eight Indian tribal bills enacted into
law in the 2011-2012 timeframe. The HEARTH Act builds on the Navajo
Surface Leasing Reform Act of 2000, and authorizes Indian tribes in
general to lease surface tribal trust lands pursuant to their own
tribal surface leasing ordinances. Once a tribal surface leasing
ordinance is approved by the Interior Secretary, the tribe may pursue
surface leasing of its tribal trust lands for a variety of purposes,
including home site leases, without the review or approval of the
Secretary.
While this may sound elementary to some, these amendments
strengthen tribal self-determination and give tribes a tool they will
assuredly use to expedite leasing decisions and to improve the approval
process that housing development relies upon.
General Economic Conditions in Indian Country
Recently, our country has gone through an economic downturn that
many have described as the worst recession since World War II. This
economic reality is greatly magnified in Indian communities. The
national unemployment rate peaked at an alarming rate of nearly 10
percent and still hovers around 8 percent. The rate in tribal
communities is 49 percent. \2\ The highest unemployment rates are on
the Plains reservations, where the average rate is 77 percent. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of Indian Affairs Labor Force Report (2005).
\3\ Many of these reservations are in the state of South Dakota,
which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. On some
SD reservations, the unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the remote locations of many reservations, there is a
lack of basic infrastructure and economic development prospects are
difficult to identify and even more difficult to pursue. As a result,
the poverty rate in Indian Country is exceedingly high at 28.4 percent,
nearly three times the national average. \4\ These employment and
economic development challenges exacerbate the housing situation in
Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage
Month: November 2011. See http://www.census.gov.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, nearly 12 percent of
Native American households lack plumbing compared to 1.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percent of the general U.S. population.
According to 2002 statistics, 90,000 Indian families are
homeless or under-housed.
On tribal lands, 28 percent of Indian households were found
to be over crowded or to lack adequate plumbing and kitchen
facilities. The national average is 5.4 percent when structures
that lack heating and electrical equipment are included.
Seventy percent of the existing housing stock in Indian
Country is in need of upgrades and repairs, many of them
extensive.
Less than half of all reservation homes are connected to
water sanitation facilities.
There is consensus in Congress, the Federal Government, tribal
leaders, and tribal organizations that there is a severe housing
shortage in tribal communities; that many homes are, as a result,
overcrowded; that many of the existing homes are in need of repairs,
some of them substantial; that many homes lack basic amenities that
many of us take for granted, such as complete kitchens and plumbing;
and that at least 250,000 new housing units are needed in Indian
Country.
These issues are further complicated by the status of Indian lands,
which are held in trust or restricted-fee status by the United States
for the benefit of the tribes or their members. As a result, private
financial institutions are leery of lending for new construction or
home improvements. Private investment, therefore, in real estate in
Indian Country is virtually nonexistent, with tribes almost entirely
dependent on the Federal Government for financial support in meeting
their growing housing needs.
Brief Summary of the Problems Regarding Housing in Indian Country
The Housing Act of 1937 authorized local governments to organize
public housing agencies that received federal subsidies to improve
living conditions for low-income families. It was not until 1961 that
the Public Housing Administration recognized tribal governments as
local governing bodies that could establish Indian Housing Authorities
under tribal law. The ensuing three decades led to improved housing
conditions throughout tribal communities, however, enormous hurdles
plagued most tribal housing programs.
Numerous tribal leaders, tribal housing advocates and Members of
Congress recognized a need for significant changes to federal law to
provide tribes access to federal housing funds in a manner consistent
with tribal self-determination.
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to address the housing crisis in
Indian Country by consolidating and block granting federal housing
programs directly to Indian tribes or their tribally-designated housing
entities (TDHEs). For seventeen years, NAHASDA has been the cornerstone
for providing housing assistance to low-income families on Indian
reservations, in Alaska Native villages, and on Hawaiian Home Lands.
The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) is the centerpiece of
NAHASDA, and since its first fiscal year of funding in 1998, NAHASDA
has been the single largest source of funding for tribal housing.
Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), NAHASDA specifies which activities are eligible for funding. \5\
Not only do IHBG funds support new housing development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and other housing services that are critical for tribal
communities, they cover essential planning and operating expenses for
tribal housing entities. Between 2006 and 2010, a significant portion
of IHBG funds, approximately 24 percent, were used for critical
planning, administration, and housing management and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, down-
payment assistance, property acquisition, new construction, safety
programs, planning and administration, and housing rehabilitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite advances made by some tribes since 1996, many tribes lack
administrative capacity to manage their block grants in effective and
efficient ways. After formal hearings and much deliberation, section
703 of NAHASDA reflects congressional authorizers' thoughtful
conclusion that T&TA is critical to the success of NAHASDA's block
grant regime. \6\ Congressional appropriators share this view. In the
Fiscal Year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development spending
bill considered last June, appropriators acknowledged an enormous need
for T&TA in Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 703 of NAHASDA is titled, ``Training and Technical
Assistance,'' and provides that ``(T)here are authorized to be
appropriated for assistance for a national organization representing
Native America housing interests for providing training and technical
assistance to Indian housing authorizes and tribally-designated
entities such sums as may be necessary [for subsequent fiscal years].''
25 U.S.C. 4212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most important services the NAIHC has provided for more
than a decade is T&TA to tribes and their TDHEs. Reflecting the
importance of T&TA and the value they place on NAIHC-provided
assistance, tribes have voted each year since 2006 to ``shave'' their
respective block grant amounts and allocate the funding to NAIHC for
its T&TA program. Despite the plain language of section 703, recent
changes to appropriations bills have radically changed how training
funds are allocated.
Fiscal Year 2012 funding, for instance, was provided to NAIHC but
also to other tribal organizations and at least one non-Indian
organization. We point out that neither tribal leaders nor tribal
housing managers were consulted before these changes were implemented
by HUD.
In addition to its key T&TA role, and in anticipation of NAHASDA's
reauthorization this year, NAIHC also undertook a comprehensive
outreach process to encouraging open discussion about the Act from
inception to the present, from the perspective of the tribes and their
TDHEs.
The outreach facilitated in-depth, ongoing discussions to assess
the effectiveness of the Act, its individual components, and its rules
and regulations in meeting its intended purpose(s). The objective of
this extensive outreach process was to have a reauthorized Act that
more effectively accomplishes its objectives.
With this process now complete, NAIHC has shared a discussion draft
bill with Members of Congress and interested stakeholders. NAIHC
encourages the swift reauthorization of this important statute.
Leveraging Housing Funds
Relying on appropriated dollars to build and renovate homes has
been the standard practice in Indian Country. Alternatives, such as
leveraging existing funds with guarantees or investing borrowed money,
can bring new opportunities to Native families in search of housing.
The tools provided in NAHASDA have spurred several tribes into
exploring partnerships with lenders or utilizing existing funds to
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and success of housing projects.
For example, tribal housing entities are increasingly encouraged to
leverage their IHBG funding to secure other sources of financing, such
as Low Income Housing Tax Credits. They are also beginning to combine
funding streams from multiple sources such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Rural Development, U.S. Treasury Department's Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, the Federal Home Loan Bank,
private foundations, and commercial banks. Even a simple ``pooling'' of
existing resources is difficult because compliance requirements vary
from program to program, presenting barriers to efficient
administration of multiple funding streams and limit the ability of
tribes to access multiple programs in an effort to reach adequate
scale.
While tribes are doing their best to minimize these barriers and
achieve economies of scale that accompany resource ``pooling,'' a
better solution would be for the Federal Government to launch a
demonstration project authorizing tribes to reach across the spectrum
of federal programs to access currently disparate programs and
resources. This is already being done in the realm of labor and
employment training with the universally popular Indian Employment,
Training and Related Services Act (Pub.L. 102-477) otherwise known as
the ``477 Program.''
It should also be noted that eligibility to receive funding
available through various federal housing programs is not consistent. A
number of organizations in Alaska and Oklahoma, for example, cannot be
accurately characterized as either tribes, units of local government or
501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. A simple solution would be to
review eligibility requirements for federal housing programs and,
whenever possible, extend eligibility to entities that have been
designated as TDHEs for one or more Indian Tribes for the purposes of
NAHASDA.
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program
Under Title VI of NAHASDA, HUD is authorized to guarantee notes or
other obligations issued by tribes, or tribal housing entities, if
approved by the tribe, for the purpose of financing affordable housing
activities as described in section 202 of NAHASDA. IHBG funds may be
used as security for the guarantee or other obligations. The objectives
of the program are to enhance the development of affordable housing
activities, increase access to capital to further economic growth, and
encourage participation in the financing of tribal housing programs or
financial institutions that do not normally serve tribal areas.
Case Study: Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine
The Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine has found creative approaches to
maximize the impact of NAHASDA funds they receive. Using the Title VI
loan guarantee program to attract other sources of capital, the Tribe
successfully leveraged its IHBG funds to enhance its housing
development strategies. The flexibility of the Title VI program
criteria allows financing of any NAHASDA-eligible affordable housing
activity for a period of up to twenty years. Title VI has also proven
to be a cost-effective source of gap financing during initial stages of
a housing project.
The Tribe used Title VI to construct twenty-eight low-income
housing tax credit units and a community center. The balance on the
Title VI loan was paid down with the tax credits and Federal Home Loan
Bank of Boston's Affordable Housing Program funds.
Section 184 Home Loan Program
HUD's section 184 program is a mortgage loan product designed to
resemble a conventional or private housing loan, and there are no
income limits for the section 184 Loan program. Because the section 184
loan program is guaranteed by the Federal Government, the program has
provided much needed access to capital to many individuals and Native
families who might otherwise struggle to obtain home financing.
Case Study: White Mountain Apache Tribe
The White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona utilized a blend of
funding streams including NAHASDA, section 184 guarantees, and
tribally-issued, tax-exempt bonds to develop a 250 unit single-family
housing project. This project provides long-term rentals (amount paid
determined on family's ability) with the housing entity as the lessor
and the tenants have the opportunity to purchase their units.
Case Study: Bay Mills Housing Authority
The Bay Mills Housing Authority of Michigan developed a tri-party
agreement that included the Central Savings Bank, which was able to
offer the section 184 loan program, USDA Rural Development loans, or
tribal loans to members of the Tribe. Bay Mills used NAHASDA funds as
down-payment assistance of up to 10 percent of the loan (not to exceed
$8,000) to families with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area
median. The Tribe provides similar opportunities to families with
higher incomes.
As the case studies above demonstrate, the 184 program has been a
success when the program is viable and has funding available. In recent
years, however, uncertainty caused by delay in congressional enactment
of annual appropriations bills has prompted HUD to place restrictions
on the 184 program. Most recently, on March 8, 2013, HUD announced that
it would no longer issue firm commitments under the 184 program until
Congress appropriated additional funds. This resulted in some borrowers
and lenders being forced to secure alternative financing.
Non-Profit Incorporations to Enhance Access to Funding
Some tribes have created 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations for the
purposes of establishing an independent organization that accesses
additional housing funding opportunities. Forming a 501(c)(3) is a
multi-step process. First, the concept must be endorsed by the tribe's
governing body. Once the concept is approved by the tribal government,
a charter must be developed and submitted to the tribe and approved.
Once approved and chartered, the non-profit must maneuver through a
complex field of Internal Revenue Service rules and regulations to
appropriately establish a non-profit entity. Based on multiple tribal
housing examples, this process has provided increased access to a
variety of funding possibilities and a greater ability to serve the
individual housing needs of tribal members.
Case Study: Yukon-Koyukuk Elder Assisted Living Facility
The Yukon-Koyukuk Elder Assisted Living Consortium (YKEALC) is a
501(c)(3) organization founded to develop the Yukon-Koyukuk Elder
Assisted Living Facility in Galena, Alaska. The facility is located on
the banks of the Yukon River in central Alaska and was completed in
2011.
Five federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes came together to
create the facility: Nulato Tribal Council, Louden Tribal Council,
Koyukuk Tribal Council, Ruby Tribal Council and Kaltag Tribal Council.
Total investment in this assisted living center was $7.8 million.
These tribes needed a closer facility to provide housing and
services to their elders. Without a closer facility, elders would have
been forced to move, and this would have put them far from their
families, friends and culture. Through the development of YKEALC the
elders can remain in their tribal communities and receive top quality
housing and health care.
The New Markets Tax Credit financing will allow the facility to
purchase medical supplies, install solar panels on the roof and install
a wood-based heating system. These energy efficiency measures are
critically important due to the very high cost of energy in this very
remote region. The financing also provides working capital to help fund
operations at the facility. The project created twenty-eight
construction jobs and ten permanent jobs.
YKEALC will also work to keep the elders connected to the
community-a crucial element of elder care. This is done through
volunteer efforts of local residents bringing fish and game to the
facility for community meals.
Native Community Development Financial Institutions
Increasingly, tribal housing programs are exploring the advantages
of instituting and working with Native Community Development Financial
Institutions (Native CDFIs) in an effort to leverage resources for
homeownership. Native CDFIs were created when the Community Development
Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 established the CDFI,
whose purpose is to promote economic revitalization and community
development through investment and assistance to fund-certified CDFIs.
The Fund offers grants, loans, equity investments, and other forms of
assistance on a matching funds basis. CDFIs are administered by the
U.S. Treasury Department.
These Native CDFIs must demonstrate their independence from tribal
government and inclusion of the tribal target population on its board
of directors to obtain funding from the Fund. This structure is
intended to assure separation from tribal politics and sound lending
practices. CDFIs may also attract financial support from banks and
other lenders and are especially conducive to tribal housing programs
that seek focus on homeownership loans.
It is the goal of most Native CDFIs to bring in funding from
various sources to lend back to tribal community members at favorable
rates or provide the necessary financial education and credit
counseling to increase tribal members' access to lending products.
Native CDFI's not only help to boost homeownership through providing
loan products and other services, but they provide tribal members with
the knowledge and skills in building productive financial
opportunities.
Case Study: New Mexico Native CDFIs
In New Mexico, 10.7 percent of the population is identified as
American Indian and/or Alaska Native (AI/AN)--making it the third
highest AI/AN populated state proportionate to the rest of the state's
population. Out of the twelve certified CDFIs in the state there are
four Native CDFIs that provide varied services to the tribal
communities of Laguna Pueblo, Ohkay Owingeh, Isleta Pueblo, and the
Navajo communities near Gallup, New Mexico. They provide mixed lending
products, such as home mortgage loans, home rehabilitation loans, and
construction lending. In addition, they provide homeownership
education, financial education, and credit counseling and repair.
The financing of the Native CDFIs are diverse, and underscore the
multifaceted contribution from various funding sources to meet the
housing needs in the New Mexico tribal communities. Three of the New
Mexico Native CDFIs receive direct funding from their respective TDHE,
two CDFIs receive funding from the New Mexico Mortgage Finance
Authority (a state agency), and two CDFIs receive funding from non-
profit entities. The Tiwa Lending Services (TLS) receives direct
funding from the Pueblo of Isleta, which transferred its home loan
portfolio and tribal funds to TLS.
Case Study: Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation
The Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation (HCCDC) is an
emerging CDFI, and was formed by and partners with the Winnebago Tribe
and its entities. The Mission of the Ho-Chunk Community Development
Corporation is to raise the socio-economic and educational levels of
Native American communities and the people of Thurston County,
Nebraska. A goal of HCCDC is to decrease substandard housing, increase
housing opportunity, increase clients' ability to access housing, and
increase capital available locally.
The Winnebago Reservation lacks affordable housing and tribal
members who are able to afford a mortgage are forced to live elsewhere.
Other tribal members lack the funds for the initial down payment to
purchase a home. Using the Winnebago Tribe's other private subsidiary,
Ho-Chunk Inc., the HCCDC and the Winnebago Tribe have worked together
to develop a Housing Down Payment Assistance Program that provides a
significant portion of a standard down payment for a new homeowner. The
homeowner is required to go through a special financial and
homeownership education course and must meet other criteria to qualify.
In 2010, Ho-Chunk, Inc. and the Winnebago Tribe authorized a $1
million Housing Stimulus Program to set aside Ho-Chunk, Inc. dividends
and other tax revenues to offer $50,000 in down payment assistance to
up to twenty new homeowners who build a home on the Winnebago
reservation. Through these combined efforts, housing on their
reservation is more affordable and tribal members can start building
the traditional wealth that other non-Native homeowners have gained.
Beyond their down payment assistance program, the HCCDC has
invested in Ho-Chunk Village, a modern comprehensive subdivision that
incorporates their traditional village design. The Village will provide
both commercial and residential development with a senior-living
housing project, private homes, a 20-unit apartment complex, and 10
unit townhouses. On the commercial side, the Village will include a
commercial office building, laser art panels, veteran's park, sculpture
garden, theater, playground, and public-use building. Beyond creating
the needed affordable housing opportunities, the development of the Ho-
Chunk Village is raising the tribal economy and creating much-needed
jobs.
Conclusion
Given the funding constraints in the tribal housing arena and the
need to not only maintain existing units, but keep up with growing
tribal populations and meet the tremendous existing housing backlog,
tribes have, out of necessity, been very creative in developing
partnerships and crafting innovative solutions to meet their unique
housing needs and expand community development.
In closing, I want to thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman
Barrasso, and all Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and
for the opportunity to highlight solutions that help meet the
overwhelming housing needs in tribal communities. Your continued
support of tribal communities is truly appreciated, and NAIHC is eager
to work with you and your staff on these often-challenging issues.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Next we are going to hear from Annette Bryan, from the
Puyallup Tribe. Thank you for being here, thanks for traveling
all the way from the West Coast.
STATEMENT OF ANNETTE BRYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUYALLUP NATION
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Ms. Bryan. Good afternoon, Chairman Cantwell, Vice Chairman
Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony today on barriers and
solutions to housing development in Indian Country. I lift my
hands to each of you in thanks for all of the hard work that
you do on behalf of tribal people.
My name is Annette Bryan. I am the Executive Director of
the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority for the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians in Tacoma, Washington, the other Washington. And our
tribe has over 4,000 enrolled members covering about 28 square
miles. We have developed a number of successful economic
development activities; however, poverty and inadequate housing
are still endemic.
PNHA was established to provide decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing for low-income tribal members and other
Indians in our service area. Our dedicated and wonderful staff
prides itself in the work that we do, but every day we strive
to do what we can in the enormous housing needs that we face.
Under NAHASDA, we have been able to develop capacity,
construct more than 50 new affordable housing units and
increase safety by installing cameras and providing a full-time
police officer with a canine unit dedicated to the housing. We
have developed a broad range of services and programs,
including rental and home buyer units, a rental assistance
voucher program, a down payment assistance program and a self-
sufficiency program.
I will testify about certain barriers. The first barrier,
inadequate funding; second barrier, redundant requirements; and
the third barrier, total development cost limitations. I will
then conclude by addressing reauthorization.
The first barrier, inadequate funding. The President's
budget, released today, flatlines NAHASDA at $650 million. To
compound that funding issue, NAHASDA block grant does not
provide any additional funds for operation and maintenance of
our new units. We are at a point where we are not able to
construct or acquire any more new units, because our grant
funds need to be spent to maintain and operate those we already
have.
We need Congress to, at the very least, allow us to keep
pace with inflation. Congress should increase the annual
NAHASDA block grant appropriations to at least $875 million
with subsequent annul increases in order to meet current
inflation and keep pace with future inflation.
The second barrier is redundant requirements. One of the
necessary responses to insufficient funding is leveraging
funding from other sources. When tribes combine sources from
different Federal agencies, we are required, for environmental
reviews, for example, to do an environmental review for each
Federal agency in which we are given funding for. NAHASDA
authorizes tribes to carry out their own environmental reviews
and use their own tribally-determined prevailing wage rates in
lieu of Davis-Bacon rates. However, other funding requirements
on top of that require us to meet that obligation multiple
times, creating redundancy. Puyallup supports amendments to
NAHASDA that would allow for consolidation of environmental
review and prevailing wage requirements in those situations to
avoid redundancy and cost.
The third barrier, total development cost limits on green
building. At the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, we have developed
two, all of our units are green, but we have a LEED Platinum
certified building. There is a picture of it over here. We are
using different kinds of technologies that are costing a little
bit more. So we are asking for flexibility in the total
development cost, 10 to 20 percent. We get a 10 percent waiver
from HUD. However, it is time-consuming to ask for that and
takes a little bit more process, process, process. So more
flexibility in that would be helpful.
One step Congress could take to facilitate green building
would be to expressly authorize a waiver of greater flexibility
around moderate design standards that have been promulgated in
the NAHASDA regulations.
NAHASDA reauthorization. If NAHASDA is not reauthorized, we
will not be able to continue to operate our critically-needed
programs and services. Like the VAWA Act, protecting Native
women, the NAHASDA Act protects Native families. NAHASDA is
fundamentally a success, and while there is room for
Improvement, NAHASDA is critical to providing Indian housing
for Indian people. Without it, we will be devastated. We
strongly support reauthorization of NAHASDA to continue this
successful program to meet these critical needs.
On behalf of the Puyallup Tribal Council and the Puyallup
Nation Housing Board of COMmissioners, I would like to thank
you for this opportunity, and I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bryan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annette Bryan, Executive Director, Puyallup
Nation Housing Authority
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My
name is Annette Bryan, and I am the Executive Director of the Puyallup
Nation Housing Authority (PNHA) and have been at PNHA since 2004, first
as a member of the Board of Commissioners and then as Executive
Director.
On behalf of the Puyallup Tribe and the Puyallup Nation Housing
Authority, I would like to thank the Chair, Vice-Chair, and the
Committee Members for holding this hearing and for establishing the
reauthorization of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination
Act (NAHASDA) as a priority legislative item for the 113th Congress. I
am honored to testify at today's hearing concerning barriers to
providing housing in Indian Country, and in support of the
reauthorization of NAHSADA. Ensuring adequate housing is paramount to
the quality of life in Indian Country, and this hearing will help us
break down existing barriers so we can move forward on this important
task. Furthermore, this hearing will lay the groundwork needed to enact
a reauthorization for NAHASDA that builds upon its successes.
We would like to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts to provide
resources to meet the severe needs for housing and other assistance in
Indian Country. The housing needs for the Puyallup Tribe, and across
Indian country, are extreme. The NAHASDA has provided PNHA with tools
to make notable progress in meeting the housing needs of our Tribe, but
there is still a significant unmet need that is far too large.
Reauthorization of the NAHASDA provides a necessary opportunity to
strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and efficiency. I will
discuss a number of barriers to providing effective housing assistance
in Indian Country, many of which can be addressed through amendments in
the reauthorization process and funding in accordance with the dire
housing needs in Indian Country. First, I will provide some background
about our Tribe and PNHA.
The Puyallup Tribe and the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority
The Puyallup Tribe is a federally recognized tribe located in the
Southern Puget Sound area of Washington State. In our aboriginal
language, we are known as the S'Puyalupubsh, meaning ``generous and
welcoming behavior to all people (friends and strangers) who enter our
lands.'' Our people lived in villages from the foothills of Mount
Tacoma, along the rivers and creeks to the shores of Puget Sound. Our
villages were scattered throughout the many islands, prairies and rich
valley country of the Pacific Northwest. Historians often noted because
of the abundance of salmon and shellfish that ``When the tides were
out, the table was spread.''
Our people lived here for thousands of years existing by the
bountiful gifts provided by the Creator. Our Mother, Mount Tacoma,
provided the water that supplied our salmon. We were fed by the
abundance of nature's gifts: Salmon, shellfish, wild game, roots and
berries. The cedar trees provided our homes, utensils, clothing and
transportation. All of these gifts are part of our rich cultural
heritage we have today. Our environment was rich in the wealth of
natural resources, providing all our needs, allowing us to live
healthy, happy lives. There were no worries of where the next meal
would come from or where we would sleep. There was the freedom to
practice our religion, train our children and take care of our elders.
Today we are known as the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Times have
changed and the conditions we live in have changed dramatically, but
the Puyallup Tribe endures. The membership of the Tribe has grown
considerably in recent years, and is now more than 4,000 people. A
majority of tribal members live in the Puget Sound region; however
there are members spread across the country. Tribal members play vital
roles in many aspects of life in the Puget Sound region. Adult members
work as attorneys and fisherman, doctors and construction workers. Some
are entrepreneurs who operate successful businesses. Many members are
active in sharing the rich Puyallup culture with the community through
pow wows, art exhibits and other activities. Yet there are still many--
too many--of our people who are in poverty. As a result many do not
have access to safe, sanitary, and adequate housing.
Recognizing this need, the Tribe established the Puyallup Nation
Housing Authority in 1977. PNHA is the tribally designated housing
entity of the Puyallup Tribe. It carries out the low-income housing
program for the Puyallup Tribe, and is the recipient of the Tribe's
Indian Housing Block Grant under the NAHASDA. Our mission is to provide
assistance and opportunities for eligible and qualified Native
Americans within the Puyallup Tribe's service area to obtain decent,
safe, sanitary and affordable housing.
PNHA was established to provide decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing for low-income tribal members and other Indians in
our service area. We endeavor to alleviate the acute shortage of
decent, safe and sanitary dwellings in our area through the
construction of new homes and the alteration and repair of existing
homes. We also manage and maintain residential properties that are
owned by the Tribe or the PNHA to provide housing to members and the
Indian community. Our staff of 18 prides itself in our work, but we
strive every day to do what we can to meet the enormous housing needs
we face.
Through NAHASDA, PNHA offers assistance to eligible participants
through our Home Ownership Opportunity program, opportunities to live
in low rent apartment or homes that are owned by the Tribe or PNHA, and
our rental assistance program. Our Home Ownership Opportunity Program
is a lease-to-own opportunity for eligible applicants. It is successful
in several aspects. It not only provides safe and sanitary housing for
the family or individual, but also the pride, stability and
responsibility that comes with being a home owner.
Unfortunately, many of our members and other intended beneficiaries
are not eligible for our Home Ownership Opportunity Program. Thus, we
have many people seeking on-reservation low income rental units. We
manage 59 units that are available for low rent living. These include
our 27 apartments and 22 townhouses along with our newly constructed
ARRA-funded 10-unit Longhouse project. Significantly, our Phase I
Longhouse project was recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council as
its LEED for Homes 2012 Project of the Year. It is also one of six
projects worldwide honored with a SEED (Social Economic Environmental
Design) Award for Excellence in Public Interest Design. It also earned
the rare LEED Platinum rating, the highest building certification for
leadership in energy and environmental design. We are particularly
proud of our Longhouse project and are pleased to offer it to our
members as a housing opportunity. Phase II Longhouse will open in May,
providing 10 additional units.
Because it is important to us to make sure that our elders have a
safe, comfortable place to live, we also manage our Elders Healthy Home
and eight Elders units. In the effort to care for our elders, we also
provide assistance specifically through our Elders' Repair and
Renovation Program.
Our combined units that we manage or provide rental or homebuyer
assistance to result in approximately 215 families and individuals
being served.
NAHASDA marks a significant step towards self-determination in the
housing arena. This monumental Act has spawned much improvement and
progress in the Indian housing arena. It has been a great vehicle for
tribes generally and for the PNHA specifically to develop housing to
meet the needs of tribal members and other Indians in its service area.
If NAHASDA is not reauthorized, PNHA would not be able to continue to
operate its critically needed programs and services.
NAHASDA is a success. Nonetheless, significant need remains.
Greater flexibility and efficiencies are needed. Amendment through
reauthorization is not enough, however, for tribes and TDHEs to truly
meet the needs of their service populations: NAHASDA must also be
funded in accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian country. The
specific barriers we face in carrying our mission to develop Indian
housing and provide assistance for eligible persons to obtain decent,
safe, sanitary and affordable housing are set forth below. The lack of
sufficient funding is foremost among the barriers to effectively
provide housing in Indian country.
Barrier No. 1--Insufficient Funding
Since the passage of NAHASDA, the PNHA has developed a broad range
of housing services, using the flexibility in the Act to meet the needs
of our service population in the most efficient manner possible. We
have developed several programs to utilize the tools in NAHASDA
intended to facilitate homeownership and provide affordable housing. As
set forth above, we have leveraged our IHBG funding with a Title VI
Loan Guaranty to construct 22 units of affordable housing serving low-
income Puyallup Tribal members and other Indians. We have developed a
rental assistance voucher program, to assist with rental payments. This
program currently serves up to 40 households per year, although this
program is being reduced due to budget cuts. We have also established a
down payment assistance program to eligible Indian recipients with
loans or mortgages to improve existing homes or purchase or construct
their own new off reservation homes. PNHA also provides financial and
homebuyer counseling to its program participants. All of these programs
are designed to assist low income members, but even with these
benefits, only a small fraction of the families on our waiting list are
financially capable of participating in these programs.
As required by NAHASDA, PNHA maintains waiting lists for the
various programs it offers. Currently, there are 240 low-income
households on all of our waiting lists: Homeownership Opportunity = 31;
Low Rent Program = 123; Rental Assistance Voucher Program = 86. While
these numbers may not look alarming, we can only provide new housing as
it becomes available and we are currently 98 percent occupied.
To adequately meet the need for affordable housing for the low-
income population we serve, we estimate that we would need to construct
an additional 240 units. The levels of funding in our current IHBG do
not provide us with the resources to construct anywhere near that
number of units. To compound the funding problem, for each unit we
construct with NAHASDA funds, we take on the responsibility to maintain
and operate that unit. The NAHASDA block grant does not provide any
additional funds for maintenance and operations. Thus, the more units
we build and operate, the more of our annual block grant is taken up by
maintenance and operation costs. We are rapidly approaching the point
where we will not be able to afford to construct or acquire any more
units because our grant funds need to be spent to maintain and operate
those we already have. Yet that stock of housing is woefully
insufficient to meet the overwhelming need.
Further, the annual Indian Housing Block Grant appropriations under
NAHASDA have not kept pace with inflation, and in real dollars the last
few years of appropriations represent a significant decrease from the
amounts initially appropriated in the early years of NAHASDA. The
amounts adopted over the past few years have essentially remained flat,
while both the need and the costs of serving that need have increased.
The automatic sequester cuts have further impacted our operations, and
continued cuts will have significant adverse consequences. The annual
funding we currently have is nowhere near sufficient to meet the
substantial need for housing services. The cuts would result in
overwhelming unmet need. Further, such cuts would require us to reduce
services and/or staff. In the current economy, these scenarios will be
devastating to our people.
We are also aware of Congress' concern with the significant amounts
of ``unexpended'' funds in the NAHASDA pipeline. While some tribes and
TDHEs may have had difficulties spending down funds, we note that there
are numerous bureaucratic and logistical barriers to quick spend down.
NAIHC and other tribes/TDHEs have pledged assistance to those tribes,
and NAIHC has set up a working group to further explore the issue and
develop solutions. We note that, overall, the unexpended funds problem
involves a small number of tribes, and that overall the NAHASDA block
grant program has a very efficient spend-down rate. We also note that
the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority has been able to spend its funds
down in an efficient and effective manner.
The annual IHBG appropriation is the budget we rely on to provide
services year-in and year-out, any proposed cuts will impact us as an
organization and our constituents in a dramatic way. Tribes and TDHEs
need a longer term sustainable appropriation for housing, one that
would at the very least keep pace with inflation.
Solution: PNHA requests that, at a minimum, Congress appropriate
sufficient funds in the annual block grant to keep up with inflation.
That amount for this Fiscal Year would be approximately $875 million,
with subsequent annual increases, to meet current inflation and to keep
pace with future inflation.
Barrier No. 2--30 Percent Maximum Rent Rule
When an Indian-specific housing program was created through
NAHASDA, certain aspects of the prior 1937 Housing Act were retained.
One of these was the requirement that tribes may charge no more for
rents than 30 percent of the adjusted annual income of households.
NAHASDA Section 203(a), 25 U.S.C. 4133(a).
While this appears to be a common sense measure to ensure that
affordable housing remains affordable, it is a concept that has not
transferred over well to the NAHASDA framework. First and foremost,
under the 1937 Act Public Housing program, there is a specific line
item for maintenance and operation of managed premises. As noted above,
there is no such appropriation under NAHASDA. Oftentimes the only funds
that are available for maintenance and operations come from the rents
that tribes and TDHEs are able to charge. But there are many low-income
clients whose annual adjusted income (a term defined by the statute) is
at or near zero, and therefore the rents that the tribe or TDHE can
charge is zero or de minimis. Under the 30 percent rule, tribes and
TDHEs are prohibited from charging a base administrative fee if that
fee is in excess of 30 percent of income. Further, the work required to
certify and recertify the annual adjusted income of each household in
order to make appropriate adjustments to rent is substantial and
burdensome.
Moreover, the 30 percent rule applies where the tribe or TDHE is
providing a rental or homebuyer subsidy to a tribal member in a unit
owned or managed by another landlord. Thus, where a tribe or TDHE
decides to undertake a rental assistance voucher program--like PNHA--we
are required to provide a subsidy in a sufficient amount to ensure that
the tenant or homebuyer is paying no more than 30 percent of their
income. We are prohibited from providing a flat voucher amount (such as
a payment of $200 per month per household in the program), which would
enable us to spread our resources among more households.
Solution: PNHA supports an amendment to NAHASDA that would
eliminate or modify the application of the 30 percent maximum rent rule
to Indian housing programs.
Barrier No. 3--Redundancy in Administrative Requirements Where
Additional Sources of Funds are Leveraged
One of the responses to the insufficient amounts of funding under
the NAHASDA IHBG appropriations is to blend additional sources of
funding into construction projects, which PNHA and many other tribal
programs have done successfully.
Yet this blending of funds results in additional bureaucratic
requirements, which are often redundant, and which therefore incur
additional costs for administration--meaning less money to spend on
housing construction. There are two main areas where we see this
problem: environmental review and payment of prevailing wage rates.
Environmental Review. One of the innovations of NAHASDA was to
allow tribes to exercise environmental review requirements that would
otherwise be carried out by HUD. NAHASDA Section 105, 25 U.S.C. 4115.
For those tribes, like Puyallup, that have the capacity in-house to
conduct environmental review, it is both an exercise of the Tribe's
sovereignty as well as administratively more efficient to have such
reviews carried out by the Tribe. Under the NAHASDA regulations, where
a tribe does assume environmental review responsibilities, it must do
so in accordance with the applicable HUD environmental review
regulations at 24 CFR parts 50 and 58. PNHA has worked with the Tribe
to tool up for and carry out environmental reviews consistent with the
HUD-mandated process.
However, because our housing is built on and involves leasing of
trust lands, there are in a number of cases additional, overlapping,
and redundant environmental review requirements imposed by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (in exercising their authority to review and approve
residential leases on trust lands). Further, when PNHA leverages its
NAHASDA funds by using grant funds from other federal agencies (such as
USDA--Rural Development), that agency's environmental review
requirements will also apply. Thus, PNHA in such circumstances will be
required to undertake three different environmental reviews--all of
which are intended to meet the same federal statutory requirements
under the National Environmental Policy Act--because each federal
agency has its own guidelines and procedures. The resulting
administrative and legal costs in doing so takes funds away from
constructing houses.
Solution: PNHA supports a proposal, which we hope to see included
as an amendment in the reauthorization process, that would deem a tribe
to have satisfied all applicable environmental review requirements that
might apply to a multiple-funding sourced project if the tribe
satisfactorily completed the applicable HUD environmental review
process.
Prevailing Wage Rates. NAHASDA, like many other federal statutes,
requires that funding recipients pay laborers and other workers a
minimum wage based on the prevailing wages in the locale where the
project is being developed or operated. Such provisions are generally
referred to as the Davis-Bacon Acts, which were a series of federal
laws establishing such prevailing wage requirements on projects using
federal funds. Those wage rates are determined by the Department of
Labor (and, for certain activities related to operation of housing
projects, by HUD).
Another important innovation of NAHASDA was to allow tribes to
develop and apply their own prevailing wage rates as the standard
minimum wages to be paid to laborers and other workers on development
and operations. NAHASDA Section 104(b)(3), 25 U.S.C. 4114(b)(3). The
Puyallup Tribe has exercised its sovereign authority under this section
and has developed its own prevailing wage rates, which apply to PNHA
projects.
However, as with the environmental review requirements I just
discussed, where a tribe uses multiple federal funding sources on a
project, the Davis-Bacon requirements will apply to those other sources
of funds--even if the tribally determined prevailing wage rates apply
to the use of NAHASDA funds. Under such circumstances, the tribal
housing program will have to separately track the expenditure of each
set of funds and set up two distinct payrolls (and payment rates) for
work done under each funding source. Doing so involves a substantial
administrative and accounting burden, transferring costs from building
houses to managing accounts.
Solution: As with the environmental review issue, PNHA supports a
proposal, which we hope to see included as an amendment in the
reauthorization process, that would authorize a tribe to apply the
tribally-determined prevailing wage rate to all sources of funds used
in a project that was funded in part by NAHASDA block grant funding.
Barrier No. 4--Delays in HUD Response to Requests for Approvals or
Waivers
The HUD Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) has been a strong
and reliable partner for the PNHA. In particular, the Northwest ONAP
has been very helpful in providing technical assistance, advice, and
oversight. But ONAP, like many federal agencies, is often short-staffed
and underfunded, and in a number of instances may not be able to
respond in a timely manner to certain requests.
Where this situation has the potential to become a barrier is in
those areas where--under the statute--HUD is given the authority to
approve waivers of certain statutory requirements or timelines. For
example, NAHASDA requires IHBG recipients to enter into Local
Cooperation Agreements with local governments to provide for services
in exchange for payments in lieu of taxes or user fees. In some
instances, however, those local governments are uncooperative or simply
unwilling to enter into such agreements. NAHASDA, therefore, gives
tribes the right to ask HUD for a waiver of the Local Cooperation
Agreement requirement if the tribe has made ``a good faith effort'' to
enter into such an agreement and agrees to make payments in lieu of
taxes. NAHASDA Section 101(c), 25 U.S.C. 4111(c).
This provision, however, contains no timeline for HUD to act on
such a waiver request. Yet, unless a tribe obtains an agreement or a
waiver, it is unable to expend NAHASDA funds on a project in that
jurisdiction. This is particularly a barrier for tribes like Puyallup
that are located in areas with overlapping jurisdictions with other
local governments. Other areas under the statute where HUD has similar
waiver or other approval authority, but no enforceable timelines,
include environmental review requirements, submission of Indian Housing
Plans and response to comments on draft monitoring reports.
Solution: PNHA supports a series of NAHASDA amendments that would
establish a timeline for each of these approval processes. In addition,
similar to the process involved in the approval of gaming compacts
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, these proposals would state
that if HUD was unable to meet the applicable deadline, that the
request for waiver or other approval would be ``deemed approved.''
Barrier No. 5--Lack of Flexibility in Total Development Cost (TDC)
Limits Undermines Ability to Do Green Building
One avenue that PNHA has explored through its NAHASDA funds is the
development of energy efficient, ``green'' building designs, recently
completing an ``elder healthy home'' demonstration project and a multi-
unit low-income housing development with solar heating and other green
design features. It is important for green buildings to be easier to
construct or pursue. One step Congress could take to facilitate green
building would be to expressly authorize a waiver or greater
flexibility around the ``moderate design'' standards that have been
promulgated in the NAHASDA regulations when it comes to green building.
The NAHASDA regulations interpret the ``affordable housing''
requirements of the Act to require that homes be built within strict
cost limits, known as ``total development costs'' (TDC). While this
limitation is generally a good idea, it does not take into account that
incorporating green building design elements increases the upfront
development cost of construction, while ultimately saving money (for
both the tribe and for the tenant/homebuyer). PNHA's own recent
experience bears this out: PNHA had to use funding other than NAHASDA
to complete its elder healthy home because it could not meet the TDC
limits--even though upon completion the home would cost less to
maintain and less to heat than conventionally-built homes.
Solution: PNHA would support an effort by Congress to add language
to NAHASDA that would require exemption from or greater flexibility
around the ``moderate design'' and TDC limitations when a tribe or TDHE
is incorporating energy efficient components in building construction.
Again, the upcoming reauthorization of NAHASDA would provide an
appropriate vehicle for such an amendment.
Barrier No. 6--Disruption in Section 184 Loan Guaranty Program
We join with other tribes in expressing our dismay regarding the
oversight that resulted in the Section 184 program exhausting its
resources. However, we applaud Congress in quickly resolving this
matter by providing more than $12 million for the program in the
recently enacted continuing appropriations act for FY 2013. This
funding level is a little more than double previous funding levels and
will allow the program to help--according to HUD--as many as 3,500
Native American families to either purchase a home or refinance between
now and the end of FY 2013.
Solution: While we are grateful for the increase in funding for the
Section 184 program, both Congress and the Administration must ensure
that such an oversight does not happen again.
Conclusion
NAHASDA represents great progress toward the goal of self-
determination and has provided tribes and TDHEs with important tools
for meeting the vast housing needs in Indian Country. However,
amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase flexibility and
efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and TDHEs to do even more
in this arena. We need the flexibility to identify and target our local
needs, we need to be free of micromanagement and overlapping and
duplicative oversight requirements and we need adequate funding. The
need is there in Indian Country and we look forward to working with the
Committee on the best ways to address it.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Paul Iron Cloud, welcome to the Committee. Thank you
for being here.
STATEMENT OF PAUL IRON CLOUD, CEO, OGLALA SIOUX (LAKOTA)
HOUSING, PINE RIDGE RESERVATION
Mr. Iron Cloud. Thank you very much for holding this
hearing today, which is very important to our Native Americans
in all the States, and the State of South Dakota.
I also want to thank the Committed for listening to some of
the things that we are going to say. It probably won't be the
popular thing that you want to hear. I really thank somebody up
there, of course Tim Johnson did a lot of work for the Oglala
Sioux Tribe in many areas. He is going to be greatly missed
when he leaves Congress. I just want to thank Tim for all the
things you have done for us.
Well, everybody had a little something to read. I want to
speak from my heart today on the things that I see that
everybody needs to hear. And I won't be able to say it all,
because I only have five minutes. But the big thing is in our
Country is the worst housing conditions there ever were. We
need 4,000 homes at Pine Ridge. Our houses need reconditioned.
We can't get new homes, because we don't get enough money from
NAHASDA.
The big thing is, we are at, I would say, 630, 640, 650
million dollars, as long as I remember. And the thing is, that
I see, there has to be more money put into the budget for
Indian housing. We have a very tough reservation at Pine Ridge.
We have approximately 40,000 people. And there are so many of
them that need homes. I go through people sitting in my office
with kids that don't have a place to go. That just doesn't
happen one day, it happens all the time.
We have two, three families living in a house. Living like
that, the health hazard of that, as well as education. I am
going to tell you a story about education. When you have two or
three families living in a house, how do you expect the kids to
do their homework when they come back from school? Our
education, I will just tell you another statistic, we had about
64 percent on our reservation graduate from high school. Now it
is down to 46 percent. So that tells you the social problem is
high.
The reason why I say that is, when I was president of the
Oglala Sioux Tribe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had
110 police officers to cover 80 by 100 miles. Now we have, the
last count I had was 44 officers. Now, how do we say we are
going to protect our tenants that want a safe place to live?
How in the world do we address that?
Our families are hurting. Our families are crying. Our
elders are crying. When you have to live under those
conditions, we don't deserve that, Native Americans. We had a
lot of treaties that were made by the United States Government
that were supposed to have taken care of us as long as the
rivers flowed and the grass grew. That means forever. We gave
up a lot of land.
There is one thing that we are doing to show Congress the
real numbers of our people. That is that needs assessment that
we are doing now. It is going to show how many people are
living in these houses, two, three families. We are doing all
of that. We are going to be done with that program, I'd say, in
June or July. That is going to be able to tell Congress how
many people are actually in Pine Ridge.
In Rosebud, Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, they are all doing
the same thing. Our need is so great. People don't have trust
in us any more. I have 24 or 26 seconds left to try to say
something in 26 seconds. I am going to try to answer any
questions that you do have for us, and I just come here with a
good heart and I like to do things that are going to better the
living of our people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Iron Cloud follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Iron Cloud, CEO, Oglala Sioux (Lakota)
Housing, Pine Ridge Reservation
Good afternoon. My name is Paul Iron Cloud and I greet you all with
a warm handshake.
On behalf of Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing, where I am the Chief
Executive Officer, and my Oglala Sioux Tribe I want to thank this
Committee, Chairwoman Cantwell and particularly our longtime friend and
supporter Senator Tim Johnson for holding this Hearing. It is critical
for Congress from time-to-time to evaluate how federal tribal programs
can be improved. It is particularly important in years like this when
important programs such as the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) come up for reauthorization. I also
want to express my personal appreciation to you for inviting me once
again to testify. It has always been an honor to appear before this
Committee.
Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing was the first tribal housing program
to receive federal funding in 1961 and fifty years ago we at Pine Ridge
built the first publicly assisted low-income housing on an Indian
reservation. We are today the 5th largest tribal population in the
country, the 7th largest reservation and we and a significant segment
of Indian country face a housing crisis that has not been seen for
forty years.
Worst Housing Conditions in the Country
Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing has built over 2,200 housing units
since 1961 but most of that was done before 1996 and the establishment
of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act.
Sadly in 2013 our housing, and tribal housing on many similarly
situated reservations and Alaskan Native communities, is far worse
today than 17 years ago. Though NAHASDA provides us and many other
tribes and tribal housing entities valuable resources, because of
stagnant and reduced funding levels as well as flawed funding
allocation methods, we and a large number of other tribes today have
the worst housing in the United States.
For at least a generation now, many of our people, infants, elders,
vets and families have had to live in housing conditions that no
American should have to endure. For these land based tribes, these
conditions are also caused by poverty and unemployment rates that in
some cases exceed 80 percent. At Pine Ridge and many nearby South
Dakota reservations for years now our counties have ranked in the top
five in the entire country for poverty and unemployment.
NAHASDA funding levels limit us to building on average no more than
30 to 40 units a year, yet we currently need 4,000 new units and 1,000
homes repaired. The result is that we now have the most overcrowded
housing in this country. We have many situations where 3 or 4 families
are packed into a single two-bedroom home or a family of six tries to
survive in a one bedroom apartment. This overcrowding affects the
physical, social and mental state of our people. Schooling is impacted,
health conditions suffer and the family unit is impaired. Imagine what
it might be like to live with 12 to 16 people in a small home. These
housing conditions also fuel our growing tragedies of suicides, sexual
abuse, alcoholism, gangs and drug use in many of our communities.
I and our tribal leaders are most troubled by what these housing
conditions do to a child trying to do his or her homework, a young
family starting out their married life, our honored vets and our tribal
elders who are attempting to live out their lives with some dignity and
safety.
My Tribe, and other members of a coalition for land based and
treaty tribes known as A Coalition for Indian Housing, understand that
these extremely bad conditions do not exist for all tribes, not even
for a majority of tribes. And we understand that they are not caused by
unique problems or performance issues on our reservations but rather
are directly related to poverty, unemployment, lack of economic
development and, most importantly, a serious shortage of financial
resources to develop new housing. We appreciate the NAHASDA program and
its grants, but we believe its allocation methods do not adequately
take into account the differing needs of tribes and that in the last
sixteen years there has simply been insufficient funding appropriated
for the NAHASDA program.
The Dakota Housing Needs Assessment Pilot Project
Federal efforts, including NAHASDA negotiated rulemaking, continue
to inaccurately determine the varying housing needs of tribal members
and, in our opinion, fail to allocate federal funding appropriately. It
is for these reasons we and four other tribal housing programs have
taken the unusual step of joining together to fashion a global
positioning system and geographic information system based local
housing needs assessment procedure. This is known as the Dakota Housing
Needs Assessment Pilot Project. We will each conclude statistically
accurate housing surveys later this spring on each of our reservations.
The project is designed to improve tribal data and program management.
It will also give each of us the ability to do the ``census
challenges'' that NAHASDA permits us to make under its block grant
allocation formula. However, if results should prove out, we believe
that this Pilot Project could have nationwide application and could
change how housing need is determined on reservations and result in
better allocation of federal tribal housing funds. It is our hope that,
later this summer, our Pilot Project will be able to report to
Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Management and Budget, and our fellow tribes that there is in fact
an effective, efficient and relatively inexpensive way that housing
need determinations can be done universally.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention that if a GPS and GIS
needs assessment requirement was to replace the current defective U.S.
Census method in the NAHASDA program, tribes, Congress, OMB and HUD
would also then have an accurate, reliable and efficient way to better
manage federal funding.
The Need for an Emergency Housing Effort
Understanding the limitations of NAHASDA, the disparity of housing
needs on Indian reservations and Alaska Native communities, and the
unacceptable and tragic housing conditions that exist on some
reservations, we believe new federal Indian housing emergency funding
grants need to be established. There are a number of ways that this
could be structured. The critical aspect of such a funding program is
to acknowledge that there are significant numbers of tribes and
tribally enrolled members that have extreme and unacceptable housing
conditions. Furthermore, that federal trust responsibilities and, in
some cases, treaty obligations require the U.S. government to address
these terrible housing conditions.
This funding, possibly joined by other private funds, would be
allocated in a new way. The total appropriation amount would certainly
be less than NAHASDA amounts. Furthermore, grants would be awarded
using a competitive process, based both on need and a requirement that
all recipients clearly demonstrate their capacity to spend the money
they receive.
Amend the ``Thirty Percent Rule''
There is a third issue that I would like to address for the
Committee and this directly relates to the reauthorization of NAHASDA.
I am sure this Committee is particularly well aware; NAHASDA was
fundamentally designed by Congress to be a government-to-government,
self-determination, block grant program. When it was evolved from
public housing thousands of 1937 Housing Act rules and requirements
were stripped away and tribes were given the right to pretty much
create their own programs. The statute pronounced that NAHASDA had to
function based on self-determination and tribal self-governance.
Furthermore, it set a rule making process that recognized this and
dictated that in all rule making the Secretary of HUD has to establish
a negotiated rulemaking committee so that local and tribal
determination would be part of this process.
Unfortunately Congress failed to omit one rather expensive and
burdensome rule.
Instead of allowing tribes to find for themselves the best method
for ensuring that low-income homebuyers and renters would not be unduly
charged for living in their NAHASDA tribal units, the law imposed the
``30 percent rule'' that had previously existed in the public housing
program. From the start of NAHASDA, tribes realized the cost and damage
resulting from this rule. Being unable to change or modify this
statutory provision through rulemaking, over the past 16 years groups
like National American Indian Housing Council, regional Indian housing
associations, and many individual tribes have, with unanimous
agreement, petitioned Congress to modify this statutory provision and
permit the individual tribes and their housing entities to develop for
themselves the process and procedure for charging their low-income
tribal members.
The current ``30 percent rule'' does much harm. It costs tribal
housing programs an enormous amount of money to administer, it diverts
tenant service representatives from performing important management and
tenant counseling services, and it creates an unhealthy and adversarial
relationship in Indian country that often poisons individual tenant and
tribal housing entity relations.
In closing, I would like to make mention that in the last two years
Senator Johnson, members of your Committee staff and a host of other
Congressional and administration officials have visited Pine Ridge and
other similar South Dakota reservations to learn of our housing
conditions. We are most appreciative that they did. For the many others
who have not had the opportunity to see the worst conditions in Indian
country, we, along with Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing have
decided to bring that Indian housing to Washington. Our purpose is to
show Congress and America the overcrowded conditions that far too many
tribal members across this country have had to endure. Next week
facades and pieces of a deconstructed home from our first Indian
housing project are being trucked to Washington, D.C. and put on
display.
Not everyone can go to our reservations to see these housing
conditions, so we and our Trail of Hope * are bringing this housing to
them. I hope that each member of this Committee and your staff will
join us on April 17th near the Capitol to show America the type of
housing that many American Indians and Alaska Natives have had to live
in for far too long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* www.facebook.com/TrailofHopeforIndianHousing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on behalf of President Brewer and the Oglala Sioux Tribe, I
want to thank you for inviting me to provide this testimony and I would
like to reserve the right to supplement this testimony in the next 20
days.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Paul Iron Cloud. We very
much appreciate your speaking from the heart, very important
testimony.
Our last witness is Russell Sossamon. Thank you so much for
being here. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHOCTAW
NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY
Mr. Sossamon. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Vice Chairman
Barrasso, Senator Johnson, Senator Udall, Senator Franken and
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you for having this very important
hearing today.
My name is Russell Sossamon. I am an enrolled member of the
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. I have served there as the
Executive Director for the past 17 years.
To sum up my written testimony, I would urge Congress to
reauthorize NAHASDA before September 30th, and also to preserve
intact the statutory requirements for negotiated rulemaking in
implementing NAHASDA. All of the details to implement the
NAHASDA block grant under the NAHASDA law should be left to the
tribes to decide through the tribally-driven negotiated
rulemaking process. This process implements the government to
government relationship between the tribes and the Federal
Government.
The most important issue we have, previously tackled
through negotiated rulemaking, has been the allocation formula
for the block grant. The formula is a result of countless
discussions among tribal leaders and Federal officials which
reached a careful balance of tribal interest. I served on each
of these rulemaking committees as we continued to shape the
program.
The negotiated formula effectively serves diverse tribal
communities and uses U.S. Census data to do so. Any changes to
that formula must go through the same negotiated rulemaking
process.
NAHASDA reauthorization should be a top priority for
Congress. Here is why. NAHASDA provides vital assistance to
many people under challenging conditions. My nation, the
Chocktaw Nation, is the third largest Indian tribe in the
United States. Inside our service area, our population is
48,000, 41,000 of which are members of our tribe.
Our land area encompasses 10 and a half counties in the
southeastern part of Oklahoma, a land mass that is the size of
the State of Massachusetts. We provide services to Native
Americans who are not Choctaw but also who reside within this
service area. Last year, through our health care, for instance,
we provided services to members from over 148 different tribes.
Our diverse and low-income service population has acute
housing needs. We have a housing shortage of over 9,000 units.
These units are in substandard condition and are not decent or
safe or sanitary to live in. Many of the conditions that you
have heard here today exist within our area.
In my written testimony, I provided data regarding the
Choctaw's lack of sufficient housing and low-income housing, as
well as the numbers of overcrowding and insufficient
substandard housing.
We provide a spectrum of services to address everything
from homelessness to rental assistance to home ownership. As
NAHASDA intended, we stretch our limited funding by thinking
outside the box. For example, our Chocktaw Home Finance
Corporation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is the lending
institution created by the Chocktaw Nation that serves our
Nation's home finance program. It supports low-income home
ownership by direct lending of NAHASDA funds and by leveraging
funds from private lenders as well as utilizing the loan
guarantees of the 184 program.
Our home finance program averages 100 direct loans a year
that now total over $38 million. Working with over a dozen
other private lenders, like Wells Fargo, for instance, we
originate an additional 84 loans per year. Over the last 15
years, we have leveraged over $58 million. We manage a loan
portfolio of over $20 million as a revolving fund, so that the
money can be used time and time again.
Our loans help purchase, refinance or rehabilitate homes,
or provide energy efficiency upgrades, thereby freeing up
disposable income for our low-income families. We also provide
counseling services to about 400 first-time home buyers, as
well as home owners, each year. The benefits of the home
finance corporation extend to tribal members living in
Oklahoma, Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas,
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, to name a few of the States.
The system helps Choctaw members add, and this assistance
also adds to the property tax base in those communities. Just
within our service area alone, last year the tribal members we
serve paid in over $100,000 in local taxes. On top of that, an
average of 10 jobs were supported through each loan closing in
the employment of appraisers, surveyors, title companies and
legal services. This indirectly impacted 1,140 jobs in the
local economies. Our loans made to Choctaw tribal members
living in other States throughout the Country have an even
greater multiplier effect, because we partner with those
private lenders in those States.
In conclusion, there can be no doubt that NAHASDA and other
federally-funded tribal housing programs have dramatically
improved housing conditions in Indian Country. But of course,
there is always room for improvement. So we join with NAIHC in
suggesting that Congress adjust the binding commitments
requirement so that a lien must be applied only for work valued
over an amount of $7,500.
Thank you again, Madam Chair, and the other members of this
distinguished Committee. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sossamon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell Sossamon, Executive Director, Choctaw
Nation Housing Authority
I. Introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the United States Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs (SCIA). My name is Russell Sossamon. I am an enrolled member of
the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and for the past seventeen (17) years
have served as the Executive Director of the Choctaw Nation Housing
Authority, located in Hugo, Oklahoma. I want to thank the Committee for
holding this important oversight hearing this afternoon on Identifying
Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions, which
could not be more appropriate or timely as discussions begin here on
Capitol Hill surrounding the reauthorization this year of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, known as
``NAHASDA.'' It is an honor to be invited here to present testimony on
behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
I will first lay out some background on the Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma and the challenges it faces in providing services to its
members, as well as to members of dozens of other tribes who live
within the Nation's service area. I will then examine some of the
reasons why the provision of safe, quality, affordable housing in
Indian Country generally, and within the Choctaw Nation in particular,
is such a challenge. This will be followed by background information on
the federal legislative and administrative efforts to address that
challenge, which ultimately culminated in the passage of NAHASDA. I
will then provide some examples of the innovative and effective housing
programs administered through the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, to
show why this Congress should continue to support tribal housing
programs and work to quickly approve the reauthorization of NAHASDA
during this current fiscal year. Importantly, that reauthorization
should include the affirmation of the negotiated-rulemaking process to
maintain the government-to-government relationship between tribes and
the Federal Government. Like all federal legislation that aims to
accommodate the needs of many tribes across the country, NAHASDA has
some minor shortcomings, so in conclusion I will point to an issue that
Congress may consider examining for potential revision in the upcoming
reauthorization of NAHASDA.
II. The Choctaw Nation--Large-Scale Challenges and Opportunities
The housing issues in Indian Country cannot be separated from the
big-picture social and economic challenges it also faces, and the
Choctaw Nation knows those challenges all too well. The Choctaw Nation
is the third largest Indian tribe in America, with over 200,000
enrolled tribal members spread all across the country. In a word, the
Choctaw Nation is immense. With that greater size and breadth comes
even greater responsibilities that are placed on the shoulders of the
Nation's government to look after the welfare of its members. To add to
that responsibility, the Nation's service area encompasses 10+ counties
in southeastern Oklahoma, a land area larger than the entire state of
Massachusetts, and within that service area are American Indian and
Alaska Native constituents who may be far from their original tribal
communities but to whom the Choctaw Nation nonetheless provides
services. Just one example is the tremendous demand placed on the
Choctaw Nation Health Services Authority (CNHSA)--in Fiscal Year 2012
alone, CNHSA provided healthcare services to patients who hailed from
148 different American Indian and Alaska Native tribal groups
(including, incidentally, members from the Oglala Sioux Lakota tribe of
my fellow witness here today, Mr. Paul Iron Cloud).
With an increasing tribal population and stifling economic
conditions that have hit tribal communities such as the Choctaw Nation
particularly hard over the past five years during the Great Recession,
the social and economic needs of the Nation and its members continue to
grow. This increased need is particularly acute in the area of housing.
III. The Housing Challenges in Indian Country and for the Choctaw
Nation
The challenges to providing quality, affordable housing in Indian
Country generally and within the Choctaw Nation specifically stem
mostly from the broader overriding economic realities that occur in
tribal communities. While the country in general has experienced an
economic downturn over the past five years, this trend is greatly
magnified in tribal communities. Often there is a lack of basic
infrastructure and employment opportunities. These employment and
infrastructure challenges exacerbate the housing situation in Indian
Country. As the other witnesses here today will testify has
historically been the case at the national level, Native Americans face
some of the worst housing and living conditions in the country, and the
availability of affordable, adequate, safe housing in Indian Country
falls far below that of the general U.S. population.
The housing needs of members of the Choctaw Nation, especially
given the large size and breadth of its population, reflects the great
need across Indian Country. However, because there are also many tribal
members from other tribes across the country living within the Nation's
service area, there are also unique challenges for the Choctaw Nation
Housing Authority, as shown by the following figures for Fiscal Year
2012:
Nearly seventeen percent (17 percent) of the American
Indian/Alaska Native population living within the Choctaw
Nation's service are tribal members from other tribes.
Approximately 9,880 households within the Choctaw Nation's
service area are considered low-income, meaning they have
annual incomes of less than 80 percent of the national median
annual income. Of those households, an astounding 29.7 percent
earn only between 30 percent and 50 percent of the national
median annual income, and even worse, 29.8 percent earn less
than 30 percent of the national median annual income.
Approximately 1,400 American Indian/Alaska Native households
within the Choctaw Nation's service area are overcrowded or
lack a kitchen or plumbing.
Of the American Indian/Alaska Native households within the
Choctaw Nation's service area, 1,939 households have a house
cost burden greater than 50 percent of their annual income.
In starkest terms, during the last fiscal year the Choctaw
Nation Housing Authority had a shortfall of 9,080 low-income
units.
In sum, there is a severe housing shortage in our service area's
tribal communities, resulting in overcrowded conditions. Many of the
homes that do exist lack basic amenities that most Americans take for
granted, such as full kitchens and plumbing, and even then many of the
existing homes are in need of substantial repairs.
As shown by the low-income numbers above that persist within our
tribal communities, the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority (and more
generally, the Nation itself) understands that, in order to address
acute housing needs, it is necessary to take a holistic approach that
addresses the poverty cycle more generally to make our tribal members
and other constituents that we serve self-sufficient--this is how we
move from homelessness to homeownership. And that is why the Choctaw
Nation Housing Authority views its mission from a higher level with two
prongs, one to address the lack of affordable housing and the other to
address the poverty cycle that produces and reinforces such a lack of
housing. The Nation and its Housing Authority truly believe that, to
paraphrase a metaphor, although it may be necessary in the short run to
give a man a fish to eat today, it is better to teach him how to fish
so that in the long run he can eat for a lifetime. In order to pay a
mortgage and become a homeowner, a person first needs a job to earn
income, and that requires education, training, and career development.
Like the partnerships laid out below that we use to address home
financing with a variety of loan-assistance products, we likewise
partner with other educational and social programs provided by the
Nation as well as by the Federal Government and other local and tribal
governments to build the whole person in a variety of ways. The support
we provide through NAHASDA funding and related programs is one of the
critical pieces to building that whole person.
IV. Background on Indian Housing Legislation and Administration,
Culminating with the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA)
Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance for Native American tribes and
Alaska Natives was provided by various programs under the Housing Act
of 1937 and other legislation. While these programs provided a broad
range of assistance, they were administratively cumbersome and
ineffective. They required separate applications and program
administration, had different eligibility requirements, and were
characterized by micro-management and detailed one-size-fits-all
mandates. The programs were merely an extension of generic and often
urban-oriented housing programs, failing to recognize the unique
social, cultural, and economic needs of Native American communities.
In 1960, in the aftermath of the destruction of Indian homes in
California by fire, the Bureau of Indian Affairs requested that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) address Indian
housing needs. In 1961, two major events changed the Indian housing
landscape. First, the Public Housing Administration (PHA, HUD's
predecessor) recognized tribal governments as local governing bodies
that could establish Indian housing authorities (IHA) under tribal law
by approving a tribal ordinance. Second, PHA also determined that
states could establish IHAs in cases where a tribal government was not
federally recognized but exercised all necessary powers. Soon after,
the self-help or mutual help concept took hold and was based on the
idea that a homebuyer would contribute land, material, or labor
(``sweat equity'') towards the purchase of a home. In December 1962,
PHA announced the first mutual help housing program, and in 1964, the
San Carlos Apache IHA launched the first mutual help project. Indian
homes were developed under this program know as ``Old Mutual Help''
until 1976.
In the early 1970s, there were high expectations for the Federal
Government to work with tribes and IHAs to satisfy national Indian
housing goals and to address the reality of inadequate management
systems. In 1971, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a
Congressional report on Indian housing that recommended a national
Indian housing policy to stimulate agency coordination and accelerate
the completion of projects. In 1984 HUD formally created the Office of
Indian Housing (OIH) with its own staff to specifically oversee the
development and management of Indian housing programs.
In 1990, Congress established the National Commission on American
Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, which two years
later submitted to Congress a national blueprint plan for Indian
housing. On October 1, 1993, the HUD Office of Indian Housing (OIH) at
HUD Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and the Regional Office of Indian
Programs (OIPs) became the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP).
In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to provide federal statutory authority
to address the above-mentioned housing disparities in Indian Country.
NAHASDA is the cornerstone for providing housing assistance to low-
income Native American families on Indian reservations, in Alaska
Native villages, and on native Hawaiian home lands. Since the passage
of NAHASDA in 1996 and its funding and implementation in 1998, the
Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), the primary funding component of
NAHASDA, has been the single largest source of funding for housing for
Native American communities and in Alaska Native villages. NAHASDA also
includes the Title VI loan guarantee program, which enables tribal
members to more easily access home loans. Administered by HUD, NAHASDA
specifies a wide range of activities are that are eligible for funding.
These activities include but are not limited to down-payment
assistance, property acquisition, new construction, safety programs,
planning and administration, and housing rehabilitation. Not only do
IHBG funds support new housing development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and other housing services that are critical for tribal
communities; they cover essential planning and operating expenses for
tribal housing programs. Between 2006 and 2009, a significant portion
of IHBG funds, approximately 24 percent, were used for planning,
administration, housing management, and services. Without critical
federal funding, many tribal housing authorities would be unable to
operate.
While some members of Congress are now focusing on the unexpended
funds in NAHASDA block grant accounts, and mistakenly conclude that the
program is overfunded, they are wrong on the reasons for these funds
being unspent and the conclusion they draw. In fact, despite the
positive developments in federal law and the impact of NAHASDA, the
funding it provides is plainly and simply insufficient to meet the
existing and, in fact, growing housing need in our tribal communities.
While NAHASDA funds are immensely appreciated by tribes and are
tremendously helpful in beginning to meet tribal housing needs, they
have never, in the history of the program, been sufficient to meet all
of the basic housing needs of Indian tribes or to accomplish all of the
purposes for which NAHASDA was designed. Like many government programs,
it is consistently and continuously underfunded. Therefore, tribes and
their housing departments such as the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority
have been forced to think outside of the box and come up with unique
and innovative tools to meet the housing needs in their communities.
V. Innovations and Examples from the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority
Out of sheer necessity and in the interest of promoting tribal
self-determination and self-governance, tribes across the nation have
begun developing innovative programs that complement NAHASDA programs
in order to meet the tremendous housing backlog in Indian Country. The
Choctaw Nation Housing Authority has been at the forefront of these
innovations in Indian Country, in order to address the housing needs
not just of our members but of Native American tribal members from
across the country.
A. United States Housing and Urban Development Section 184 Indian Home
Loan Guarantee Program and NAHASDA Title VI Housing Activities
Loan Guarantee Program
The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 to address the lack of mortgage
lending in Indian Country. The HUD Section 184 program is a mortgage
loan product designed to resemble a conventional, or private, housing
loan program. There are no income limits for the Section 184 program.
Local lenders become registered with the program and as such the
Federal Government guarantees up to 100 percent of the home loans
provided by such lenders to tribal members. Initially, the program
gained acceptance in areas such as Oklahoma and Alaska, where much of
the property in Indian areas has passed out of trust status and into
``fee'' status, meaning that the Federal Government no longer holds
title to the individual parcel for the benefit of the tribe or the
individual tribal member. Over time, the program has gained some
traction on trust lands. Because the Section 184 Indian Home Loan
program is guaranteed by the Federal Government, the program has
provided much needed access to capital to many individual Natives that
might otherwise find home financing difficult. The Section 184 program
is the most successful Indian Country mortgage program. However, it
should be noted that fewer than 20 percent of the Section 184 loans
made to tribal members have been made on tribal trust or individual
allotment land. More than half of the Section 184 loans have been made
in Alaska and Oklahoma, and because of the unique non-reservation
system of land tenure for most Indian and Alaska Native groups in those
states, nearly all of those loans were made for homes on fee simple
land rather than trust land.
In March of this year, HUD temporarily suspended the processing of
new Section 184 loan applications because of an apparent exhaustion at
the time of program funding for current Fiscal Year 2013. With the
passage of the latest Continuing Resolution by Congress to fund the
Federal Government through September of this year, funding for the
Section 184 program, as well as the cap on the amount of loans that can
be guaranteed under the program, were increased. As a result, HUD has
stated that the suspension of the Section 184 program has been lifted
and the program should be back in working order sometime this month.
In addition to the Section 184 program, under Title VI of NAHASDA,
HUD is authorized to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by
Indian tribes, or tribal housing entities, if approved by the tribe,
for the purpose of financing affordable housing activities as described
in Section 202 of NAHASDA. Eligible borrowers must be a tribe or a
tribal housing entity that is an IHBG program recipient. IHBG funds may
be used as security for the guarantee or other obligation. The
objectives of the program are to enhance the development of affordable
housing activities, increase access to capital to further economic
growth, and encourage the participation, in the financing of tribal
housing programs, of financial institutions that do not normally serve
tribal areas.
I would ask that Congress in its FY 2014 budget process and beyond
continue to support the Section 184 and Title VI loan guarantee
programs with the necessary resources. To show you why it should, I
would like to give you some background and examples of the effective
good that the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority has been able to
implement through these types of programs.
B. Choctaw Home Finance Services: On the Path from Self-Determination
to Self-Sustainability through Nationwide Direct and Leveraged
Home Lending in
Indian Country
Tribes are increasingly exploring innovative ways to utilize
NAHASDA grant funds, combined with tribal funds and other resources, to
maximize housing project outputs. The passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and
its funding in 1998, as well as other complementary Indian housing
programs, have spurred the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority to
creatively partner with lenders or utilize existing funds to enhance
the effectiveness, efficiency, and success of housing projects. There
is no greater example of such creativity in Indian Country than the
Choctaw Nation Housing Authority's flagship program for home finance
services offered through the Choctaw Home Finance Corporation.
The Choctaw Home Finance Corporation (CHFC) was incorporated in
2002 as a 501(c)(3) not-for- profit corporation to be the lending
institution for the Choctaw Nation's Home Finance Program activities.
The CHFC is also a certified Community Development Financial
Institution (CDFI) through the U.S. Department of Treasury, meaning the
Federal Government recognizes it as a financial institution working in
underserved and economically-distressed markets that are often times
not served by other traditional financial institutions. The CDFI
certification enables the CHFC to access financial and technical award
assistance through such things as the Native American CDFI Assistance
Program, among others.
The CHFC is dedicated to successful private homeownership by
offering affordable mortgage loans and counseling services to Native
American families nationwide through its Home Finance Program, with a
particular emphasis on serving low-income families who likely would not
otherwise be able to own a home of their own. The Home Finance Program
provides assistance through both direct lending as well as through the
leveraging of funds with lending partners to increase the number of
potential home loans throughout the country. (Leveraging funds is
simply investing with borrowed money in a way that multiplies potential
gains). The Home Finance Program has assisted not just members of the
Choctaw Nation but Native American families throughout Indian Country
with over $38,000,000 in direct loans for homeownership and down
payment/closing cost assistance. The Home Finance Program also has
leveraged over $58,000,000 through participating lending partners who
provide mortgages as part of government guarantee programs such as the
Native American Section 184, Federal Housing Administration (FHA),
Veterans Administration (VA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
Development home loan programs. The private lending partners that CHFC
has worked with include Wells Fargo, First United Bank, First Mortgage
Company, First American Mortgage, Colonial Mortgage, Bank 2, Principal
Mortgage Company, Arvest Bank, Gateway Mortgage, First Bank, BancFirst,
Bank of Oklahoma, and Equity Bank.
The CHFC has a number of loan products available to meet the
variety of financing needs of the families we serve. These products
include loans for purchasing, refinancing, construction, improvements,
and energy efficiency upgrades. One of these loan products, a direct
loan to purchase a new home or refinance their current home at a more
affordable rate and/or term, helps families receive an affordable loan
with manageable fees. It also includes extremely professional guidance
by a staff whose mission is to enhance the lives of all members through
opportunities designed to develop healthy, successful and productive
lifestyles.
Another loan product is a progressively subsidized homebuyer
construction and finance service specifically for our low-income Native
American families. The interest rate and terms are specific to low-
income family needs, and the construction service is extremely valuable
to those who need the added construction support from trained
construction professionals.
The CHFC also provides small, affordable streamline loans for home
improvement, rehabilitation and/or energy efficiency upgrades. These
loans help with necessary repairs to improve living conditions and
property values, and also help with energy efficiency that results in
lower utility payments, thereby freeing up more disposable income.
The CHFC closes on average 100 loans a year for Native American
mortgages and down payment or closing cost assistance. Additionally we
leverage an average of 84 loans per year with our private lending
partners. CHFC manages a loan portfolio of over $20,000,000 with an
average quarterly delinquency rate of 10.81 percent. \1\ This compares
to the national average quarterly combined delinquency rate of 11.43
percent, a full 62 basis points higher than the CHFC rate. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The delinquency figures provided here include the combined
percentage of loans at least one payment past and seriously past due of
90 days or more.
\2\ See MBA Mortgage Delinquency Survey at www.mbaa.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Finance Program is designed to function as a revolving
loan fund. Funds are loaned out to the Native American participant and
paid back in the form of principal and interest payments. The funds are
then loaned back out to other Native American participants. There is a
multiplier effect at work within the Program--the more loans made, the
more principal and interest is repaid and those funds are then used to
provide even more loans. This truly creates a self-sustaining service
that sets the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority and its program
participants on the path to self-sufficiency.
As a HUD-approved counseling agency, the CHFC also offers homeowner
counseling services. Prior to extending a loan, each borrower is
required to complete a homebuyer counseling session that provides
education and information about the responsibilities and commitments
required to be a successful homeowner. These sessions cover
understanding, establishing, and maintaining good credit; personal
financial planning and budgeting; and counseling to assist tribal
members in becoming mortgage-ready. It prepares them for the reality of
homeownership as to the necessities of paying for a mortgage,
insurance, taxes and maintenance expenses. CHFC also provides post-loan
counseling, include ongoing individual counseling as needed to develop
the skills necessary to become a successful homeowner. The counseling
and education that the Home Finance Program services provide help its
Native American beneficiaries become more knowledgeable, less likely to
become victims of predatory lending practices, and more likely to
successfully manage their personal finances to become responsible
homeowners. We serve an average of 400 individuals per year through our
counseling services.
The benefits of the CHFC Home Finance Program extend well beyond
just the Native American program participants, into their surrounding
communities. Furthermore, the CHFC provides opportunities for Choctaw
tribal members and others to attain home ownership nationwide by
partnering with mortgage companies that offer Section 184, FHA, VA,
USDA Rural Development, and even conventional loans, well beyond our
service area in southeastern Oklahoma. The tribal members to whom we
extend financing services--either directly or through our private
lending partners--are predominantly located in the states of Oklahoma,
Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas, and Colorado, but also
in many others, and these members add to the local taxes bases by
paying annual property taxes. In the Choctaw Nation's ten and a half
(10\1/2\) county service area in southeastern Oklahoma alone, over
$100,000 was added to local real property tax bases in 2012 by the
tribal members we serve. This too has had a multiplier effect--an
average of 10 jobs were created through each loan closing in the
employment of appraisers, surveyors, title companies, and attorney
services, totaling 1,140 new jobs in 2012. An even greater multiplier
effect can be seen throughout the country, as the partnership of the
CHFC with lenders in states that do not have tribes with their own
Section 184 or similar Indian home loan guarantee programs means that
the CHFC's leveraging of monies from such programs can extend those
programs' effects to members in those states and likewise add to the
their local tax bases, increase employment opportunities, and have
other positive effects. By doing so, the Choctaw Nation's positive
effects are felt well beyond its service area in southeastern Oklahoma.
For example, there are approximately 20,000 Choctaw tribal members
living in the State of Texas, making it the largest tribal population
in that state, and Home Finance Program assistance services have been
provided to some of those members. In addition to such specific home
finance services, since 1999 the Choctaw Nation has spent nearly $11.6
million towards the education and career development (including
scholarships) of its members, not within Oklahoma, but within the State
of Texas alone.
These innovations and successes by the Choctaw Nation Housing
Authority point to the effective good that can be done through federal
Indian housing programs. They also point to reasons why Congress should
timely reauthorize NAHASDA this fiscal year.
VI. Congress Should Act Swiftly to Approve the Reauthorization of the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act,
While Fully Supporting the Negotiated Rulemaking Process for
Its
Implementation
Congress enacted NAHASDA in 1996, establishing the Indian Housing
Block Grant program for the benefit of American Indian and Alaska
Native groups. The main goals of the bill were explained by one of its
chief sponsors, Rep. Rick Lazio:
Affirm tribal self-determination by giving tribes the
ability and responsibility to strategically plan their own
communities' development.
Provide the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of
housing dollars, within strict accountability standards.
Allow for innovation and local problem-solving capabilities
that are crucial to the success of any community-based
strategy.
Avoid over-burdening tribes and housing authorities with
excessive regulation.
NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 when Congress again
reaffirmed the foregoing important purposes to be served by the
legislation. That reauthorization of NAHASDA will expire on September
30, 2013.
Congress must quickly and timely reauthorize NAHASDA prior to the
end of this fiscal year. Without NAHASDA, is not likely that any of the
success stories from the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority discussed
above, or from many other tribal housing authorities across the
country, would have been achieved.
A. Negotiated Rulemaking Process: Keeping the Government-To-Government
Relationship
Within the reauthorization of NAHASDA, it is not just incumbent
upon, but morally, historically, and politically imperative that
Congress refrain from statutorily changing programmatic features of the
Indian Housing Block Grant program. Rather, those changes, if any,
should be left to the tribes to decide within the context of the
negotiated rulemaking process.
This process has not only been used to effectively implement
NAHASDA since its inception, but it is also the most efficient manner
to achieve the original purposes of NAHASDA set out above.
In accordance with section 106 of NAHASDA, HUD originally developed
the regulations for implementing the Indian Housing Block Grant with
active tribal participation and using the procedures of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 561-570. The NAHASDA
reauthorization legislation of 2008 amended section 106 of NAHASDA to
require HUD to initiate negotiated rulemaking. In accordance with that
statutory directive, HUD provided notice in the Federal Register
establishing the NAHASDA Reauthorization Act Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee and asked for tribal nominations to serve on the Committee.
The final Committee consisted of 25 tribal members and 2 HUD
representatives, including tribal representatives from every region of
the country, state-recognized tribal representatives whose tribes are
eligible for NAHASDA funding, and the Assistant Secretary for Public
and Indian Housing and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native
American Programs. Six negotiated rulemaking sessions were held to
achieve a final rule for the implementation of the 2008 NAHASDA
reauthorization amendments.
Probably the most important issue tackled through negotiated
rulemaking has been the development of the formula by which tribes are
allocated funds under the Indian Housing Block Grant. That formula and
the negotiated rulemaking process used to achieve it are the result of
countless meetings and exchanges among tribal leaders and federal
officials. A carefully-constructed balance of competing interests and
ideals has been reached. The formula serves the diverse tribal
communities affected and tribal leaders worked hard and long with
federal officials to achieve that balance. Key to that formula's
effectiveness is the fact that it uses U.S. Census data to take into
account the need of every tribal recipient of NAHASDA block grant
funding. Any necessary changes to that allocation formula or to any
other Indian Housing Block Grant regulation should be subjected to the
same negotiated rulemaking process.
The reason the negotiated rulemaking process generally, and the
funding formula developed through that process in particular, must be
kept in place is clear: the Federal Government has long since (and
correctly) acknowledged that tribal representatives are the best
decision-makers for policy choices that affect tribal communities, and
even though the Federal Government has a trust responsibility towards
tribes, that responsibility is best carried out by encouraging and
supporting the government-to-government relationship between tribes and
the Federal Government. That is exactly what the negotiated rulemaking
process does--it allows representatives from tribes and tribal housing
authorities to engage one another over the programmatic rules that
govern their day-to-day operations, with federal representatives at the
table to provide input, but most importantly, to listen and incorporate
the tribal input into the final rule. This is exactly the type of
scenario contemplated by Rep. Lazio and other original sponsors of
NAHASDA legislation, because the negotiated rulemaking process without
a doubt enables tribes to plan their community development, provides
flexibility in the expenditure of resources while maintaining
accountability for the good of all of Indian Country, encourages and
spreads innovation among tribal representatives, and avoids unnecessary
and irrelevant regulation.
With the foregoing in mind, the timely reauthorization of NAHASDA,
with the allocation formula and negotiated rulemaking in place to
address any necessary substantive changes, should be one of Congress's
top priorities before the end of this fiscal year. Any lapse in the
program would have far-reaching results in Indian Country.
VII. A Possible Change in the Reauthorization of NAHASDA
NAHASDA has undoubtedly improved the housing situation in Indian
Country. However, like any national legislation aimed at addressing
chronic and overarching problems in Indian Country, NAHASDA does have
some shortcomings. Addressing at least one of these issues that has
been a particular problem for the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority
during reauthorization may help us and other tribal housing authorities
more effectively address the needs of tribal members.
A. Administrative Burden of the Useful Life Period
Section 205(a)(2) of NAHASDA requires that housing units remain
affordable for either the remaining useful life of the property, as
determined by the Secretary, or for another period that the Secretary
determines is the longest feasible period of time consistent with sound
economics and the purpose of the Act. The Act also requires that this
affordability be secured through binding commitments satisfactory to
the Secretary. Unfortunately these provisions regarding binding
commitments have been interpreted so as to result in the unintended
consequence of creating a lien on an entire housing unit and thereby
bind up a much-needed housing asset, for even the smallest binding
commitments that were made for very minor maintenance or repair
expenditures. Furthermore, this creates an unnecessary and heavy
administrative burden for small maintenance and repair expenditures
that are not even capitalized under generally accepted accounting
principles. This is counterproductive and goes against the effective
implementation of NAHASDA. We would suggest that, in line with the
proposed amendments put forward by the National American Indian Housing
Council (NAIHC), the reauthorization legislation amend Section 205(c)
of NAHASDA to make the binding commitment requirement applicable only
to improvements of privately owned homes if they exceed $7,500.
VIII. Conclusion
Thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members
of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing me to testify
here today regarding the challenges and potential solutions to meeting
the housing needs of Native people throughout Indian Country, by
sharing with you some of my experiences at the Choctaw Nation Housing
Authority. Your continued support of our efforts, including a timely
reauthorization of NAHASDA before the end of this fiscal year, is truly
appreciated, and I and my staff at the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority
stand ready to assist you in any way that we can.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
We are going to start a round of five minutes for each
member, in questions. I am going to start with Senator
Barrasso, and then we will go from there, based on members'
arrival into the hearing room as the hearing started. Senator
Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would like to start with Mr. Boyd, if I could, reading
through Ms. Bryan's written testimony, she said there are
concerns regarding some unexpended NAHASDA funds totaling, I
think, $909 million; that represents a lot of potential homes
for Indian people. She also notes there are a number of
bureaucratic and logistical barriers to spending those monies.
I am wondering what your agency can actually do to help
expedite the use of those funds in an efficient manner so the
tribes that we have heard from today and other tribes around
the country can actually build homes.
Mr. Boyd. Certainly, Senator. First of all, the funds that
tribes receive are no-year funds. So these funds can move from
year to year. In some cases, one of the reasons that happens is
that all of the developments that are on reservations are
construction developments. So it takes three to five years to
accomplish this, and in some cases even longer, especially for
some of the smaller tribes who receive small amounts of funds.
They actually sort of bank, if you will, those funds and carry
that over for a couple of years before they can even build any
homes within their community.
Those tribes that do have some problems with regard to
expenditures, we work with them directly. We employ our
regional housing offices, we do have six regional housing
offices around the Country. We have set up teams that will work
with those tribes on almost a daily basis to help create
expenditure strategies, realistic expenditure strategies and
really assess maybe some of the issues that they may have
administratively, to see if we can't make recommendations to
them to streamline the process within their communities.
So we do that through technical assistance and if required,
some training, that is also the administrative approach to help
build the capacity to expend those funds on a more timely
basis.
Senator Barrasso. That was one of the concerns, reading
your testimony, is that there are some times in spite of this
day to day activity there aren't real timelines for how to act
on certain tribal requests, such as a waiver of requirements.
So I think we further note that if HUD fails to act, then
tribes actually can't expend their housing funds.
So I am wondering if you think there should be clear
timelines in the NAHASDA for HUD to act upon specific requests
from the tribes?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. There are clear time lines. And it is,
I think, what the witness was mentioning was time lines with
regard to waivers. So we do have set time lines in which to
work with tribes on those waivers. Some times it takes a little
bit longer in some cases because maybe the application of the
waiver does not have all the information that may be required.
So we reach back and we work, so it is a back and forth kind of
situation. We try to expedite that as much as possible. We
understand the value of the time element. But we also want to
be accurate and we also want to resolve the issues on a timely
basis.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Bryan, is there anything you might
want to add to this to help the panel? Senator Tester said
earlier we want to be more efficient, more effective in how
tribes can use this. Anything you would suggest?
Ms. Bryan. Yes, thank you, Vice Chairman Barrasso.
The waiver delay that I speak of is, I believe in the NAIHC
draft also, we are questing for the local cooperative
agreements. That is pat of NAHASDA, it is required for
development. When we do submit those to HUD, there is no time
line for their response.
Senator Barrasso. Okay, thank you. And then for Mr. Iron
Cloud and Mr. Sossamon, just thinking of the written testimony
from Cheryl Causley, where she talks about trying to, in terms
of being more efficient and more effective, perhaps achieve
better economies of scale and the proposals intended to improve
streamlining some of the administrative requirements from the
multiple Federal funding streams. What do you think of the
proposal she has talked about in terms of combining some of
these issues and try to make it a little more smoothly
operating for both of you?
Mr. Iron Cloud. I guess I look at the NAIHC, I used to be
on the board. I kind of got out of it. Right now I guess I am
an alternate for our region.
But I look at NAIHC to probably reach out more to Indian
tribes, to help them in their everyday doings with HUD.
Actually, they are our spokespeople for us in Congress. And I
really think that NAIHC could do a lot more than they are doing
now. That is coming from my heart, because I live out there. It
is always hard for us to do anything.
I have good friends at HUD in Denver, and I communicate
good with people here in Congress, with Senator Tim Johnson. I
talk to Senator Thune, I talk to Christy Knowle. But something
that I want to say is that our money is depleting, it is going
some place else. Well, we are going to have a hard time, I
feel, these next two years, of trying to get a budget that is
going to meet some of the need that is out there.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson. Mr. Boyd, last year Congress enacted the
HEARTH Act to help streamline the land title clearance process.
Do you believe that this streamlining will lead to even greater
demand for a Section 184 home loan guarantee program, and how
is HUD preparing for increased demand in the already growing
Section 184 program due to the HEARTH Act or other factors?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir, first of all I would like to thank
those of you that worked on that Act to make it reality. It is
going to help us out tremendously and it is going to help us
out tremendously in a couple of situations. One, it certainly
is going to give the tribes the opportunity on a more timely
basis to make land available for development. Secondly, though,
which is a combination, and we have been working with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs on the issue of titles, and
historically to gain a title on a reservation, on trust land,
has taken a tremendous amount of time.
So what we have done in working with the BIA is to try to
minimize that time so that the lenders and the borrowers can
obtain title on a much more timely basis, so that the HEARTH
Act is a part of that whole process. So if you combine the
HEARTH Act along with the improvement on accessing titles,
those two really go hand in hand. That would help us out
tremendously.
We know that there is a very, very viable housing market
for home ownership on trust land, on reservations. We want to
work with tribes and other Federal agencies to do more home
ownership on reservations, because we feel that the more people
live on reservations, the more money they are going to spend
within the community and those communities would be Native
American-owned businesses, so the dollar would turn over a
couple of times before leaving.
Senator Johnson. Paul, it is good to see you again, and I
want to thank you for making this trip out here from our home
State of South Dakota.
I understand that you are undertaking the Dakota Housing
Needs Assessment Pilot Project. How will you use the data
generated from this project to improve housing on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation?
Mr. Iron Cloud. Thank you, Senator. The thing is, we talked
about dollars that are coming to our reservation, NAHASDA
dollars. We always get the same amount of dollars based on
their count or however they do that. We have 4,000 people and I
don't know how many of them are elders. I think our biggest
majority is 21 years, or 18. Well, this assessment is done by
our people, I think we have 12 people working throughout the
reservation, going to these homes, finding out how many people
are living in these houses. How is their house, is it critical
or is it in good shape. And we look at the land. We are doing
all kinds of things with this oversight.
I know, I know people are going to realize that they need
to do more to get the actual count on our reservations to get
more money. But like I said, we get the same amount of money,
this year I think ours is, well, I think we get $602 million or
$603 million based on the budget this year. So that takes about
a million dollars away from Pine Ridge.
So we aren't going to be in the best shape but with this
oversight we do have. I'd say we have hope.
The other thing is, I want to bring up, we are bringing a
house actually to D.C. next week. We are actually bringing it
for Senators and Congressmen, staff, to actually see, this
house was built in 1961, one of the first projects at Pine
Ridge. I just want to ask you to come and see it.
Senator Johnson. I will.
Mr. Iron Cloud. A big thing is, if you could say a few
words, we have some guest speakers, or I am really looking at
the Senate or our House people. One thing I want to mention,
too, I want to thank the House Appropriations. They came to
Pine Ridge. They were there for two days and actually seen what
was going on at Pine Ridge. I really commend them for doing
that.
The other thing was, we had Sandra Enriquez, she came one
day. And she did a tour. She looked and she said, Paul, what
you have been saying is very true. And she had tears in her
eyes, I had tears in my eyes. Because there is so much need out
there, and our people are not feeling safe. That is what I
really want to express, because we only have 34 officers.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Paul.
The Chairwoman. Senator Heitkamp?
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
Just a couple of points and maybe we can kind of elaborate
on this or sit down and kind of do some thinking on this. I
just did a major housing tour in my State, not just of Indian
Country, but all across my State. Our most acute and most
desperate need for housing is in Indian Country.
What is true in Indian Country is also true in other parts
of my State, which is that if we are going to look at single
family, which we believe ultimately is a goal, that we have
families living together, we think that is the healthiest
outcome, that is the best in terms of building community, but
yet Fort Berthold, which recently did an infrastructure
development project, developed lots, the cost of those lots is
$85,000 without even putting a shovel in the ground. Think
about that. And then think about the average incomes, even
middle class incomes in Indian Country, and what it would take
to build a project or build a home that was in fact adequate to
meet the needs of the family but also affordable. It is
impossible. It is not possible.
So one of the issues beyond the financing issue that we
have already talked about here, beyond the kind of, whether it
is trust land or not, and I want to make a comment about that
as well, is these high infrastructure costs. We have already
addressed it, but if we keep doing what we have always done,
which is, let's support these programs, maybe beg for a little
bit more funding, which doesn't seem forthcoming, we will get
the same result. And it won't be a hold even status quo result,
it will be backsliding, it will be continuing to fail.
So one of the issues that I would like a comment on right
now, or maybe later, is on any unique projects that you have
seen that can in fact reduce infrastructure costs on single
family housing lots.
Well, the silence is deafening. And honest, because I have
thought about this and thought about this, and I have not been
able to come up with an adequate explanation of how we do this.
Ms. Causley. Actually, the only way that I have found on my
reservation to be able to help our clients with that particular
problem is the housing authority, when it gets enough funding,
will develop, the last one was an 80-unit complex where I think
we had 55 units that we put on there. We ran the water and the
sewer for them and tried to get the lots ready.
So we couldn't allow trailers, because we are trying to
bring in mortgage products. And we don't want a $100 trailer
next to a $70,000 or $80,000 home. But that did lower their
price, but the hosing authority had to pick up the price to
develop them at once. But it was cheaper to develop them all at
once than one at a time.
Mr. Sossamon. Senator Heitkamp, one of the things that we
have seen in southeastern Oklahoma is the local rural water
districts have put together a band issuance and leveraged that
with other Federal funding to extend 25 miles of rural water
and sewer facilities. But of course, that local government has
that authority to issue that bond. As they hook these customers
on, then over time they will service the note on that bond.
So I think perhaps when we see models like this that work
outside of Indian Country that we take those models and apply
them in Indian Country. That to me would mean we would need to
create our own authorities within our tribal governments to be
able to accomplish this. But to me, I think that is the key to
advancing the issue that you brought forward.
Senator Heitkamp. Just one more question in terms of safety
and reliability of the housing long term. When you step back
and you look at what children need, this is obviously a huge
component of community. And if we don't look beyond, and you
have a great committee here, because there are three additional
members that I can count who also serve on the Banking and
Housing Committee, including the Chairman.
So what do we do, working within existing programs, and
what do we do looking at financing? Chairwoman, if you will
indulge me for just one comment. When I was in Bismarck, we
were talking about housing. One of the things the Bismarck
chamber of commerce is doing is putting together a land trust
with the idea that then those embedded costs would go to the
non-profit which then they would be almost a little like a
trailer rent, but not really creating that kind of housing. It
would be more permanent housing and they will have to work
through the kind of financing.
I was struck by that, because I turned to the housing
finance administrator who was there when I was involved with
housing and finance in North Dakota, and I said, how will that
work with trust land in terms of financing? He said, oh, we
shouldn't have any problem. Yes. That was my reaction. We
shouldn't have any problem? Oh, really? Because this is what I
have been told for years was the impediment to providing
traditional financing, first time homeowner financing, low-cost
interest financing onto the reservations.
So I think there may be an opportunity to collaborate with
members of the Banking Committee, taking a look at traditional
financing mechanisms, so that we can do a better job in
bringing private financing onto Indian Country in our States
and in our communities. So I am really interested in all the
silos, including infrastructure and financing and
affordability. This could not be a more important issue that
the Chairwoman has listed as our first Committee hearing, in my
opinion.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Iron Cloud?
Mr. Iron Cloud. We are working with the Federal Home Loan
Bank and we are getting grants from them for renovating some of
our homes. We just renovated 15 homes. That is complete
renovation and that is around $30,000. And we got another one
to do our elderly homes at Pine Ridge. So we are going to do
half of them and try another one and do the other half.
So there are ways out there, but it is tough to get any
money right now.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Causley, did you have a comment on
that?
Ms. Causley. Yes, I did. Thank you.
If there is a way that the members of this Committee and
the other one, what we really have problems with and we could
definitely use help with is there are programs sometimes
offered through the States, and depending on what State you
live in, they will either help you out a lot or they won't
touch you. Because traditionally, tribes don't get along real
well with their State entities. If there is any way that you
could look at a set aside for Native Americans, if we are
eligible for the program to begin with, it would help all the
way across Indian Country.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator.
I am going to take a few moments here to ask some questions
and follow up on the question that Vice Chair Barrasso started
with on the unspent housing block grant funds. We have had some
recommendations to the Committee to look at what other agencies
have done, something like if HUD was unable to meet the
deadline for that request, that after that deadline it would be
deemed approved. Is that something that you think would be
helpful in this situation?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, Senator. I think deadlines would be very
helpful. As a matter of fact, in 2012, the Appropriation
Committee set a time line on 2012 funds. I think they set out a
time line of ten years, so it is five years to obligate and ten
years to expend. That could be very effective.
I also know under ARRA, there was a strict time line in
spending ARRA funds. The tribe, I think we received something
like $510 million under ARRA. Half of that went out on a
competitive basis. And those tribes that received those funds,
many of them, I think it was maybe a three-year time frame
there.
But many of them finished up their projects in two years.
And I think the time aspect of it played a very important role.
The total expenditure rate on that was like 99.9 percent, and I
am almost positive the time had a big effect on that.
The Chairwoman. Anybody else want to add a comment on that?
Ms. Causley. It can actually go both ways. I believe that
within the NAHASDA draft language that we have language in
there deemed approved through HUD, should they not meet any of
their deadlines in a timely manner.
The Chairwoman. Okay. What about the low income housing tax
credit? Obviously this has been a successful program across the
board. And obviously it is something that has been used in a
few instances in coordination with other housing programs. Are
we running into problems with the low income housing tax credit
being used more aggressively in Indian Country? Because it has
been a very, very successful program from many different
aspects on non-tribal land. Not only the benefit of getting the
new units but also stimulating the economy. The fact that the
Federal Government is putting out a little bit of capital but
leveraging much more private sector capital, for very, very
needed housing units.
I am just curious as to why this isn't being used more in
Indian Country.
Ms. Bryan. Chairwoman Cantwell, we looked into that at the
Puyallup Tribal Housing Authority. We found that it was
prohibitive in several ways for us. Tax credits really need a
lot of units. So we need to have land, we need to have
ownership of that land. And for us, it didn't pencil out. But I
think developing capacity among the tribes, once we developed
capacity and learned about Title 6 and what it took for us as a
tribe to get a Title 6 loan, meaning clean audits and just
having our books clean and knowing what the banks would want us
to do to finance this, then we begin that process. So it was a
matter of educating ourselves about the Title 6 program and
partnering with HUD. We were able to utilize that program.
Tax credits are complicated. And for us, we looked at it
for our 10-unit development, but it just didn't pencil out. We
are not able to charge rents to sustain what we guarantee we
have to charge in rents. So back to the 30 percent rule, 30
percent of zero is zero. If we can't charge anything, and we
are serving the lowest of the low income, you put them in a tax
credit unit, we are required to pay a certain amount. We are
obligated to pay that.
So there are some barriers. I am certainly interested in
it. I think it is a great program.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. I agree. I think one of the challenges early on
has been capacity, building that capacity within the designated
housing entities. But that, over the past 10 years, as long as
I have been in this position, it has really exploded, I think,
in Indian Country.
The Chairwoman. What has exploded?
Mr. Boyd. The ability and the number of tax credits that
tribes have applied for and have received. I recall, I was in a
meeting one day and we were talking to some of the folks from
the Blackfeet Reservation. They have excelled so well in doing
tax credits it just became a part of their business. And they
were taking that knowledge and experience and sharing it with
other tribes. I know up in Alaska, the Cook Inlet Housing
Authority had the capacity and the ability to do it, so they
went over to Bethel, to another regional housing authority, and
partnered with them to obtain tax credits in the State of
Alaska.
Of course, one of the challenges is the competition that
the tribes have to work within, within that State. I think
there was a comment, maybe, is it possible to get a set aside
of some sort.
The Chairwoman. Because there is a problem with the States?
Mr. Boyd. In some, yes, it is an interesting relationship.
The Chairwoman. There is a problem with States saying they
don't want to do low income housing if it is on a reservation?
Mr. Boyd. At least from what I understood, there are some
States that work really well with tribes on financing. And
there are some States that aren't as aggressive perhaps. And
tribes have learned how to work with that in that capacity
building. I think that knowledge is extremely important.
The Chairwoman. I am just responding to my fellow
colleagues on this Committee who were talking about the
incredible need that still exists. Maybe one thing, Ms. Bryan,
you are saying that not everybody has the volume or units that
would benefit or pencil out from a low-income housing tax
credit. But at the same time, there seems to be a very large
scale need on some of these larger reservations. This would be
something that could be beneficial and tied into these other
programs.
We need to identify what the real issue is here.
Ms. Bryan. I would like to agree with Rodger. In our State,
tribes have a very hard time competing for those funds. They
are very competitive, and housing authorities who are much more
advanced in grant writing and working with the State for 20
years before the tribes showed up trying to get a grant have
their position to get the tax credits, and they are lined up
for it with their projects.
The Chairwoman. Do you mean there is just a knowledge base
within various communities about how to use the program where
there isn't within Indian Country?
Ms. Bryan. That, combined with the competitiveness. Tribes
don't get any special competitive edge. We are treated as a
local government within the State when we apply for those tax
credits.
The Chairwoman. But that is the way it is for all local
entities. It has been a very successful program across the
board. We will have to drill down more on this.
Mr. Sossamon, you were talking about the 184 program and
your use of it and its success, particularly in your State, but
you also mentioned Alaska. Do you have recommendations on how
we would better utilize that on trust lands?
Mr. Sossamon. I think one of the big barriers to utilizing
it on trust land has been addressed through the HEARTH Act. Now
that creates an opportunity for tribes to develop their own
laws and regulations that this rule of law is needed by private
investors to mitigate the risk that they would face in dealing
on trust land. So as far as giving the tribes the control to
issue the leases, the long-term leases that they have, that
plus other laws to regulate the industry and give these private
investors that assurance they need to invest their money.
So I think we really have an opportunity to even expand on
the success that program has already enjoyed and more so on the
trust land.
The Chairwoman. How many units has the Choctaw Financial
Corporation done, your finance program? How many homes have you
helped finance?
Mr. Sossamon. We finance approximately, we do about 100
loans a year. Of that, about 25 a year are direct first
mortgages. So over the years we have done probably 400 or 500
units. I know we have a portfolio that consists of over 600
units just within our area. And we have leveraged about twice
that many outside of our area. That is over the last 15-year
period.
The Chairwoman. Is there anything else that we should be
thinking about, this issue of streamlining and pooling
resources to leverage the housing grant funds?
Mr. Sossamon. I think back to Vice Chairman Barrasso's
question earlier, if we could streamline the reporting
requirements and the other Federal requirements that we see,
also Senator Heitkamp mentioned that we want to partner more
with all of our local and State entities. In this environment
that we work in, we can't work alone any more. We have to
partner. And we have to leverage among the tribes, the other
agencies. Because part of the key in solving the affordable
housing issue is going to be a long-term solution, which means
investments in education and career development, to raise the
incomes of our folks. That is how they are going to afford
homes over the long term.
So we have to look at even those other agencies within our
own tribe as a partnership and it is something that we trying
to break this poverty cycle over the generations.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Iron Cloud, you mentioned you are doing
your own tribal assessment on need. Why is that?
Mr. Iron Cloud. Why am I doing that?
The Chairwoman. I get why you re doing, I am asking, why
did you have to do it? Isn't there data that is out there that
is reliable?
Mr. Iron Cloud. The data that we have isn't up to power.
Now we are doing something that is actually going to show what
is all there. I just wanted to comment on the tax credit a
little bit if I can. We may do a first tax credit program at
Pine Ridge. The reason why we never did it, first of all, our
unemployment is 80 percent. How are they going to pay for that?
And if they default, then the housing has to pay that, and that
would bankrupt our housing authority.
Right now we are taking a chance, building 32 units of
better homes, for the homeless and in about three other areas
that we are trying to do. But I am a little leery about paying
this loan back over 15 years. And there is a lot of things that
you have to look at. I have talked to a lot of guys and they
kind of recommended we didn't do it, because we need homes, we
need to do something.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Boyd, am I missing something here, why
we don't have an accurate assessment across Indian Country of
what the need really is? Is there somebody that is collecting
that data on the exact need?
Mr. Boyd. Currently, the Policy Development and Research
Office within HUD and our program are collaborating and doing a
housing needs assessment. That whole process is taking place
right now, because the last housing needs assessment that was
completed was in 1996. One of the problems that they had with
that assessment is the return rate on surveys that they did was
quite low. So this go-round, one of the elements which they are
employing is to work very closely with those tribes that will
be surveyed to make sure that we get a much better return rate
on the surveys.
I understand that maybe, and I guess what they are shooting
for is 2014 to have that completed. So there is a process, we
will be receiving some information between now and when it
finishes. But we are hoping that is really going to update that
need throughout Indian Country.
The Chairwoman. And what do people think about looking
backwards now at the 1996 assessment? Was that a successful
assessment?
Mr. Boyd. I don't think people really felt like it was a
success, mainly because of the return rate on the surveys that
they were doing.
The Chairwoman. I think this is something we are going o
have to deal with, along with the various issues that you
brought up today. But if we are going to match success of
Federal programs to address the need, we are going to have to
have an accurate assessment of the need. I think my colleagues,
Mr. Iron Cloud, they spoke from the heart about this issue. As
Senator Murkowski mentioned, as Senator Franken mentioned, as
Senator Heitkamp mentioned, they are trying to deal with it on
the ground.
And their frustration, and I mentioned to my own staff, you
can look at these various programs from a programmatic level
and then you can visit Indian Country. And they don't match up.
On the one hand, you see programs that look like they can be
taken advantage of, and then you go to Indian Country and you
see poverty and people living in the conditions that are being
described here.
Somewhere we have to do a better job of connecting this,
the needs and the programs. We have to do the streamlining, we
have to make them efficient. But we also have to take advantage
of these programs that are out there, like the low-income
housing tax credit that is being successfully used by big
cities, small cities, very diverse communities all across the
Nation, and figure out ways to better leverage the private
sector investment as well. And if that is a barrier, private
sector investment on this as it relates to Indian Country, then
we should have a hearing on that and discuss how we overcome
that roadblock. Because we want Indian Country to be a
government relationship with the private sector, as well as
other government to government relationships, too.
So with that, unless anybody has anything else for the good
of the order, this hearing stands adjourned. Thank you again so
much for being here and for your testimony. The record will
stay open for two additional weeks in case members have
anything else they want to ask. And we would appreciate your
prompt response to those questions.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities
The Association of Alaska Housing Authorities (AAHA) is comprised
of Alaska's fourteen Regional Native Housing Authorities and the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation. Alaska is home to more than 240 tribes,
and AAHA's membership collectively provides housing assistance to many
dozens of those tribes in hundreds of communities throughout Alaska. On
behalf of the tens of thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian
individuals we serve, AAHA greatly appreciates the opportunity to
provide this testimony to the United States Senate's Committee on
Indian Affairs.
The Committee seeks information regarding barriers to Indian
housing development and solutions to address those barriers. While the
need for safe, affordable housing in Native communities remains severe,
changes in federal policy that began in the 1990s have had a positive
impact on the ability of Indian housing organizations to address
deplorable housing conditions in Indian areas. To further address
ongoing barriers to the delivery of Indian Housing, modest legislative
reform that advances the spirit and purposes of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is necessary.
This testimony includes specific examples of such reforms.
Background
Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance for Native American tribes and
Alaska Natives was provided by various programs under the Housing Act
of 1937 and other legislation. These programs were administratively
cumbersome and ineffective. They required separate applications and
program administration, had different eligibility requirements, and
placed distinct compliance obligations on tribal recipients. The
programs failed to recognize the unique social, cultural, and economic
needs of Native American communities. For example, Roger Biles
described in the American Indian Culture and Research Journal how
``[t]he clustered housing prescribed for rental units clashed with the
traditional living patterns of many Indians and, according to some IHA
officials, resulted in the creation or exacerbation of problems
previously rare in Native American populations such as gangs, violence,
and drug and alcohol abuse.''
In 1994, HUD articulated its intent to strengthen the unique
government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and federally
recognized Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages. This
created momentum toward the development of NAHASDA, which in 1996
established programs specifically for the benefit of American Indian
and Alaska Native groups. NAHASDA was introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives by Representative Rick Lazio. In his remarks,
Representative Lazio explained:
Tribal governments and housing authorities should also have
the ability and responsibility to strategically plan their own
communities' development, focusing on the long-term health of
the community and the results of their work, not over burdened
by excessive regulation. Providing the maximum amount of
flexibility in the use of housing dollars, within strict
accountability standards, is not only a further affirmation of
the self-determination of tribes, it allows for innovation and
local problem-solving capabilities that are crucial to the
success of any community-based strategy.
NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 for a period of five years,
and its authorization expires on September 30, 2013.
Summary of NAHASDA
NAHASDA recognizes the unique relationship between the Federal
Government and sovereign American Indian nations, authorizing tribes to
address their distinct housing needs through various activities such as
construction, rehabilitation, modernization, rental assistance, lending
programs, crime prevention, and a host of other strategies. Unlike
previous housing programs, NAHASDA recognizes the Federal Government's
trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native peoples and
empowers tribes to exercise self-determination in the development and
implementation of strategies to address their particular housing needs.
Implementation and Impact
NAHASDA is unique in that its recipients have the flexibility to
use funding in a variety of ways, depending on which strategies will
most effectively address the unique housing needs of the Native
American people they serve. Many recipients use NAHASDA funds to
rehabilitate existing housing and construct new units. In FY 2012
alone, the 369 tribal recipients of NAHASDA funding used that funding
to build or acquire more than 1,450 affordable homes and rehabilitate
4,700 more. Since the inception of NAHASDA, recipients have built,
acquired, or rehabilitated more than 110,000 homes. George Cortelyou
wrote in the Seton Hall Legislative Journal that NAHASDA tripled the
number of housing units developed or planned by Native Americans per
year compared to the yearly average over the lifetime of the 1937
Housing Act.
NAHASDA also authorizes recipients to use funding for a variety of
activities that do not involve bricks and mortar if those activities
will most effectively address the unique housing needs of the American
Indian and Alaska Native people they serve. A 2010 study by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that ``in fiscal years
2008 and 2009, approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds to
provide tenant based rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG
funds to provide housing or financial literacy counseling; and
approximately 30 percent used IHBG funds to provide down payment
assistance.'' The GAO survey found that NAHASDA and its implementation
were highly regarded among Native Americans; nearly 90 percent of
respondents held positive views toward the effectiveness of NAHASDA.
In Alaska, NAHASDA enables the construction of 200 new homes each
year. It funds the rehabilitation of 550 more annually. Recipients
engage apprentices in construction trades, helping Alaska Native and
American Indian individuals to learn job skills that they will carry
with them for life. Through leveraging and the engagement of private
sector contractors and vendors, NAHASDA also employs 2,250 Alaskans
each year.
NAHASDA has been administered not only effectively, but also
efficiently. Some in Congress have asked whether the current balance of
obligated, undisbursed Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds
indicates that NAHASDA recipients are challenged to expend the funding
granted to them. The answer to this question is a resounding ``no.''
The frequently noted figures include and are heavily weighted by FY
2012 funding. Like any other capital program, housing development is a
multi-year process, and recipients should have a reasonable period in
which to plan for and build new housing developments. It is AAHA's
understanding that when FY 2012 funding is removed from consideration,
at least 94 percent of all IHBG funds have been obligated and
disbursed.
In other words, a very small portion of IHBG funds granted in 2011
and years prior remains obligated but undisbursed. Further, it is
commonly known that of that amount, a substantial portion is
attributable to only one of the program's 369 tribal recipients. That
particular tribe is recovering from a HUD-imposed three-year
prohibition on expenditures for housing development, and it has
developed a thoughtful strategy to spend down its obligated,
undisbursed funding. It is AAHA's understanding that when this one
particular tribe's balance is removed from consideration, the
proportion of pre-2012 IHBG funding that remains obligated but
undisbursed drops to only 3 percent. The remaining amount is less than
$200 million--not even one-third of the annual Indian Housing Block
Grant appropriation.
When explained clearly and in context, the balance of obligated,
undisbursed Indian Housing Block Grant funding is not an issue that
causes legitimate concern. To the contrary, it becomes even clearer
that NAHASDA is particularly efficient in delivering housing
construction and development in Native American communities.
Barriers and Solutions
To those who have witnessed the deplorable housing conditions in
American Indian and Alaska Native communities, the need for further
investment is apparent. In the southwest, many tribes and pueblos
experience a degree of overcrowding that forces two, three, or even
four families into a single dilapidated home. In the northern plains,
many homes are deteriorated, exposed to the elements and occupied by
some of the most impoverished families in our nation. In rural Alaska,
many Alaska Native families have no indoor plumbing. Human waste is
carried in buckets from the home to a small, stinking lagoon at the
edge of the village.
Improving these conditions means developing new housing and
improving existing homes through rehabilitation, modernization, and
weatherization. The most effective means of accomplishing these goals
is the provision of additional funding for the Indian Housing Block
Grant program. Unfortunately, appropriations for the program have not
come close to keeping pace with inflation, leaving tribes to compete
fiercely over the few resources that are made available.
Periodically, the tribes and HUD engage in a negotiated rulemaking
process to review and update the Indian Housing Block Grant allocation
formula. Preparations for such a process are presently underway. The
tribes, HUD, and technical experts will employ a consensus-based
process to evaluate complicated issues such as the factors that are
used to determine a tribe's level of housing need. The process is open,
transparent, and equitable; however, it can also be frustrating. There
is not nearly enough funding to come close to meeting the need for
housing in all Native American communities. Every tribe understands
intimately the conditions its people face, and every tribe must
confront the stark reality that no matter how funding is allocated,
there is not enough of it to go around. Each tribe and each community
deserves to receive additional resources to address their housing
conditions.
In the absence of additional funding, modest legislative reform can
enhance program efficacy by enabling tribal housing programs to spend
less time navigating administrative bureaucracy and more time building
homes.
The draft NAHASDA Reauthorization bill being offered by the
National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) contain numerous
provisions that would break down anachronistic legislative and
regulatory barriers to the delivery of housing in Native American
communities. The product of more than a year of outreach by NAIHC to
tribes and tribal housing entities across the nation, the draft
reauthorization bill produced by NAIHC outlines numerous opportunities
for Congress to empower tribes to more efficiently deliver housing. It
should be noted that NAIHC's draft bill is a consensus-based product
that has achieved broad support among the hundreds of NAIHC member
organizations.
Though AAHA supports NAIHC's draft reauthorization bill in full, it
offers the following as specific examples of important reforms that
will improve the delivery of housing in Alaska Native and American
Indian communities:
1. Modernize the 30 percent Rule. The 30 percent rule provides
that a recipient of NAHASDA funding may not charge residents a
rent amount in excess of 30 percent of their adjusted income.
This rule both threatens the fiscal sustainability of some
developments and presents an ongoing administrative challenge,
since residents must be routinely recertified to determine
appropriate rent levels. The 30 percent rule must be replaced
with a more flexible rent ceiling with less onerous compliance
requirements.
2. Simplify Environmental Review Requirements. Projects
involving mixed funding or overlapping federal agency
jurisdiction may have duplicative environmental review
requirements. For example, when a housing project is funded in
part by NAHASDA and in part by USDA Rural Development, it may
be necessary to conduct two separate environmental reviews.
NAHASDA should be amended to provide that an environmental
review carried out under NAHASDA meets and discharges all other
applicable federal ER requirements.
3. Eliminate Conflicting Federal Labor Standards. Combining
federal funding sources can result in mandatory compliance with
multiple federal labor standards. For example, the HOME program
requires Davis Bacon wages, whereas NAHASDA permits the use of
Tribally Determined Wages. The inclusion of funds from other
federal sources should not trump a NAHASDA recipient's ability
to apply tribally determined wages, which already require the
payment of prevailing wage rates.
4. Eliminate Mandatory Compliance with Section 3 of the HUD
Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 3 and
Section 504 represent administratively cumbersome federal
requirements. Because of limited economic opportunities in many
Native communities, recipients have a natural incentive to hire
low-income tribal members. Similarly, tribes are accountable to
the tribal members they serve, including those with
disabilities. Section 3 and Section 504 rarely compel tribes to
act differently that they would in the absence of such
requirements, yet they impose upon tribes strict compliance and
reporting requirements.
Summary
NAHASDA represented a positive and welcome change in federal Indian
housing policy. It embraced the principles of tribal self-
determination, including local decisionmaking and reduced
administrative bureaucracy. The results have been impressive, with more
than 110,000 new homes built, acquired, or renovated for American
Indian and Alaska Native families. However, because of the sheer scale
of the need and a lack of sufficient funding, housing conditions in
Native communities remain some of the worst in the nation. To further
address ongoing barriers to the delivery of Indian Housing, additional
funding for NAHASDA's Indian Housing Block Grant is required. In the
absence of additional funding, modest legislative reform such as that
within the draft reauthorization bill presented by the National
American Indian Housing Council will provide opportunities to reduce
barriers to the delivery of safe, affordable housing in Native
communities across the nation.
The Association of Alaska Housing Authorities greatly appreciates
this opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs regarding barriers to the development of Indian housing and
opportunities to address those barriers.
______
Prepared Statement of Moises Loza, Executive Director, Housing
Assistance Council
The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) appreciates this opportunity
to submit testimony regarding the oversight hearing on identifying
barriers to Native American housing development and finding solutions.
Before providing testimony, HAC would like to thank the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee for their efforts and dedication to improve housing
conditions for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiians
across the country. HAC's work with tribal housing organizations has
helped us identify barriers that federal programs can inadvertently
cause to Indian housing development and we appreciate your concern in
this matter.
Since its creation in 1971, HAC has provided financing,
information, and technical services to nonprofit, for-profit, public,
and other providers of rural housing. Because HAC works closely with
local organizations around the country, including tribal communities,
we know firsthand the housing challenges that rural Americans face. In
addition, we have seen poverty and inadequate housing conditions most
notably in certain areas and among certain populations, such as Indian
Country.
NAHASDA Re-Authorization and Funding
The ability to self-govern was a hard fought battle for most
tribes. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act (NAHASDA) was passed in 1996 to further increase sovereign tribes'
ability to self-govern. Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance to Native
American tribes and Alaska Natives was provided through various
programs under the Housing Act of 1937 and other legislation. These
programs were often cumbersome and were characterized by significant
input by the Federal Government. NAHASDA simplified federal housing
assistance to tribal lands through Indian Housing Development Block
(IHDB) Grants and Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants. Through
NAHASDA, regulatory structures were reduced and tribes were allowed to
determine how to best use grants with less federal interference.
HAC supports the reauthorization of NAHASDA. NAHASDA is successful
because it allows tribal communities to have the ability to decide the
best way to spend housing block grants. However, for NAHASDA to work,
the funding it provides must match the need seen on tribal lands. Over
the years, Indian Housing Block Grant appropriations under NAHASDA have
not matched inflation. In real dollars this represents a significant
decrease in funding--funding has remained stagnant while the need has
increased. For the program to be most effective, funding needs to at
least keep up with inflation. Many tribes rely on the annual IHBG
appropriation to provide services each year, and this becomes
increasingly challenging when the funds do not match the need.
Stagnant funding levels for Indian Housing programs prohibited
tribal designated housing entities (TDHE) and organizations from
meeting the need that exists on their lands. As a result, numerous
homes on Native American lands continue to be overcrowded. According to
2010 U.S. Census data, of homes on Native American lands, 8.8 percent
are crowded compared to 3.0 percent nationwide. It is important to
remember as well that census surveys typically undercount and under
survey populations on the reservations. \1\ This reluctance to
participate in surveys stems from remnants of American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian mistrust of the Federal Government. For
example, in Charles Mix County, South Dakota, home to the Yankton Sioux
Reservation, census data indicate that 2,893 of the 9,129 county
residents are American Indian, but according to tribal enrollment on
the reservation, the number should be closer to 3,500. As a result, the
need on tribal lands is often more than appears in official statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brandert, Melanie. 2011. SD native leaders divided on census
data. The New Republic. February 22. Available on the World Wide Web:
www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/contentEmail/id/50371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stagnant funding is a concern that will only grow with time as
Native American lands have a significantly higher population of
children than the nation overall. According to 2010 census data, 30
percent of the population on Native American lands is under 17 years of
age, compared to 24.6 percent nationwide. Housing is more than shelter;
it is directly linked to security, health, and social and mental well-
being. Crowding on tribal lands exacerbates the substandard living
conditions that often exist therein. Social issues including lower
educational attainment, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child
abuse and neglect can be influenced by crowded conditions. Crowding
affects health as well. Diseases such as increased incidences of
tuberculosis, pneumonia, gastrointestinal disorders, head lice,
conjunctivitis, and hepatitis among others can stem from crowded living
conditions. Not only do substandard and crowded conditions negatively
affect children, but they will require even more housing as they get
married and have their own families down the line. This will require
more funding than what is currently available. HAC is aware that
currently some tribal NAHASDA funds remain unspent. This is not due to
a lack of need, however, but instead demonstrative of the importance
and need for flexibility and training and technical assistance (TTA)
for TDHEs. Increased flexibility will benefit tribes and allow them to
shape TTA sessions around their needs.
Due to undercounts, HAC worries that federal efforts to determine
housing need across Indian Country may fall short. Through our work
with tribal housing organizations and our analyses of Census and
American Community Survey data specifically on tribal lands, we have
seen glaring undercounts of tribal populations and housing needs. We
suggest providing more flexibility to tribes to enumerate their
populations to demonstrate their need. Tribal members may be less
hesitant to respond to surveys from tribal leaders than those from the
Federal Government.
Tribal lands often have significantly higher unemployment rates
than the nation as a whole and poverty is often wide-spread. In fact,
according to American Community Survey data, poverty rates on tribal
lands are nearly double the national rate. As such, rents are often
burdensome for many residents who cannot pay minimal rates. HAC
recommends more flexibility for TDHEs to use and spend funds in ways
they determine to be most appropriate for their residents and housing
operations.
Conclusion
HAC would again like to thank the Committee on Indian Affairs for
holding this Oversight hearing to identify barriers to Indian housing
development and for the opportunity to provide this testimony for the
record. HAC asks the subcommittee, and the Congress, to reauthorize
NAHASDA, but include amendments that further push Native American
housing self-determination. Tribes themselves are best at identifying
and determining their needs and should be allowed to do so with as
little micromanagement as possible. For the program to see success, it
must be adequately funded. The housing need in Indian country is great.
We appreciate your efforts in addressing this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Housing Authority
The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Housing Authority are
grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony for the Committee's
hearing on ``Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and
Finding Solutions.'' This topic is of utmost importance to us as
housing needs are great on the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is the largest reservation in
California, covering approximately 144 square miles in the remote and
mountainous area of Humboldt County. We have approximately 3,006 tribal
members, the majority of whom live on the Reservation. Our Tribal
Government runs several programs, exercising our sovereignty and
serving the needs of our members. The Hoopa Valley Housing Authority
(HVHA) was created under tribal law in 1968 to address the housing
needs of our people. The HVHA has been in existence since that time
assisting eligible persons obtain safe, sanitary and adequate housing.
The most significant act facilitating the promotion of housing
development in Indian Country is the Native American Housing and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA). NAHASDA's goals include: (1) affirming
tribal self-determination by giving tribes the ability and
responsibility to strategically plan their own communities'
development; (2) providing the maximum amount of flexibility in the use
of housing dollars, within strict accountability standards; (3)
allowing for innovation and local problem-solving capabilities that are
crucial to the success of any community-based strategy; and (4)
avoiding over-burdening Tribes and housing authorities with excessive
regulation.
NAHASDA is unique in that its recipients have the flexibility to
use funding in a variety of ways, depending on which strategies will
most effectively address the unique housing needs of the people they
serve. The Act is based on the concept that tribes themselves are in
the best position to develop solutions to the problems they face.
NAHASDA's flexibility, local control concepts and strong root in self-
determination are very important to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which was
one of the first tier of self-governance tribes and the first in the
nation to have its compact with the United States signed.
NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 and expires on September 30,
2013. It has been a success for Indian Country housing; it is effective
and efficient. But this hearing provides a perfect opportunity to
identify areas where the Act can be improved so that we can do even
more in our effort to meet the extreme needs for housing in Indian
Country.
The Hoopa Valley Housing Authority
The HVHA is the Tribe's tribally designated housing entity and is
the recipient of the Tribe's Indian Housing Block Grant Funds under
NAHASDA. The HVHA has been able to use the tools of NAHASDA toward
meeting the housing needs on the Reservation. The HVHA's mission is to
provide the tribal membership with the opportunity for safe, sanitary
and affordable housing by way of new construction, acquisition,
rehabilitation and maintenance of existing houses. Our work not only
meets the fundamental housing need of families and individuals, but it
also promotes jobs and economic self-sufficiency along with the
enhancement of quality of life with a direct relationship to our unique
culture and traditional values.
The HVHA employs 15 people. It offers a range of housing programs
and opportunities for eligible persons. These programs include the
construction and management of units of affordable housing to serve
low-income members, and rehabilitation and modernization of Current
Assisted Stock and other homes. We also provide housing units to 222
Tribal member families; 155 are homeownership units and 67 are low rent
units.
Nevertheless, even with our several programs and efforts, our needs
are extreme. The housing market on the Reservation is nearly non-
existent. Because the reservation is in such a remote area, there is
very little housing stock to acquire and the homes that are available
are in substandard condition. The majority of all housing on the
Reservation has been financed through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The HVHA has over
200 qualified applicants in need of a home and even more that are in
need of rehabilitation or modernization on their existing units.
Barriers to Indian Housing Development
Inadequate Funding
Inadequate Funding is the biggest barrier to providing safe and
affordable housing in Indian Country. The Indian Housing Block Grant
(IHBG) program, the mechanism for funding housing programs in Indian
Country, must be funded at adequate levels. Currently and historically,
the appropriations levels have been far below need and have not even
kept par with inflation, resulting in decreases in real dollars in the
last few years. Sequestration adds to our concerns about the impact of
insufficient funding on our programs.
The allocation HVHA receives is far too small to meet the needs of
our Reservation. The allocation for new development is only about $600-
700k. This is simply not enough as it would only allow for the
development of 2 to 3 houses. While this would be considered progress
to get families in a home, alleviating our need does not truly occur
as, by the time these few homes are ready for families at the top of
the waiting list, that amount of families or more would join the bottom
of the waiting list. Even with all our work, the need remains constant
as new families come in requiring assistance and join the list.
Further, the allocation that many tribes receive is not enough to
complete a major project. The Hoopa Tribe is need of major projects to
address the limited housing opportunities on the Reservation. The HVHA
is currently working on a major new construction project along with
three elder projects and modernization of Current Assisted Stock. Our
allocation is just not large enough to complete a major project such as
the one the HVHA is working on with one year's worth of allocation. The
HVHA needs to save its allocations up year to year to have enough
funding to embark on a project such as our Campbell Field Subdivision
Project, which will add up to 10 rental duplexes and up to 13 single
family homeownership units to our existing stock of affordable homes.
We understand that some in Congress have raised the issue of
``unexpended'' obligated IHBG funds. The majority of tribes, including
Hoopa, do not have problems spending down NAHASDA monies in a timely
manner. In fact, we understand that overall NAHASDA has a very
efficient spend-down rate. However, we also understand that logistical
and bureaucratic obstacles can slow the actual spending of the money.
The HVHA complies with the LOCCS draw-downs, and runs on an accrual
accounting basis. We do not draw funds until the back-up documentation
is prepared to support the amount of the draw. Having said this, HVHA
is prepared to draw down a substantial amount of funds based on
processed payment and checks that have already been applied to the
bank. Further and significantly, the HVHA has signed contracts in place
for the Campbell Field Expansion project consisting of 3 single family
rental units, the 3 private elder home rehabilitation projects and the
modernization projects for our Current Assisted Stock.
At Hoopa, however, the IHBG funds are planned for and the project
depends on this funding. The issue has been that for small tribes the
allocation is just not large enough for such major projects and funds
need to be banked until a certain threshold amount is available to
allow moving forward with the project.
Duplicative and Inconsistent Federal Requirements
Duplicative and inconsistent federal requirements in the housing
arena create substantial administrative burdens for tribes and tribally
designated housing entities like the HVHA. They also cause delay in
project initiation and completion. Since IHBG funding amounts are not
adequate to cover costs of entire projects, many times tribes will seek
out funding from other federal agencies to add to the IHBG amounts.
This is a good practice as it leverages funding from NAHASDA, but it
becomes problematic in implementation because the federal regulations
governing the funding often overlap, forcing the recipient to comply
with two sets of requirements. Compounding the problem is that
sometimes these different requirements are inconsistent. For instance,
the regulations for the NAHASDA IHBG funds and the regulations for the
Rural Housing and Economic Development Grant are inconsistent in
several areas, including in the use of Indian preference and in
environmental reviews.
Further, for the HVHA most of our housing is built on leased trust
lands. With this, the HVHA is bound by the leasing requirements imposed
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs which has its own environmental review
requirements. With this, HVHA projects can be subject to at least 2 and
sometimes more environmental reviews, each of which must adhere to the
specific criteria set forth by the different agencies involved. These
circumstances result in administrative and management burdens and
additional costs, which can lead to significant delay in embarking on
or carrying out a project.
HVHA would support an amendment to NAHASDA that would allow for the
environmental review requirements of NAHASDA for the project even when
funding is provided by other federal agencies.
Conclusion
The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the HVHA appreciate the opportunity to
submit testimony for this important hearing. We look forward to working
with the Committee on the reauthorization of NAHASDA.
______
Prepared Statement of Ricardo Worl, President, Tlingit Haida Regional
Housing Authority (THRHA)
My name is Ricardo Worl, I am the President of Tlingit Haida
Regional Housing Authority (THRHA), and also a member of the Tlingit
tribe and the Shungukeidee (Thunderbird) clan from the village of
Klukwan. I started working for THRHA as the Mortgage Loan Program
Manager in 1999, a year after NAHASDA was enacted.
THRHA receives about $7 million annually in NAHASDA funds on behalf
of 12 tribes (villages) in the Southeast region of Alaska. The 12
communities we serve are spread out over an area about the size of
Pennsylvania, have populations of less than 3,000 and can only be
accessed by water or aircraft.
NAHASDA Works In Our Region
THRHA has put HUD money to work and into direct services for the
roughly 9,000 tribal members in our region. THRHA actively provides the
following NAHASDA housing programs:
1) New Construction
2) Mortgage Loan Financing
3) Down Payment Assistance
4) Rental Acquisition
5) Senior Housing
6) Student Housing Vouchers
7) Energy Efficiency and Emergency Repairs
8) Financial Literacy and Energy Conservation classes
9) Transitional Housing
10) Alternative Energy heating systems
The 20 percent allocated for administration is not sufficient to
cover the actual costs of running this many programs in this many
communities. THRHA is able to subsidize administrative costs with other
grants and revenue sources. For every $1 spent of NAHASDA funds, we are
able to leverage with $3 to $4 dollars of other funds from the state or
private sector.
Flat Funding is a Barrier and Poses Financial Challenge
Federal NAHASDA appropriation amounts have essentially remained
unchanged since 1998. When we take into consideration the fact that
there were no adjustments for inflation, the net effect is an 11
percent reduction in NAHASDA funds since inception.
Adding to the challenge of flat funding is the fact that the
NAHASDA funding formula does not provide subsidies for operating and
maintaining newly constructed or acquired units. Regulations limit the
units to low-income families and payments to 30 percent of household
income thereby eliminating the ability to produce sufficient rent
revenue to offset the cost of operations. The result is tribes are
forced to use their annual NAHASDA allocations to pay for operating
costs or rent subsidies instead of new development. Any further
reductions to NAHASDA funding will pose even greater financial hardship
on a housing program that is proven to be effective.
Our NAHASDA Programs Are Designed to Break the Cycle of Poverty and
Dependency
THRHA's NAHASDA housing programs and tenant policies are designed
promote financial independence and self-reliance. We have eliminated
outdated HUD policies that enabled a culture of dependence. THRHA
provides incentives for tenants who learn the value of using the home
as an asset to get ahead and break the cycle of poverty that has
plagued Indian country for generations.
In addition to housing, NAHASDA funds provide jobs and economic
opportunity to our small rural communities. The NAHASDA allocations for
each community are commonly greater than the local government's total
annual budget! THRHA leverages its funds with a strong partnership with
the State of Alaska and through private sector financing with regional
banks.
The Solution: More Funding, Not Less, Please
We finally have a system that works for tribal housing. NAHASDA is
not perfect but we have maximized its efficiency and impact in direct
services to clients while at the same time empowering tribes in the
decisionmaking process. Placing a cap or reducing NAHASDA funding is a
step backwards and will likely cost us more in the long run.
______
Prepared Statement of James W. Zion, Attorney and Jurisconsult
During the course of yesterday's hearing there was a discussion of
tax credits and section 184 housing, and as you asked Rodger Boyd about
the data base his department keeps to show needs assessments, and he
explained its shortcomings, you observed that too often the Committee
hears one thing in Washington, and it hears something quite different
when visiting Indian Country. That is a very true comment, and I want
to build on it as I relate the views of a client to supplement the
record of the hearing.
My client is the ``Navajo Public-Private Partner,'' called that
after the provision in section 101 of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 that requires all
grantees to ``make all reasonable efforts . . . to maximize
participation by the private sector, including nonprofit organizations
and for-profit entities, in implementing the approved housing plan.''
This organization is a coalition of ten Navajo grassroots organizations
that came together for the common purpose of supporting Navajo Nation
government in the case of Navajo Housing Authority v. Resources and
Development Committee, No. WR-CV-218-2012 (Navajo Nation Window Rock
District Court, 2013).
The Resources and Development Committee of the Navajo Nation
Council exercises oversight over the Navajo Housing Authority on behalf
of Navajo Nation government and the Authority disputed committee action
on the approval of commissioners on the ground that some of its
commissioners had a ``liberty'' interest to office, although their
terms expired. The District Court, exercising great caution, entered a
preliminary injunction against the Committee and required it to enter
into discussions with the Authority for six months. Members of the
Navajo Nation Council rightfully introduced legislation to clarify the
authority of the Committee over appointments to the Navajo Housing
Authority's board of commissioners, make oversight jurisdiction over
the authority clear and consider a measure to strip the Navajo Housing
Authority of its designation as the Navajo Nation's tribally designated
housing entity (under NAHASDA), so the Authority charged the
Committee's members with contempt of court.
The Navajo Public-Private Partner entered the case to relate the
Navajo Housing Authority's failure to do equity and comply with the law
as an equitable ground to deny relief and dismiss the action. There was
a hearing, and on March 19, 2013 Judge Carol K. Perry dissolved the
injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have standing to
complain of any aggrievement. The Navajo Public-Private Partner is
primarily a grassroots coalition of organizations and it has supporters
who could not be named out of fear of retaliation by the Navajo Housing
Authority. They include at least two community development
corporations, some private developers and one builder, so the
``Partner'' is truly representative of ``the private sector'' of the
Navajo Nation. We note that there is discussion about the re-
authorization of appropriations under section 108 of NAHASDA and we
believe that the hearing, and other activities on housing in
Washington, signal the beginning of that process.
To build on your comment about the disconnect between what the
Committee is told in Washington and what is actually happening in
Indian Country on housing, we raise these points:
1. There is no ``partnership'' or ``public participation'' as
required by Section 101
Dine' bi Siihasin, one of the members of the partnership, wrote to
the Regional Director of HUD Indian Housing Programs in Denver (who has
assisting the Navajo Housing Authority with budget issues) complaining
of violation of the participation provision of section 101 and he
agreed that the Navajo Housing Authority was not in compliance.
It is unfortunate that the structure of NAHASDA is one where the
only interface is between tribes or their designated housing entity and
HUD, the public cannot rely on HUD to protect their interests (given
``self-determination'' provisions as a barrier), and there is no
statutory command for effective public participation, notice,
involvement, transparency or accountability.
Public pleas to be informed of Navajo Housing Authority activities
are ignored, the Authority regularly ignores requests for information
under the Navajo Nation Privacy Act, one cannot identify the members of
the Authority's board of commissioners on its website, so the basic
principles of good governance mentioned in the prior paragraph do not
exist.
We believe that the situation is the same throughout Indian
Country, given the structure of the act and lack of enforcement of the
participation command.
2. The Indian Housing Plan and Annual Performance Report Process is
Badly Flawed
Section 102 of NAHASDA requires the submission of a one year
housing plan for review and approval at least 75 days before the
beginning of a housing program year. The plan has detailed information
that proposes housing activities for a given program year and
justification for the same. Section 103 has no provision for public
comment or appeal when HUD reviews such plans.
Section 404 of NAHASDA requires recipients to report on program
progress in carrying out the Indian housing plan after the close of a
fiscal year and that the report be made available to the public.
The experience with the Navajo Housing Authority is that its Indian
housing plans are developed in secret, there is no notice of review by
the Board of Commissioners and there is no public input when the plan
is presented for oversight committee review.
The HUD Inspector General commanded the Authority to develop an
adequate statement of needs, to genuinely describe the manner of
geographical distribution of assistance under section 102(B)(2)(B) and
the Navajo Housing Authority has not done so in any meaningful manner.
It has spent millions of dollars for a purported needs assessment that
does not describe the need of the five agencies and the chapters and
the Navajo Housing Authority does not comply with capital improvement
legislation that requires notice, involvement and needs identification
by chapter governments. The Navajo Housing Authority set up an
artificial and meaningless division of its operations in five in-house
organizations and they are meaningless.
Annual performance reports are published only on the Navajo Housing
Authority web site and they are practically meaningless. Reviews of
past such reports shows that they are defective but no one in HUD seems
to be reading them and noting inadequacies.
We feel that, given the structure of NAHASDA to practically exclude
the public, Indian housing plans are meaningless and only a
bureaucratic exercise and reporting to the public is wholly inadequate.
There is no meaningful public involvement in either process.
3. Indian housing planning and implementation is not ``locally-
driven''
There are a few federal court decisions on Indian housing plans,
and at least two point to the provision in 24 C.F.R. 1000.220 on the
``minimum requirements for the IHP'' that ``An IHP should be locally
driven.'' That is not the case.
The Navajo Nation is divided into five large agencies and 110
localities called ``chapters,'' and many Indian nations have their
reservations or Indian areas divided into districts or identified local
communities. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee needs to ask whether
this regulatory command to assure that the annual Indian housing plan
is indeed ``locally driven'' is followed.
As mentioned, the Navajo Housing Authority does not follow the
command of the capital improvement statute that it notify the chapters
of proposed funding, plans, needs assessments, etc. and there is no
meaningful chapter input. This is likely the situation throughout
Indian Country.
4. There is no accountability or competence
The annual performance plan requirement is an attempt to have
accountability. One need only read the past annual performance plans
that are published on the Navajo Housing Authority web site and
particularly note the report of ``no'' goal accomplishments to wonder
what HUD does with such reports.
Another recent development in the Navajo Nation is the Navajo
Housing Authority aggressively litigating its exemption from suit,
including recent attempts to extend limitations to any private sector
suit against the Authority, to the point that the Navajo Nation Supreme
Court is speculating about the extent to which it should craft
exceptions for tenant and participant litigation.
The point is that HUD does not require that tribally designated
housing entities must comply with statutory requirements, there is no
protection of the public and there is no effective accountability. We
do approve the concept of self-determination, but if there are no
meaningful statutory provisions for accountability, access to court or
access to remedies when the law is broken, then there is no real
accountability.
The Navajo Housing Authority has bungled several projects, as is
apparent from at least two of its recent HUD Inspector General for
Audits reports, but one of the worst disasters was its defunding of a
project to complete a shelter for woman and child victims of family
violence in Shiprock. When the Navajo Housing Authority withdrew its
support, without adequate grounds or due process of law, Navajo Nation
government falsely used a determination by the NHA to block
construction. As a result, an expensive shelter for women remains
unfinished, at a large cost, and women and children are left without
adequate refuge. This is of course an issue related to violence against
Indian women and VAWA reauthorization. The Shiprock Home for Women and
Children has had no remedy against the Navajo Housing Authority, or
Navajo Nation government, because of sovereign immunity and no one has
held the Authority accountable for its actions.
5. The Indian Housing Program is not democratic or transparent
One of the apparent deficiencies in the federal Indian housing
statute on the books is that there are no commands or restrictions
regarding grantee transparency, effective notice, inclusion,
involvement, public information, accountability or effective remedies
such as to make Indian housing programs truly ``democratic'' and
responsive to the Indian public.
These are only small points that cover five subjects and we look
forward to the introduction of legislation to renew funding
authorizations for this program. Funding for Indian housing must not be
cut. It must be increased. The legislation must, as this hearing
brought out, encourage and command partnerships, leveraging of funding
and more innovative use of limited resources.
The problem, however, is that such is not done. These points were
covered in my clients' friend of court brief in the case described
above and my clients do want to be heard on future Indian housing
barrier and solution discussions.
Senator Cantwell, it is obvious from your comments to Mr. Boyd that
you know that something else is going on underneath the surface. The
Indian housing program is vital and self-determination is a proper
model. However there must be meaningful reforms to the program to make
it more democratic and responsive.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Housing Authority
The Navajo Housing Authority (NHA) is thankful for this opportunity
to submit testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs for the oversight hearing on, ``Identifying Barriers to Indian
Housing Development and Finding Solutions,'' held on April 10, 2013. We
appreciate the Committee's efforts to highlight the importance of
Indian housing, and to hold a hearing that examines the complexities
and innovative solutions to providing housing in Indian Country. The
NHA hopes that the Committee will find this testimony both informative
in grasping the housing development challenges on the Navajo Nation,
and to understand and appreciate the direction that NHA is headed in
helping to build sustainable and vibrant communities.
The NHA is the Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) for the
Navajo Nation. NHA is the largest Indian housing authority, and is
nearly the eighth largest public housing authority in the United
States. NHA is comparable in size to the public housing agency for the
City of Atlanta. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the
United States, with a total enrollment of approximately 300,048 tribal
members, and the reservation has a land-base of 26,897 square miles
that extends into the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Comprised of 375 employees and staff, NHA manages 8,026 housing
units that consist of approximately 3,882 public rental units and 4,144
homeownership units including 29 separate administrative facilities.
There are fifteen separate field offices and one residential Management
Corporation managed by NHA to deliver service to tribal members
residing within 110 Chapters (local regional government units) and
their surrounding communities. It is important to note that the NHA is
an anomaly in the public housing sector--there is no large-scale public
housing provider like NHA that operates in an expansive rural
reservation area with unique land issues.
The housing development challenges on the Navajo are complex
because of our sheer scale of operation, tribal land status and socio-
economic conditions.
The mission of NHA is Housing our Nation by Growing Sustainable
Communities. On May 1, 2013, the NHA will move into a new chapter in
its history as it celebrates its 50th year in operation. The 50th
anniversary of NHA will be more than a celebration of its past success,
but it will be a commencement to inaugurate a new vision for the next
50 years to come. This year alone NHA is on track to build and
modernize 537 homes across the Navajo Nation. After completing an
expansive scientifically based housing needs assessment in 2011, the
organization forged ahead on an initiative to create a sustainable
community master plan for the entire Navajo Nation--a master plan that
will help NHA execute large-scale housing development projects in the
coming years. Even more, the organization is expanding the veterans
housing program and transforming its homeownership program to include
individuals from low, moderate and high incomes, so that all Navajo
families can partake in the dream of homeownership. It is the goal of
NHA to help build a home for every Navajo family while strengthening
the socio-economic fabric of the Navajo Nation.
Indian Housing Drives Community and Economic Development
NHA understands that housing is a key component to community and
economic development. It establishes a foundation for positive growth
by increasing structure and security. As the availability of housing
helps sustain a growing population, it increases the chances of
establishing needs for better schools, better health care, more
business start-up opportunities, in turn, creating more jobs. In brief,
here are a few ways housing drives community and economic development.
Grows Infrastructure: In many Navajo communities on the
reservation there were no power-lines, telephone lines or even
roads before houses were constructed. Housing created the
infrastructure and helped further develop the communities.
Better Schools: Indian educators say that the lack of
housing impacts retention and recruitment of quality teachers,
therefore impacting the value of an education received on the
reservation.
More Businesses: More development creates more business
opportunities, such as gas stations, restaurants, fast food,
and other small businesses.
Creates Transportation: Housing creates transportation needs
for the community bringing roads to access schools, businesses,
and other developments. (i.e. roads need to be built which
requires personnel to oversee and maintain roads.)
Better Health Care: Indian health reports state that a major
cause to poor health care in Navajo communities is the
inability to attract and retain quality medical staff. This is
primarily due to the lack of housing on the reservation.
Grows the tax base: Housing facilitates business development
and job creation. More businesses and jobs create a healthy tax
base which in turn provides services to the Navajo people such
as schools, hospitals, public safety and roads.
Since housing impacts the community development and economic
growth, to fully build sustainable Navajo communities NHA is executing
strategies to create large-scale housing development that integrates
larger community and economic development goals.
Barriers to Housing Development on the Navajo Nation
While there are many barriers to housing development in Indian
Country, the NHA would like to focus attention on the larger unique
housing development challenges that exist on the Navajo Nation. Those
bigger challenges are the absence of large-scale land-use planning,
numerous federal and tribal regulations on land-use, lack of
infrastructure development, and scarcity of investment and funding for
housing and community development.
The Navajo reservation area is very rural and expansive, and most
of the land is predominantly trust land which brings with it
limitations on its immediate use, and this has been a major issue for
any housing or community developments efforts. Much of the reservation
lacks modern basic infrastructure, such as paved roads, electrical
power-lines, telecommunications, and potable water and sewer systems.
Providing this infrastructure is difficult because of the vast and
varied rustic nature of the land. Moreover, many of the smaller Navajo
communities do not have close access to healthcare or emergency
response systems, and schools. It is not uncommon for tribal members to
travel hours to see a doctor, seek social services, or to buy
groceries. Many Navajo children can spend countless hours on buses to
travel to-and-from their closest school.
The numerous and pervasive federal and tribal laws and regulations
over land use create undue delays in housing development projects. From
a federal compliance perspective NAHASDA is a very technical program
because any development requires complying with NAHASDA program
statutes and regulations, and a myriad of other applicable regulations.
The process of housing construction, including related infrastructure,
triggers other federal laws and their compliance with regulations and
oversight in several other federal agencies and funding partners. These
include, but are not limited to, environment reviews and clearances
(Environmental Protection Agency), procurement laws (Office of
Management and Budget), labor laws (Department of Labor), architecture/
engineering, contract laws and administration, building code compliance
and inspections, and among many other federal agency laws and
regulations. When it comes to leveraged financing, NHA must meet
outlined funding requirements from several federal agencies--including
the Department of Agriculture for rural housing, Department of
Transportation for road construction, IRS for Tax Credits, etc.
Attaining land leases for housing and infrastructure projects has
been a major barrier to timely housing development. However, the Navajo
government was a leader in successfully pushing for federal reform of
the federal land leasing guidelines in 2000 by having Congress enact
the Navajo Nation Trust Land Leasing Act (25 U.S.C. 415(e). The
Navajo Leasing Act authorizes the Navajo Nation to negotiate and enter
into lease agreements and renewals of leases of trust lands without the
requirement that the Secretary review and approve such leases. The Act
required the Navajo Nation to develop regulations governing such leases
including, among other requirements, 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. The
Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act
(HEARTH Act), which became law in 2012, was modeled after the Navajo
Leasing Act. Both laws change the face of leasing on Indian Country by
providing tribes local authority over leasing on tribal trust land.
While the Navajo government has pursued and gained federal reform,
leasing on Navajo trust land still holds some internal challenges.
Unlike other tribes, Navajo has a more traditional form of land-use
management that includes grazing rights arrangements in which familial
grazing areas continue to be recognized, and accepted. These ``rights''
to the land are afforded to some citizens. Moreover, the Navajo
government structure is largely decentralized with 110 regionalized
communities, called Chapter-governments, which have local authority
over most development within their jurisdiction. When undertaking any
housing project, the NHA consults and coordinates projects with the
local Chapter-governments to not only ensure that the project is
meeting its intended outcome, but to also coordinate land availability,
leasing authority, and collaboration for joint infrastructure
development.
Another major internal challenge to housing development is the
Navajo government's own review process for any major development
activity requiring tribal approval, and execution of contracts using
federal funds allocated to the Navajo Nation, or amendments to those
contracts. The process, known as the 164 review process, is outlined in
the Navajo Nation Code and was created to ensure proper internal
controls were provided for major activities. However, over the years
the process has become cumbersome. For any one housing project NHA may
engage in the 164 review process for the following approvals: site
selection and land withdrawal, execution of a memorandum of agreement
with a local Chapter-government, review and sign contracts to procure
an architectural and engineering firm and building contractor, and to
make any amendments to major contracts. The process can take anywhere
from a month to several months. According to an internal analysis, the
164 review process takes 68 percent of a project's time, leaving only
17 percent of the total time spent on actual construction. A housing
project could be stalled for months should there be a modification to
the project that requires an amendment to the contract. With short
building cycles and project timelines the 164 process can greater delay
a housing project--some projects may take anywhere from four to nine
years to complete.
The NHA was pleased to hear that on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, that
Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly had signed an executive order that
would streamline the 164 review process. Through signing Navajo Nation
Executive Order 07-2013 the Navajo President states that the review
process will be shortened to take no longer than one month, and the
measure strongly encourages the tribal government reviewers to provide
more timely reviews. The new process, which will be operational on July
1, 2013 is encouraging news to the NHA, and if successful will help to
shorten the internal delays caused by the tribal government review. It
is important for the Federal Government to understand that, unlike
other tribes, the Navajo Nation government is a large entity handling
considerable duties and responsibilities and its operations are
comparable in size to a state government. While NHA encourages the
Navajo government to streamline its internal processes, it also
understands the unique limitations that the government is placed in,
and will work in partnership with the tribal government to overcome
these internal challenges.
How NHA is Addressing the Housing Need
After experiencing a reorganization of the NHA in 2007, the new
leadership (including the Chief Executive Officer and the Board of
Commissioners) set on a path to create a multi-faceted approach to
address the unique internal and external barriers to housing
development on the Navajo Nation. NHA discovered that the organization
needed to launch several initiatives that would lay the groundwork for
large-scale sustainable housing and community development. First, the
organization figured it would start by assessing and analyzing its
current housing need on the Navajo Nation. From 2009 to 2011, the
organization completed a comprehensive scientifically sound housing
needs assessment study for the Navajo Nation. Simultaneously, the NHA
built a technologically advanced land information management system
that would provide a tool and resource for planning while meeting an
unmet need for flood plain maps. With these resources in hand, NHA took
the planning process a step further and began a monumental effort to
complete a sustainable community master plan for the entire Navajo
Nation that would aid in large scale housing development. And finally,
the organization initiated the development of an expanded homeownership
program that includes financing options for individuals and families
from low, moderate and high income levels.
Navajo Housing Needs Assessment Study
In 2008, NHA began planning its housing needs study to build a
gauge and a baseline to measure the housing need on the Navajo
reservation. No prior study had ever been completed. The overall
outcome that NHA desired was to have a comprehensive assessment
conducted through surveys, and to house a database system that would
serve as a repository of data that could be retrieved, sifted, screened
and analyzed. Based on numbers from the 2000 Census, there were
approximately 44,000 households on the reservation and it was the goal
to garner a 25 percent representative statistical sampling to achieve a
95 percent confidence level in the data. The firm Tribal Data
Resources, Inc. was retained to assist in the development of the
household survey instrument. 200 local Navajo community members were
hired as enumerators. Surveyors used Global Positioning System
technology to document rural Navajo home-sites that were not located in
existing housing projects or available maps.
The housing needs assessment study was completed in August 2011. It
is the first study of its kind ever conducted for the Navajo Nation
using a statistically sound representative sampling of family
households on the Navajo reservation. The study revealed astonishing
statistics--it showed that the Navajo Nation needs 34,100 new homes and
34,300 existing homes are in need of major repair. The total equates to
$9 billion in unmet need.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
It is ironic that subsequent to the launch of the NHA Housing Needs
Assessment Study, the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act was enacted,
which required HUD to perform a Housing Needs Study that will identify
Native American housing needs. HUD launched its study in 2010 but has
yet to even start its survey process, and is tied up in consultations
because tribes are concerned about the methodology and planned approach
of how the study is to be conducted and completed. The NHA will
recommend to HUD to attach the Navajo Nation Housing Needs study as a
supplement to the overall HUD Report, when completed.
NHA Land Information Management System
NHA undertook the daunting task and challenge of surveying the
Navajo Nation's 17 million acres of mountainous high desert terrain to
be incorporated into a sophisticated Land Information Management System
(LIMS). The main goal of the project was to create, collect, maintain
accurate floodplain delineation information and develop, implement and
maintain a modern land and geographic information management system
that is horizontally and vertically integrated and one that provides
useful quality data for NHA's housing development purposes. Prior to
the completion of the NHA-LIMS, the organization had to procure
entirely new floodplain maps for projects in a large portion of the
reservation because no maps existed. In other regions of the
reservation another problem existed because there were too many map
systems with no standardization of information. NHA's solution to both
problems was to create a unique coordinate system that covers the
entire Navajo Nation, thus in turn improving accuracy and efficiency
all while meeting Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS)
standards.
Broken into two phases, the project required ground control
surveying and digital aerial photography. Using a digital mapping
camera NHA's land survey department photographed the entire Navajo
Nation at a 2-foot resolution. Once the images were taken the next step
was to rectify the images for horizontal accuracy to meet Federal
Geodetic Data Committee and FGCS data accuracy standards. A total of
3,229 aerial images were taken which were then stitched together into
5,000 x 5,000 meter tiles. The final deliverable was a seamless image
of the entire Navajo Nation. Unlike other mapping applications such as
Google maps, which can provide an inconsistent mapping plane and odd
discolorations, NHA LIMS offers a seamless image of the Navajo Nation
with superior image resolution.
The second part of the project, Land Information Management System
and Data Integration, involved the analysis of certain computer system
requirements to ensure the stability of the LIMS. Next, documents of
the aerial data were then scanned into the LIMS programs followed by
the identification and incorporation of existing Navajo data layers,
which included Chapter-government boundaries, the Navajo road network
provided by the Navajo Department of Transportation, and the
integration of data on water, sewer, and electric infrastructure
provided by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.
Full implementation of the LIMS was completed in 2012. Some of the
applications the LIMS can be incorporated to include is a baseline
database for E911 and rural addressing, disaster recovery services,
parcel mapping, flood plain studies, master and land use planning,
cultural and historical preservation, utilities mapping, asset tracking
(including title conveyance and home-site leases), project survey
control, tree and vegetation delineation, Navajo Nation road inventory,
natural resources management, residential development, realty, land
records management, land title plant, topographic and planimetric
mapping, elevation modeling, volumetric inventories, and NHA
enforcement and geospatial data validation. The LIMS program will
provide an array of professional land & geographic information
management services. Its uses are limitless. Overall, the project will
improve NHA land records accuracy and minimize overall costs by
reducing duplication with promoting data compatibility to increase
efficiency and yield land information readily available to NHA housing
development projects.
Navajo Nation Sustainable Community Master Plan
The data revealed from the Navajo Housing needs assessment study
showed a huge unmet need in housing, but it also painted an across-the-
board picture of the demographics of the entire Navajo populace, and a
snapshot of every community on the reservation. The impetus for this
major first-ever initiative was due to the fact that NHA had no more
withdrawn land to build homes, and development was limited to only in-
fill development; however, there was a tremendous documented housing
need. Additionally, infrastructure is the costliest component for
development and NHA needed to share costs for integrated infrastructure
for not only housing but local community and economic development in a
regional setting approach. The NHA leadership understood that using
smart growth principles optimizes land use with the underlying goal of
sustainability in mind.
The project was started a year ago, and to date Swaback Partners,
PLLC, lead by Vernon Swaback, has completed 5 agency kick-off meetings,
24 regional workshops and has delivered 110 community master planning
manuals to each of the 110 Chapter-governments. In addition to the 5
agency meetings and the 24 regional workshops, Swaback also held a
workshop for students at the Arizona State University to gather input
and perspectives from the youth on what they envision their Navajo
communities to look like in the future. ``We wanted to hear from the
youth because they are a huge part of the community,'' said NHA CEO,
Aneva J. Yazzie. ``The youth are our future leaders, they are going to
be the future community members and workers.''
For fiscal planning it was important for NHA to know how many
houses the organization is going to build five to ten years down the
road, and how much it is going to cost. In the past, NHA has focused
its efforts on low income housing but the vision is to build
apartments, employee housing, offer mortgage programs, and clustered
housing to serve families from all income levels. Another goal with the
master plans is to entertain and explore the idea of clustered style
housing complexes.
Vernon D. Swaback, managing partner of Swaback Partners is leading
the project. At age, 17, Swaback was the youngest apprentice of Frank
Lloyd Wright a famous American architect, interior designer, writer and
educator. Swaback Partners brought together 30 years of extensive
experience working with a broad spectrum of groups on community master
plans within the United States primarily within the greater southwest.
NHA Expanded Homeownership Program
The NHA Housing Needs Assessment study showed that approximately 75
percent of the tribal population had very low income levels below the
poverty level. This information correlates with the high unemployment
rate of 65 percent on the Navajo Nation. The remaining 25 percent of
the tribal population are non-low income and yet, there is no housing
for those that had middle to high incomes--which include Navajo
professionals and essential personnel like doctors, nurses, teachers,
firefighters, police workers, etc. With the ever constrained federal
funding level, NHA had to strategize on delivering housing among the
two extremes of need.
As a result, NHA developed a policy to expand its housing services
to provide housing for ALL ranges of income. NHA had already adopted an
Essential Personnel Policy and will soon adopt a homeownership program
policy for non-low income families/individuals so that deep subsidies
on one end of the pendulum can be offset by revenue stream netted from
assisting the highest income families using private financing. NHA will
also set internal controls to separate the revenue streams of income
from public/private leveraged financing.
The new homeownership program policy was adopted by the NHA Board
of Commissioners in March 2013. NHA is now enhancing its in-house
capacities with professions that have the particular skill-set for
mortgage underwriting/financing, loan servicing and homeownership
counseling. Once this capacity is fully attained, NHA will execute an
intensive public education and outreach to its communities of the new
homeownership program. Those having home site leases with utilities
lines nearby will be amongst the first wave of clients to receive
assistance.
The leveraged financing will primarily be sought from the private
financial sector via the HUD Section 184 mortgage loan guarantee
program. Other federal program resources will be sought to leverage
NAHASDA dollars to optimize and maximize housing services delivery.
In light of the outcome of the sustainable community master
planning initiative, NHA sponsored its first-ever Funders Forum in
November 2012. Major banking and financing institution that have an
established record of working in Indian housing attended the event,
including representatives from the Department of Agriculture and HUD
officials. All attendees expressed their interest in working with NHA
given its demonstrated management and financial capacities. A minimum
of half a billion dollars is expected to be attained through leveraged
financing to build new homes and related utility infrastructure.
Conclusion
NHA strongly believes that the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) is an effective program, and
overall tribes have spent nearly 90 percent of the federal funds
allocated to the program--NHA itself has a fairly good expenditure rate
of approximately 68 percent overall. However, it must be noted that
whenever one compares the Navajo Housing Authority to any other Indian
Housing entity they must consider the sheer differences in size,
regions, and nature of the programs. It is known that NHA is an anomaly
within HUD--it is the largest Indian housing authority and when
compared to public housing it would be considered the eighth largest
public housing authority in the nation. It also known that providing
housing in any rural setting is grueling, but Navajo experiences
unique, complex and large-scale challenges when providing housing over
a 27,000 square mile area.
Like many of our colleagues in Indian housing, the NHA participated
in the development of the consensus position for the NAHASDA
Reauthorization. As part of that consensus position NHA believes that
provisions of the position should be included in the reauthorization
and that proposals to alter or change the Indian Housing Block Grant
(IHBG) funding formula or the process of formula negotiated rulemaking
should be vehemently opposed by the U.S. Senate. We believe that any
changes to the formula should be made in negotiated rulemaking amongst
tribes who are the IHBG recipients. Any attempt to change that process
would violate the tribal government-to-government consultation process
that is the foundation of federal Indian policy.
The Navajo Nation experiences a severe need for housing, the recent
comprehensive Navajo Housing Needs Assessment Study showed a need for
34,100 new housing units, and an additional 34,300 existing housing
units need extensive major repairs--the total needs amount to a minimum
of $9 billion. On average Navajo receives $90 million a year from the
Indian Housing Block Grant, however, a large portion of those funds are
used to maintain current existing housing units and the remaining
amount is used for new construction, planning and administration, model
projects, crime prevention, and other housing services. To meet the
unmet housing needs on the Navajo Nation and within Indian Country, the
Federal Government would need to make vigorous investment into housing
development in tribal communities. Unfortunately it is the reality that
without the direct federal investment for housing in tribal
communities, Indian Country will struggle to continue keeping pace with
the mainstream housing sector.
NHA appreciates the opportunity to provide you this written
testimony for the record, and would be please to answer any questions
that the Committee or the Senate may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary J. Cooper, Executive Director, Housing
Authority of the Cherokee Nation
Introduction
Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished
members of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA).
My name is Gary J. Cooper and I serve as the Executive Director of the
Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation. On behalf of the Cherokee
Nation, the Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and
the Cherokee people, thank you for holding this important oversight
hearing, which could not be more appropriate or timely as discussions
begin here on Capitol Hill surrounding the reauthorization of the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, known as
``NAHASDA''. On behalf of the Cherokee Nation, I submit the following
comments for inclusion in the record of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing held on April 10, 2013, entitled
``Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding
Solutions''.
The Cherokee Nation (CN) is the federally recognized government of
the Cherokee people and has inherent sovereign status recognized by
treaty and law. The seat of tribal government is the W.W. Keeler
Complex near Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the CN. With more than
300,000 citizens, over 8,000 employees and a variety of tribal
enterprises ranging from aerospace and defense contracts to
entertainment venues, CN is one of the largest employers in northeast
Oklahoma and the largest tribal nation in the United States.
The Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (HACN) is
an Indian Housing Authority established in 1966, under the Oklahoma
Indian Housing Authority Act. HACN is governed by a five member Board
of Commissioners, nominated by the Principal Chief and approved by the
Council of the CN.
Both the CN and HACN provide services under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA).
Services are provided in the tribal jurisdictional service area of the
CN which covers a geographical area of over 7,000 square miles in
northeastern Oklahoma. It includes all of eight counties and portions
of another six. The fourteen counties within the CN are: Adair,
Cherokee, Craig, Delaware, McIntosh, Mayes, Muskogee, Nowata, Ottawa,
Rogers, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington.
As an Indian Housing Authority, established under state law, HACN
shares a unique relationship with the city and county governments
across the CN. Intergovernmental cooperative agreements are in place
with every county and most towns within this area. All land held in the
HACN's name is held in fee simple status, with HACN making annual
payments in lieu of tax. Oklahoma is unique in that no reservations are
in the state. Our assisted units are frequently located in the same
neighborhood as non-Indians.
Background
The CN and all Oklahoma tribes are unique in that we do not have
reservations or an exclusive land base. The CN operates within an area
referred to as the Tribal Jurisdictional Service Area (TJSA), which
stretches across 7,000 square miles of northeast Oklahoma. This area
was the new home to the Cherokee's after our forced removal from our
homeland in the southeastern United States during the ``Trail of
Tears''.
Today, the Cherokees co-exist with people of nearly every
ethnicity. Some Cherokee lands may be bordered on four sides by land
owned by non-Cherokees or non-Native Americans. Cherokee children
attend public schools with non-Cherokees and many non-Cherokees benefit
directly and indirectly because of the good work provided by the CN.
Infrastructure improvements to rural water systems that benefit
Cherokees and non tribal members in the region are an example of the
cooperative efforts that combine the resources of multiple governments
to provide safe sanitary water for all. This ``spill-over effect'' has
a tremendous impact that benefits all residents living in Northeast
Oklahoma.
Based on 2010 Census data, within the CN TJSA resides some 193,030
American Indian/Alaska Native households. The overwhelming majority of
that number is estimated to be Cherokee. Census data also estimates
that over 18 percent of the people residing within the TJSA are below
the poverty level. The NAHASDA program uses 80 percent of the National
Median Income (NMI) as a basis for services, while the Section 184 Loan
Guarantee Program does not have an income limit. The Poverty Status in
the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, estimates the poverty rate
amongst Native Americans in CN to be 21 percent.
HACN Managed Housing Units
At the end of fiscal year 2012, HACN owned and managed over 2,000
housing units available for rent to Native American families. These
units consist of 1937 Housing Act units and NAHASDA units, available
for rental or homeownership opportunities.
HACN owns and manages 903 units that are over thirty-one years old,
with the oldest being built in 1969. This number doesn't include
twenty-five units that were old Army barracks, trucked in and made
available for housing in 1968. Those 25 units were approved in an
amended Indian Housing Plan to be demolished and rebuilt in another
location. Many problems exist with those units, including some that
have tested positive for asbestos. HACN has relocated the families who
resided in these units, and is working towards being able to demolish
and rebuild.
Due to the aging stock of our rental units, maintenance costs
continue to rise. Additional money is set aside to modernize these
units each year. However, the fact still remains that as the units
continue to age, costs for upkeep will continue to rise, and regardless
of the improvements made, the units are still of a traditional style
apartment comparative to the time constructed.
At the end of the last fiscal year, HACN owned and managed over
1,135 homeownership units. Many families are now becoming elderly and
require handicap accessibility. Some families still fall into the very,
very low income category and many times cannot afford to perform basic
maintenance. It becomes important to be able to invest modernization
funds into these units to assist low income families with handicap
accessibility and emergency repairs such as a leaky roof.
Rental Assistance Program
The HACN simply does not have enough units for every low income
Native American that needs a place to call home. HACN operates a Rental
Assistance Program (RAP) that is similar to the Section 8 program in
public housing. Under RAP, a low income family's rent becomes
subsidized for rental units on the open market. Due to the ability to
effectively manage housing programs, HACN ends up being able to assist
many more families than planned. HACN also offers a temporary rental
assistance program for families that need assistance for up to ninety
days. Under these two programs, HACN is able to subsidize nearly $4
million towards rental units for over 2500 families. Because of the
positive impact of RAP within CN communities, other public housing
programs are better able to serve other low income families.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Projects (LIHTC)
Historically, HACN has utilized LIHTC incentives to reduce the cost
it would normally incur to provide low income housing to elderly and
other low income families. This was accomplished by participating in
four partnerships which have built LIHTC projects in four qualified
areas of the CN. The projects comprise 155 housing units and are
managed by outside parties under management agreements as provided by
the partnership agreements. The HACN, through Cherokee Affordable
Housing, Inc. (CAH) is the general partner in each partnership. The
partnerships were created, applied for, and eventually received LIHTC's
through the Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority. The four projects
consist of Jay Senior Housing (elderly) located in Jay, OK; Stilwell
Sr. Housing (elderly) located in Stilwell, OK; Wisdom Keepers (elderly)
located in Tahlequah, OK; and Northview Estates (single family) located
in Vian, OK. These projects not only provide low income housing for
Native Americans, but also for any eligible low income family. Because
of the highly competitive nature, lack of a Native American set-aside,
and limited funding of the LITHC incentives, HACN has not applied for
the program in over a decade.
NAHASDA Title VI Loan Program
In July of 2002, the CN, HACN, Bank One, N.A. (now JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development entered into a Title VI loan agreement, under the
authorization of NAHASDA whereby the Nation was authorized to borrow up
to $50 million for purpose of enabling HACN to construct single family
residences within the TJSA. Through supplemental agreements and the
final notes, the cumulative amount of funds drawn was $33,231,000 for
the program. The final project allowed HACN to construct or acquire
single family units for income eligible Native American families within
the CN. The outstanding loan balance at September 30, 2012 totaled
$13,039,002.
Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program
HACN has used the Section 184 program to acquire an additional $1.3
million in property to assist eligible families with housing
opportunities. This includes one quad-plex rental unit that is located
near the Indian Health Services Claremore Indian Hospital.
HACN is currently working to construct homes under a new program.
This program will allow for Section 184 Loans to be used to construct
new single family units within the CN. The plan would allow for HACN to
construct, through sub contracts for the construction, homes for
Cherokee families. The plan allows for family owned land to be
transferred to HACN for construction or to construct on land already
owned by HACN. Repayment would be through a rent to own agreement, with
the option for eligible families to assume the Section 184 mortgage in
the future. At full implementation, this plan is estimated to construct
at least 300 new homes per year, using Native American sub contractors
for the construction. The use of sub contractors allows for small
businesses to compete, but also for HACN to insure the quality of the
construction of each home. The program takes the best aspects and
practices of the HACN's nearly fifty years experience in Indian
Housing.
Barriers That Exist
Funding Availability
Unlike other funding contracted or compacted under P.L. 93-638,
Indian Housing funding has traditionally been at the discretion of the
Federal Government to make monies available under NAHASDA. For example,
we are now into our seventh month of the current fiscal year, HACN has
requested 25 percent of last year's appropriated funding and although
requested, that amount has not been made available for drawdown. In
fiscal year 2012, NAHASDA funds were not made available until the sixth
month of the fiscal year. No compact, similar to ones through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or Health and Human Services, exists to
maintain at least minimal levels of funding are available for Indian
Housing activities at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Accessibility to Other Funding Sources
While the HACN has accessed Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
funding in the past, there are no guarantees in place that ensure
funding specifically for Indian tribes. Therefore tribes must weigh the
costs of preparing a project for a LIHTC application and the
uncertainty receiving funding.
The Section 184 Loan Guarantee program is an excellent program for
tribes. However, the uncertainty of that program was realized recently
when HUD took the extreme action of ``temporarily'' suspending the
program. Not only were tribes affected, but many more individuals were
affected. Horror stories have been relayed by families that were under
contract and were forced to either seek funding somewhere else at
higher costs, or give up the ``American dream'' of homeownership
altogether.
The ability to participate in other programs not traditionally
offered to tribes would also be beneficial. This could include the HUD
pilot program of ``Moving to Work'' and many others. Outside of
NAHASDA, most housing programs are not offered to tribes for
participation. The ability of tribes to have the accessibility to other
types of housing funding would greatly increase the ability of all
Native Americans to access other leveraging opportunities.
Impact by Cherokee Nation During FY 2012
Although housing programs are offered to Cherokees and other Native
Americans, the economic impact stretches far beyond our families.
Rental assistance payments are paid on open market rentals, regardless
of an owner's ethnicity. Materials are procured from business that may
employ both Indians and non-Indians. Public utility bills may be paid
to utilities that employ non-tribal members or even support a state-
wide public enterprise. The economic impact from housing dollars
administered by the CN can have a dramatic impact in the regional
economy. During previous fiscal year, CN impacted the jurisdictional
area as follows:
Employed the equivalent of 331.66 full time employees in
permanent positions and 15.76 part time positions as part of
direct program costs.
Operated 944 low rent apartment units, across fifteen
communities in the CN.
Provided nearly $4 million in rental or temporary assistance
for over 2,500 families.
Provided for the rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of
dilapidated privately owned homes for 299 families.
Provided modernization funding to improve over 460 low rent
apartment; 36 homes; and handicap accessibility to 5 homes that
were owned and managed by HACN.
Provided drug awareness and crime prevention at 221 events,
as well as law enforcement and patrol activities for 913 HACN
owned/managed properties.
Provided transitional housing assistance to 2,373 families
to prevent homelessness or families from losing their homes.
Provided credit coaching, household budgeting, and self-
sufficiency counseling to 585 families. With the intended
purpose to increase credit worthiness and financial stability
to secure and maintain affordable housing. Provided additional
down payment and closing costs assistance to 117 families to
obtain residential mortgages.
Provided 1,423 youth, residing in HACN low income housing
units, with traditional, cultural leadership, and drug
elimination activities.
Provided 455 residents with job skills, case management, and
employment assistance programs.
Provided a career literacy center to assist residents with
basic skills to improve reading and math levels and GED
preparation.
Provided payment assistance to 605 families for assistance
with emergency rental payments, utility payments, or other
utility assistance.
Provided 45 college students with project based college
housing assistance at Northeastern State University as part of
a ``scholars program''.
Conclusion
Once again, thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso,
and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing me
to submit these statements regarding the challenges and potential
solutions to meeting the housing needs of Native people throughout
Indian Country. Your continued support of our efforts, including a
timely reauthorization of NAHASDA before the end of this fiscal year,
is truly appreciated. Myself and my staff at the Housing Authority of
the Cherokee Nation stand ready to assist you in any way that we can to
preserve and promote Indian Housing opportunities for future
generations.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ed Delgado, Chairman, Oneida Tribe of
Indians of Wisconsin
The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is grateful for the
opportunity to provide comments to the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs regarding the Native American Housing and Self-Determination
Act (NAHASDA) Reauthorization. Oneida has made great strides in the
area of affordable housing with federal funding received annually
through NAHASDA, however, improvements are still needed and could be
addressed through increased funding and modest programmatic changes.
Oneida is supportive of the legislative reforms presented in the
National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) draft language and
urges consideration and inclusion of these programmatic changes in
order to streamline process and increase efficiency to maximize Indian
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) dollars. We address below some of those
proposals that most dramatically impact Oneida and our ability to
adequately provide housing for our people. In summary, we are concerned
about the following:
Inadequate Funding--Proposed FY 2014 funding is 23 percent
below 1997 levels in today's dollars.
Burdensome Regulations--A cross-agency universal application
needs to be developed to reduce administrative burdens on
tribal housing agencies and federal bureaucrats.
Low Income Tax Credit Program--More flexibility needs to be
provided so tribes can meet debt obligations and encourage
broader development.
Alternative Economic Indicators Needed--Census track data does
not discretely define populations of Indian residents, causing
some tribal communities to become ineligible for certain
housing programs.
Inadequate Funding
The initial authorization for NAHASDA when it was made effective in
1997 was $592 million. In the 16+ years since passage of NAHASDA,
funding has remained essentially flat, as evidenced by the President's
FY14 budget proposal that continues NAHASDA funding at $650 million.
When accounting for inflation, a $650 million appropriation for tribal
housing is actually less funding than when the program was initially
authorized in 1996 ($841 million would be considered level funding).
While the funding level has remained the same, the need in Indian
Country is increasing. Grants through IHBG must be dedicated to the
operation and maintenance of existing housing and therefore results in
less funding to construct new units. There are many Oneida members who
live in other areas of Wisconsin and throughout the United States who
dream of making the reservation their home; however we lack the means
to provide them the opportunity to return.
The current Business Committee was elected to office in August,
2011, and has adopted the following mission for our term of office: In
3 years, this Oneida Business Committee will aggressively grow the
Oneida Indian Reservation as a beautiful, vibrant community where
hundreds of additional Oneida families live.
The membership of the Oneida Tribe consists of 16,789 Oneida
enrolled citizens. Of those, the amount of members 18 years old and
above is 13,433. There are 4,409 members living within the reservation
boundaries with 2,777 living in the surrounding counties of Brown and
Outagamie. There are 2,041 members who reside in the Milwaukee area and
an additional 2,151 members who reside within the State of Wisconsin,
outside of the reservation. Clearly, the Oneida Tribe has a vast Indian
population living in Wisconsin who may have a desire to return home.
Currently, Oneida families, single adults and adult couples in the
low-to-moderate income level continue to be the largest demographic in
need of housing. The Oneida Housing Authority (OHA) has two types of
housing available: rentals and homeownership. Renting is a viable
option for many families.
Single adult units are an unmet need. To address this need, the OHA
is in the process of constructing units for single adults. In addition,
OHA is constructing elderly cottages and elderly duplexes in the newly
developed Green Valley subdivision located in the heart of Oneida.
Burdensome Compliance Requirements
The OHA receives an annual appropriation from NAHASDA. However, OHA
is limited in their project scope. OHA continues to research a variety
of funding methods in order to leverage NAHASDA dollars. However, as
highlighted in the NAIHC draft document and in a number of testimonies
provided to the committee during the Tribal Housing hearing on April
10, 2013, the pooling of funds from various grant programs and federal
agencies results in burdensome and redundant compliance requirements.
Oneida supports the NAIHC recommendations to consolidate the
environmental review process and prevailing wage requirements.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
The Low Income Housing Tax Credits could be very beneficial to
assist with the creation of the development of mixed use/mixed income
neighborhoods, which would also offer a variety of resources for
infrastructure development. However, this program includes an
obligation to collect a certain amount of rental income; this is a
significant liability for the Tribe as a result of the 30 percent rule.
We cannot collect enough rent to sustain the amount that would be
obligated under the LIHTC program.
Census Data for Median Income
The Oneida Tribe has made a concerted effort to create a quality of
life in our community that provides our people with a vision for the
future and an appreciation for the rich cultural history and traditions
of our people. This is reflected throughout the Oneida community
through our buildings and community programs. It is our hope that we
will be able to continue to examine disadvantaged areas that are not
being served as needed. One particular area that we feel needs to be
addressed is the use of census data to allocate appropriate funding.
The Oneida Reservation is divided into multiple census tracks and we
believe the data from these census tracks greatly skew the American
Indian population data due to the inclusion of non-Indians. For
example, the median income, according to census data, is $65,962 for
the entire Oneida Reservation population, which includes American
Indians and non-Indians. However, when this data is broken down
further, the median income for when only the American Indian population
on the Oneida Reservation is included is $40,662. This $25.000
difference often results in Oneida becoming ineligible for various
State and Federal funding opportunities.
We look forward to continued dialogue as the reauthorization of
NAHASDA moves forward and would be happy to provide any additional
information and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit comments to the Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Brooks, Chairman, Lumbee Tribe of North
Carolina
The Lumbee have been working for decades to address housing
disparities for tribal members. The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina has
a population of approximately 55,000, of which approximately 42,000
live within the tribal service area in Southeast North Carolina. Since
2010, the Lumbee have constructed 35 homes and rehabilitated 110 homes.
In 2008, the Tribe leveraged $400,000 of NAHASDA funds to create a $7.5
million low income housing tax credit project. The project is comprised
of 50 single family energy star certified units with three bedrooms and
two baths. This was the first project of its kind in North Carolina. On
behalf of the Lumbee people, thank you for allowing me the opportunity
to provide this testimony to the United States Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs.
The purpose of this hearing is the ascertain information regarding
barriers to Indian housing development and solutions to eliminate those
barriers. Americans across the Country deserve to live in safe,
sanitary houses. In 1996, Congress recognized that the disparity of
housing in Indian Country was so great that new legislation was created
to address those needs. This legislation was unique in that it allowed
Indian Nations the ability to meet those needs in the most culturally
sensitive manner. In these economic times, Tribes understand that the
federal dollar is spread thin. However, legislative reform is necessary
to address the process of administering the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) allowing more
resources be spent on program activities rather than on reporting and
navigating administrative bureaucracy. The following testimony will
address some specific examples of the referenced reform.
Background
Prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, housing for Indian Country was
addressed through the 1937 Housing Act and other federal legislation.
These programs were rigid and cumbersome to use because the programs
lacked the flexibility required to meet housing needs in Indian
country. Tribes were forced to adopt housing models designed for urban
public housing programs who had differing population densities,
differing construction costs, and dramatically different cultural
issues faced by the population to be served. When NAHASDA was passed,
Indian country breathed a collective sigh. In one piece of legislation,
Congress strengthened the government-to-government relationship between
the United States and Tribes, reduced excessive regulation by
implementing tribal self-determination measures, and provided tribes
flexibility to determine the most efficient way to address their
individual tribal needs. The legislation maintained accountability for
federal funding by requiring strict reporting by Tribes and auditing
processes conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Summary of NAHASDA
NAHASDA recognizes the unique relationship between the Federal
Government and sovereign American Indian Nations, authorizing tribes to
address their distinct housing needs through various activities such as
construction, rehabilitation, modernization, rental assistance, lending
programs, crime prevention, and a host of other strategies. Unlike
previous housing programs, NAHASDA recognizes the Federal Government's
trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native peoples and
empowers tribes to exercise self-determination in the development and
implementation of strategies to address their particular housing needs.
Implementation and Impact
Tribal recipients of NAHASDA have the flexibility to use funding in
the manner that will most effectively address the unique housing needs
of the Native American people they serve. NAHASDA has enabled
recipients to build, acquire, and rehabilitate more than 110,000 homes.
Recipients have tripled the number of housing units that have been
developed or planned by Indian Country each year compared to those
planned or developed under the 1937 Housing Act.
NAHASDA allows recipients to use funding for activities other than
construction and development, including rental assistance, home loans,
housing or financial literacy counseling, and down payment assistance.
The Lumbee Tribe has used housing funds to create 50 units by
leveraging block grant funds with private dollars through the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit program. We led the country in the number of
HUD guaranteed Section 184 loans to allow individuals to attain
mortgage funds from private lenders. We have also used funds to provide
transitional housing for individuals who have lost their home due to
natural disaster.
HUD, through the Office of Native American Program, effectively
administers the program through technical assistance and being
available to discuss potential projects. HUD also performs detailed
audit site visits and monitors fund expenditures. With these protocols
in place, funding is both obligated and expended in an appropriate
manner by the tribal recipients.
When looking at the unexpended, unobligated funds issue, those
tribes have specific impediments preventing their expenditure of funds.
Those tribes have developed a plan to spend down the money, have
discussed this plan with HUD and have a timeline for accomplishing the
same. Tribes have regional obstacles to expend funds. Housing
development is a multi-year process and tribes should be given a
reasonable time to plan and build housing units based on the regional
obstacles facing their individual housing program. In general, tribal
spend-out rates are good.
Barriers and Solutions
Tribes have proven since the inception of NAHASDA that the program
works. The insurmountable obstacle for tribes is that funding for the
program has not kept up with inflationary rates. In order to address
housing needs in Indian Country, the NAHASDA program needs to be funded
at an appropriate level. Tribal Housing professionals see the need in
our tribal communities on a daily basis: homelessness, multiple
families crowded into one single family dwelling, and housing without
adequate utilities (heat, water and sanitation) are just a few
examples. Tribal leaders are heartbroken to see children born into and
elders die in these conditions. NAHASDA appropriations simply do not
provide enough money to go around. This funding insufficiency
unfortunately pits tribe against tribe, not because of commonality of
circumstance, but because each tribe has a fiduciary responsibility to
its membership: provide adequate housing. Everyone would like to get
more money from the process. It can feel like the process is broken
because each and every program is trying to meet a dire need and is not
getting enough money to do so. Everyone deserves more money, but the
funds that Congress provides are just too limited.
While tribes understand that in this economic environment
additional funding may not be a realistic goal, modest legislation
changes could enhance programmatic efficacy by reducing bureaucracy.
NAIHC's draft NAHASDA reauthorization bill contains numerous provisions
that would break down legislative/regulatory barriers. NAIHC's draft
bill is the result of more than a year of tribal outreach and is a
consensus-based product with broad support from the hundreds of NAIHC
member organizations. The draft provides Congress with various
opportunities to empower tribes to more efficiently deliver housing.
The Lumbee support the NAIHC reauthorization bill in its entirety, but
the following are key examples of changes suggested for the
reauthorization: (1) reform the 30 percent rule, (2) simplify the
Environmental Review Requirements, and (3) consolidate the federal
labor standards (TDW/Davis Bacon).
Summary
NAHASDA represents a point in history that will be remembered as a
date of positive change for Indian housing. The results speak for
themselves and cannot be equivocated. However, because of the lack of
funds and the level of need, housing conditions in Indian Country
remain some of the worst in the nation. To even make gains on the
worsening conditions, Tribes must be given more funding. In the absence
of additional funding, modest legislative reform must be adopted to
provide a modicum of opportunity to reduce barriers to the delivery of
housing in Indian country.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward Paul Torres, Governor, Pueblo of
Isleta
On behalf of the Pueblo of Isleta, located in Isleta New Mexico, I
am writing to ask your support of the reauthorization of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) of
1996 (Public Law 104-330) in the 113th Congress. Since 1998 when
NAHASDA was implemented, NAHASDA has been the primary means of
developing housing for low income Native American families. In the
Pueblo of Isleta, NAHASDA is the primary source of funding for the
development of new homes and the rehabilitation of traditional homes
and homes built under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.
The Pueblo of Isleta is one of nineteen Pueblos in New Mexico with
a population of over 5,200. The Isleta Pueblo is on an Indian
Reservation whose land is primarily held in trust by the Federal
Government. Isleta has 261 housing units for its resident population.
It has a housing shortage of 95 units. Approximately 50 percent of
Isleta households live in overcrowded conditions. Approximately 30
percent of all occupied homes are in substandard condition. Many
occupied traditional homes are in dire need of structural and other
improvements to meet habitability standards, including lack of
infrastructure.
The primary source of funding for housing development on the Isleta
Pueblo is the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) authorized under
NAHASDA. Isleta receives approximately $1 million of IHBG funds each
fiscal year to manage and maintain 90 units and build 7 new homes per
year. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the Pueblo of Isleta received
$1,004,463.
Isleta leverages its IHBG funds with program income and tribal
funds. Within the past two years, the Pueblo of Isleta Housing
Authority, who administers NAHASDA funds on behalf of the Isleta
Pueblo, has constructed 22 new homes using a combination of NAHASDA and
ARRA funds. The Isleta also used IHBG funds to rehabilitate 21 homes.
In calendar year 2012, Isleta completed 31 housing development and
rehabilitation projects for its community using IHBG funds. Isleta also
began with the construction of 9 new homes in 2012.
NAHASDA was drafted with the support of Indian tribes and their
tribally designated housing entities. NAHASDA recognizes the
government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. NAHASDA is the primary means by which the
United States fulfills its trust obligations to provide safe, quality,
and sanitary housing for low income Native Americans.
The Isleta Pueblo Housing Authority is a member of the National
American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), which represents the housing
interests of Native people who reside in Indian communities, Alaska
Native Villages, and on Native Hawaiian Home Lands. NAIHC has developed
a legislative proposal for the reauthorization of NAHASDA in FY 2013,
which includes amendments to NAHASDA. The amendments are proof that
NAHASDA is a living document, evolving through its use by Indian tribes
and in the spirit of cooperation between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes. The views of the Isleta Pueblo are represented in
NAIHC's legislative proposal for the reauthorization of NAHASDA which
has been submitted to Congress. We ask that you support the
reauthorization of NAHASDA in 2013 and the amendments to NAHASDA which
have been submitted by NAIHC.
I invite you to visit the Pueblo of Isleta to see firsthand the
homes being built and rehabilitated through NAHASDA.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Paul Iron Cloud
Question. Why do tribes find it necessary to do their own housing
needs assessments? Is accurate data available from HUD or other federal
agencies and, if not, why.
Answers. Federal efforts, including NAHASDA negotiated rulemaking,
continue to inaccurately determine the varying housing needs of tribal
members and fail to allocate federal funding appropriately. The U.S.
Census was a temporary data source selected by the NAHASDA Negotiated
Rule Making Committee in 1998. However, it does not by its design works
well in remote areas where most tribes are providing housing services
and therefore, undercounts the need and population. Also, the Census,
because of legal restrictions, cannot accurately identify enrolled
members of federally recognized tribes, who are by statute are to be
the primary beneficiaries of NAHASDA programs. Over the past fifteen
years HUD has not been able or willing to identify other sources of
uniform data for Indian areas that are capable of alleviating these
problems.
Today in many federal programs, funds are to be primarily awarded
based on the needs of enrolled tribal members. However, when U.S.
Census figures are used they do not count enrolled members, they no
longer determine things like housing conditions, they continue to
inaccurately count the number of persons on Indian reservations and
they are based on responses from people who self-identify themselves as
being Indian. Since local needs are not being properly determined,
grants and program funds are being inequitably and ineffectively
distributed among tribes.
It is for these reasons we at Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing and
four other tribal housing programs have taken the unusual step of
joining together to fashion a global positioning system (GPS) and
geographic information system (GIS) based local housing needs
assessment procedure. This is known as the Dakota Housing Needs
Assessment Pilot Project. After a year of joint activity we will each
conclude five local statistically accurate housing surveys and an
accompanying analysis this summer. If all NAHASDA recipients were
required to do this, and in a like manner, these tribal needs
assessments can produce accurate and useful local, regional and
national needs figures. More importantly, NAHASDA, and in particular
the Indian Housing Block Grant funding, could then be more accurate and
appropriate to the purposes of the Indian Housing Block Grants program.
We are also providing this Committee, along with others, a
recently-completed video of the Dakota Pilot Project which explains how
the Pilot Project has been implemented on the participating
reservations and what impact it can have.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tim Johnson to
Paul Iron Cloud
Question. How will tribes use the data collected by the Dakota
Pilot Project to improve reservation housing?
Answer. If this approach is utilized universally by all NAHASDA
recipients it will provide an economical, efficient and effective way
to satisfy the tribal member population and need count for the Indian
Housing Block Grant Program. In addition it can produce the following
additional benefits.
1. Provide accurate and appropriate formula data for other
federal funding allocations (e.g., transportation and roads),
2. Build on reverse 911 mapping programs to produce an
invaluable mapping and data collection process that tribes can
tailor and customize to address a wide variety of community
programs,
3. Establish a process that can be easily and periodically
repeated and updated,
4. If universally required of NAHASDA recipients, it can
provide not only a national picture of tribal member housing
needs but also give tribes, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and Congress the ability to better direct
housing funding and monitor the success of the NAHASDA program.
5. For the first time it will establish an accurate methodology
to quantify multiple households in a single housing unit and
better assess the overcrowded housing that plagues many tribal
populations,
6. Provide a platform and resources for conducting HUD's
national homeless count,
7. Give tribal housing programs incredible tools and capacity
to modernize their planning, development and management of
housing, and
8. Until universally mandated by NAHASDA, it allows tribes to
use it to efficiently perform a ``census challenge'' in the
Indian Housing Block Grant Program.
We believe that this Dakota Housing Needs Assessment Pilot Project
has nationwide application and can change how housing need is
determined on reservations and result in better allocation of federal
tribal housing funds. It is our hope that later this summer our Pilot
Project will be able to report to Congress, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Management and Budget, and our
fellow tribes that there is a housing needs assessment model that can
be universally conducted by all NAHASDA recipients.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to
Rodger J. Boyd
Question 1. In her written testimony, Ms. Cheryl Causley
[Chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing Council] suggests
that the various Federal housing resources be ``pooled'' to achieve
better economies of scale. This proposal is intended to improve
efficiencies by streamlining burdensome administrative requirements
from the multiple Federal funding streams. It is already being
implemented in labor and employment training programs for Indians. What
are your views on this proposal?
Answer. HUD supports streamlining programs and relieving burdensome
administrative requirements. The 2008 amendments to the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)
authorized ways in which this could be accomplished for Indian housing
while maintaining the appropriate level of oversight of the program by
HUD. HUD is currently exploring ways in which the environmental review
process among agencies can be streamlined along with working closely
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service
(IHS) on land and infrastructure matters.
Question 2. Ms. Annette Bryan [Executive Director, Puyallup Tribal
Housing Authority] states in her written testimony that when tribes
undertake construction projects involving multiple sources of Federal
funding, additional bureaucratic requirements and administration costs
are incurred. For example, when funding from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
Agriculture is blended for a construction project, three separate
environmental review requirements and different prevailing wage rates
apply. According to Ms. Bryan, the resulting administrative and legal
costs reduce the amount of funds available for constructing homes.
She proposes that a tribe should be deemed to have satisfied all
applicable environmental review requirements that might apply to a
multiple-funding sourced project if the tribe satisfactorily completed
the applicable HUD environmental review process.
Ms. Bryan also proposes that a tribe be authorized to apply the
tribally determined prevailing wage rate to all sources of Federal
funds used in a project which is also funded in part by the NAHASDA
block grant funding. What are your views on Ms. Bryan's proposals?
Answer. HUD generally supports streamlining the environmental
review process and labor standards when multiple sources of funding are
used for a project. Please see the answer to Question 3 for further
detail on HUD's efforts regarding the environmental review process.
Question 3. How does HUD coordinate with other Federal agencies on
the environmental review processes for recipients blending funding from
these agencies for a construction project?
Answer. HUD agrees that requiring grantees to submit duplicative
environmental reviews for the same project is an administrative burden.
HUD supports the idea of having a single environmental review for all
Federal requirements. However, each agency must comply with current
rules and meet the minimum standards in the authorizing or regulatory
language that makes the funding available.
It is most common for HUD-funded housing projects (especially
larger projects) to be funded jointly by the Indian Health Service
(IHS) and HUD. HUD funds are used for the construction of housing while
IHS funds are used for infrastructure-bringing water to the site and
constructing provisions for sanitation and the disposal of waste water.
Due to joint funding, it is common for HUD and IHS to coordinate the
environmental review as well. The environmental review process used by
HUD is the most comprehensive, and is unique in that HUD regulations
permit tribes to be the responsible entity. Under 24 CFR Part 58,
tribes are responsible for completing the environmental reviews of
projects. However, the process that IHS uses meets about 90 percent of
HUD's requirements. In these cases, HUD asks the tribe for what is
missing in the IHS review but required by HUD.
There is a difference in the methods and procedures used across
federal agencies to meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Section 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332) of NEPA mandates that
``(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall-- . . . (B) identify
and develop methods and procedures . . . which will insure that
presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given
appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and
technical considerations.'' As a result, each federal agency has
developed its own unique methods and procedures. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), and Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) all have different checklists
for their environmental reviews. For example, noise is a factor in a
HUD environmental review, and HUD will not permit a home or structure
to be constructed adjacent to a railroad or heavily travelled freeway
without mitigation. Other factors that are considered only in HUD
environmental reviews are flood insurance because of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act, compliance with the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, and
compliance with airport runway clear zones and clear zones disclosures.
Also unique to HUD is that, after HUD awards grants to tribes and
tribally designated housing entities, the tribes carry out the
construction of the project including entering into grant agreements
with other agencies.
Question 4. As noted at the Committee's oversight hearing,
``Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding
Solutions,'' on April 10, 2013, the obligated, unexpended balance of
Indian Housing Block Grant funds totals over $900 million. You
testified that HUD will work with those tribes that have problems
regarding expenditures to create realistic expenditure strategies and
assess their administrative issues to find recommendations to
streamline the process within their communities. Please identify the
various reasons or causes for this large, unexpended balance of Indian
Housing Block Grant funds.
Answer. Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, through FY 2012,
Congress has appropriated more than $9.4 billion for the Indian Housing
Block Grant (IHBG) program authorized under title I of NAHASDA. Indian
tribes and their tribally designated housing entities have expended
approximately $8.6 billion of those funds, or approximately 92 percent.
On balance, very few recipients have large amounts of undisbursed
IHBG funds. The vast majority of tribes expend their funds quickly and
in the same year that funds are appropriated. One recipient in
particular accounts for 53 percent of the unexpended balance. Excluding
this tribe from the equation, the overall expenditure rate of IHBG
funds would rise from 92 percent to over 95 percent.
HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) works with the
tribes that are slower to expend their funds, and it provides them with
capacity-building training and technical assistance whenever requested.
Additional action is taken if problems are discovered during monitoring
reviews. HUD ONAP continues to employ all the tools available under
NAHASDA to address these types of situations while still respecting
tribal sovereignty and the ability of recipients to carry over IHBG
funds from year to year. HUD ONAP has provided extensive technical
assistance to the recipient with the highest balance of unexpended
funds, and is now moving to enforcement action against this tribe for
failure to carry out its planned NAHASDA activities in a timely manner.
HUD is pursuing the repayment of a portion of the unexpended funds held
by the recipient through this enforcement action while also affording
the recipient due process. In program requirements, any funds
recaptured by HUD must be reallocated under next year's NAHASDA
allocation formula to all recipients in the program.
Question 5. At what point does HUD consider an Indian tribe to have
``spent'' its Indian Housing Block Grant funds?
Answer. Funds are considered spent when all funds are drawn down
from HUD's Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) for the grant. After
drawing down funds from LOCCS, recipients have 3 business days to
expend the funds.
Question 6. Please describe the administrative process required for
an Indian tribe to spend its Indian Housing Block Grant funds,
beginning with when congress finalizes the appropriations through the
point when the funds are considered ``spent'' in HUD's accounting
system?
Answer. Within 10 days of budget enactment, HUD sends an
Apportionment Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval within 30 days. After HUD's Chief Financial Officer receives
the approval, an Advice of Allotment is sent to the Public and Indian
Housing (PIH) Budget Office. After the Advice of Allotment is issued by
HUD's PIH Budget Office, the IHBG formula can be applied to determine
each grantee's award amount, and recipients are notified in writing.
Fund assignments are issued to the six Area ONAPs. The Area Offices
send grant agreements to each recipient for execution (assuming the
recipient is eligible and has submitted a compliant Indian Housing
Plan). Once HUD has received a signed agreement from the recipient and
Congressional notification of the impending grant has been made, HUD
can enter the funds into its LOCCS accounting system and make them
available for drawdown by the recipient.
This year, FY 2013, the appropriations were enacted March 26, and
the funds were made available in mid-June.
Question 7. What can be done, either administratively or
legislatively, to help expedite the use of these funds so that the
tribes can build houses? Please be specific.
Answer. The majority of the tribes are spending their funds in a
timely manner. HUD has proactively taken administrative measures to
more quickly distribute the funds to tribes so they may access their
grant funds earlier in the FY. While there is no specific statutory
requirement in NAHASDA for IHBG recipients to expend their funds by a
certain set date, HUD has authority to take enforcement action against
a recipient that is failing to carry out eligible activities in a
``timely manner.'' Up until FY 2012, there were no restrictions placed
on IHBG funds by annual appropriations. The FY 2012 Appropriations Act
contained language that required FY 2012 IHBG funds to be expended
within 10 years. This language was also included in the recently passed
FY 2013 Continuing Resolution. Given the ability of recipients to carry
over grant funds from year to year, HUD's main tool to assist
recipients with using their funds is through training and technical
assistance. In response to an FY 2012 Notice of Funding Availability,
HUD recently awarded $7 million to seven organizations to provide
training and technical assistance
Question 8. The February 25, 2010, Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block
Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and
Investments Needs Improvement, found that HUD was not tracking the
information needed to fully assess the impact of NAHASDA on housing
development in Indian country. The GAO made several recommendations
including revisions to the Indian Housing Plan/Annual Performance
Report [forms] required to be submitted from tribally designated
housing entities. How does HUD now track the data necessary to fully
assess the impact of NAHASDA on housing development in Indian Country?
Answer. HUD ONAP relies on two critical tools for tracking NAHASDA-
funded housing and related infrastructure development in Indian
Country: The Performance Tracking Database (PTD), and the Annual
Performance Report (APR).
The PTD is an Access database used to collect, analyze, and import
housing and infrastructure development data. The PTD consists of
multiple modules, and staff in each of the six Area ONAPs perform
routine data entry and quality control. Headquarters creates a weekly
roll-up of national data. The APR module is used to collect and track
housing and infrastructure development data that recipients of IHBG
funds submit in the APRs to ONAP.
The APR is used by each IHBG recipient to report, among other
things, on the number of housing units and infrastructure developed
during the previous 12-month period. The APR is available in Microsoft
Word and Excel versions, and will be available soon on HUD's EPIC
website. The Excel and EPIC versions have numerous automated
capabilities to ensure data quality and expedite the completion and
review of the report. APR housing and infrastructure development data
in the Excel and EPIC versions is imported directly into the PTD for
regional and national assessment.
The APR was revised in FY 2013, and the new form, among other
things, collects information on infrastructure development for the
first time in a comprehensive, organized way. HUD can evaluate the data
to identify trends, set goals, and take appropriate management actions.
Question 9. Has HUD experienced any additional problems in
maintaining effective reporting from tribes? If so, what is being done
to address these problems?
Answer. In FY 2012, the format for reporting in the APR was revised
to greatly ease the recipient's reporting burden while collecting more
specific information on IHBG activities and accomplishments. The
reports using the new format have only been submitted for two quarters,
but the data available to HUD appears to be much improved. Once a
year's worth of data has been submitted (end of calendar year 2013),
HUD will conduct analysis on the data, and will have a clearer picture
of the effectiveness of the format change.
HUD would like to collect additional information from recipients;
however, tribes must agree to share this additional data. During the
negotiated rulemaking conducted for the purpose of implementing
statutory amendments, HUD proposed regulatory provisions based on the
recommendations of a tribal workgroup that would require IHBG
recipients to report items such as housing construction unit costs,
services to elders, and reductions in criminal activity (due to crime
prevention and safety activities funded under IHBG). The Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee was unable to reach consensus on the collection of
this data, and it was removed from the reporting requirement in the
revised IHBG regulations that became effective on January 2, 2013.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Rodger J. Boyd
Remarks: In Alaska, NAHASDA enables the construction of 200 new
homes each year. It funds the rehabilitation of 550 more annually.
Recipients engage apprentices in construction trades, helping Alaska
Native and American Indian individuals to learn job skills that they
will carry with them for life. Through leveraging and the engagement of
private sector contractors and vendors, NAHASDA also employs 2,250
Alaskans each year. This is a very critical program for the Alaska
Native community.
Question 1. Will you please provide your perspective on the
Negotiated Rulemaking process that is used to determine, among other
things, the allocation formula for the Indian Housing Block Grant
program?
Answer. HUD believes the negotiated rulemaking process used to
implement NAHASDA and determine the IHBG allocation formula is
essential to the success of HUD's Indian housing programs. Central to
NAHASDA and the way HUD does business is the respect for and belief in
tribal sovereignty and tribal self-determination. The negotiated
rulemaking process provides a forum for Indian tribes to make important
decisions on how the statutory language of NAHASDA is implemented,
particularly in the allocation of IHBG grant funds. HUD will conduct
negotiated rulemaking on the IHBG allocation formula in FY 2013 and FY
2014 with tribal representatives from the six HUD ONAP Areas
representing small, medium, and large tribes.
Question 2. What are some of the ways that tribes are successfully
leveraging Indian Housing Block Grant funds to secure other sources of
funding to address housing needs in Indian communities?
Answer. Tribes are leveraging their IHBG funds by combining these
funds with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grants, Low
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and the Affordable Housing Program
sponsored by the Federal Home Loan Bank. Tribes are also leveraging
IHBG funds through the Title VI program. Under the Title VI program,
borrowers pledge a portion of IHBG funds as security for private
financing and can use their IHBG funds to pay the debt service on the
loan, thereby maximizing the amount of IHBG funds by as much as five
times the original grant amount. This program has provided an incentive
for lenders to get involved in the development of tribal housing.
HUD, through ONAP's Office of Loan Guarantee, encourages and
facilitates the investment of private capital for the purpose of
meeting tribal housing and infrastructure needs. Through the use of the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee and Title VI of NAHASDA, tribes are able
to leverage the IHBG with other federal, state, foundation, and private
capital to successfully finance tribal projects. Federal agency dollars
are the seed money necessary to attract other funding sources. Federal
loan guarantees provide additional stability to housing projects to
mitigate the perceived risks associated with tribal development
projects because there is less concern about default and ability to
cover the loss.
Ohkay Owingeh, formerly known as the San Juan Pueblo in New Mexico,
has shown outstanding innovation in obtaining sources of funding for
housing. The tribe and its housing authority have leveraged LIHTC with
IHBG funding, Rural Housing and Economic Development funding, HOME
funding, and other sources to develop the 40-unit Tsigo Bugeh Village.
They have also pursued an extensive housing rehabilitation program
using a combination of IHBG funding and Indian Community Development
Block Grant funding. Currently, they are pursuing New Market Tax
Credits to develop additional housing that will support their economic
stability.
The Puyallup Tribe's reservation in Tacoma, Washington is one of
the most urban Indian reservations in the country. In 2012, the housing
authority dedicated 10 units of low-income rental housing, a new
community center, and a maintenance building. The energy-efficient
units (an LEED Platinum project) were built using the tribe's IHBG and
funds from the ARRA.
The Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas recently constructed
30 duplex units, 34 single-family homes, and the related roads, sewer,
water, sidewalks, gutters, and street lighting. The $16 million project
was funded by HUD's IHBGs, Recovery Act funds, a HUD guaranteed loan,
the BIA, the IHS, the Federal Highway Administration, tribal
contributions, and LIHTC.
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine leveraged $272,000 in
Title VI finances with LIHTC and grant funds from the following: Boston
Federal Home Loan Bank, Affordable Housing Program, HUD HOME funds, BIA
Roads, IHS, and USDA Water and Sewer funding to build 28 single-family
homes and a community center.
IHBG is considered seed money for those tribes that are able to do
more development. In FY 2012, 100 percent of LIHTC for the state of
Alaska was awarded to the Cook Inlet Housing Authority.
Question 3. Understanding that each tribe faces unique
circumstances, what are two or three of the most common issues that
delay Indian housing projects that are beyond recipients' control?
What, if anything, can Congress do to address those issues?
Answer. Projects can be delayed due to the following: lack of
recipient capacity; turnover in staff and leadership on the tribal
level; severe weather including natural disasters such as floods,
fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes; complications and delays related to
non-HUD funding sources; slow approval of some leases by the BIA on
trust property; and environmental review discoveries such as
contaminants or artifacts. Additionally, because recipients rely on
their IHBG awards to sustain their housing programs, they must
carefully plan for the use of these funds. Some recipients totally
exhaust their prior year funding because of their great housing needs
and the lack of annual funding that does not include an inflation
adjustment factor. A delay in annual appropriations causes some to have
to secure bridge loans to cover costs until annual funding is
available.
Question 4. This funding environment is, as we all know, very
difficult. In addition to ensuring that funding levels are appropriate,
it is imperative that we work to identify as many budget-neutral ways
as possible to improve Indian housing programs. What, in your opinion,
is the best means for Congress to engage in that sort of meaningful
reform?
Answer. Tribal recipients and HUD have partnered over the years to
identify and implement budget-neutral ways to improve Indian housing
programs in light of level funding that does not account for inflation.
Congress has assisted in this effort with adopting many provisions as
part of the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization which streamline reporting
requirements and allow tribes more flexibility to tailor their housing
programs to meet their needs. NAHASDA is once again up for
reauthorization this year which provides Congress with an opportunity
to consider meaningful reform.
NAHASDA is successful in Indian Country. Tribes strongly support
the NAHASDA programs, and can produce results with the funds that are
awarded to them. HUD, through its program administration and negotiated
rulemaking with the tribes, has taken measures to improve the
efficiencies and outcomes of the program. In partnership with the
tribes, HUD has streamlined reporting requirements while it has
increased the amount of data received from grantees.
IHBG funds are now managed so that the oldest grant funds are the
first to be expended, and most tribes can now get their IHBG funding
with 4 months of Congressional appropriation. Previous to
administrative changes implemented in 2012, it could take up to 10
months for a tribe to receive a given FY's funding. In January 2013, a
final rule was published implementing negotiated regulations that
implemented the changes of the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization. Budget-
neutral ways to improve the program include support of NAHASDA
reauthorization and streamlining environmental requirements as
discussed earlier in this response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to
Cheryl A. Causley
Maintaining statutory and regulatory compliance in Indian housing
programs is a key feature of the NAHASDA. In your testimony before the
Committee on April 10, 2013, you stated that recent appropriations
bills have ``radically changed'' the manner in which funds are
allocated for Indian housing training and technical assistance.
Question 1. Please elaborate on whether, how, or to what extent
those changes have improved tribes' compliance in their housing
programs?
Answer. This question calls for a two-part answer. First, the
language of section 703 of NAHASDA is clear and provides that ``(t)here
are authorized to be appropriated for assistance for a national
organization representing Native America housing interests for
providing training and technical assistance to Indian housing
authorizes and tribally-designated entities such sums as may be
necessary [for subsequent fiscal years].'' Italics supplied, 25 U.S.C.
4212.
For more than a decade, all Training and Technical Assistance
(T&TA) funding has been routed exclusively through the National
American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC)--the only national housing
organization dedicated to building capacity in tribes for purposes of
administering assistance under the NAHASDA.
Despite the plain language of section 703 of NAHASDA, congressional
appropriators radically changed the allocation of T&TA funds by opening
an already limited amount of T&TA funds ($2 million to $3.5 million),
to ``national or regional organizations representing Native American
housing interests.'' Section 703 language was negotiated among tribal
leaders and Indian housing professionals and has been supported each
year by the stakeholders of the Indian Housing Block Grant funds.
In turn, and without tribal consultation, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) recently awarded Fiscal Year 2012 T&TA
funding to no fewer than 8 entities, several of whom have little to no
experience working with Indian tribes, let alone experience in
providing T&TA to tribes and their tribally-designated housing
entities. The FY2012 distribution is as follows:
Association of Alaska Housing Authority--$1.5 million
National American Indian Housing Council--$1.35 million
ICF Incorporated--$1 million
FirstPic--$1 million
Econometrica--$1 million
National Congress of American Indians--$750,000
Red Lake Housing Authority--$400,000
Pacific American Foundation--$350,000
While it is premature to tell whether this change has improved
compliance and expedited the outlay of block grant funds, in calendar
2012 NAIHC completed 107 on-site technical assistance visits to tribes
and tribal housing programs. NAIHC also provided twelve (12) training
sessions at regional Indian housing association meetings and forty-two
(42) classroom sessions on topics unique to tribal housing operations
and management. Over 1,200 tribal housing professionals attended NAIHC
trainings in 2012. NAIHC is currently offering training and technical
services under its current cooperative agreement with HUD's Office of
Native American Programs.
Most technical assistance requests by tribes and their Tribally
Designated Housing Entities are fulfilled by NAIHC within three weeks.
For Fiscal Year 2011, NAIHC was awarded $3.5 million and $1.35 million
in Fiscal Year 2012 for T&TA funding. With a drop in $2.2 million,
NAIHC will be limited in providing much needed T&TA services for Fiscal
Year 2012. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request again zeros
out T&TA funding for NAIHC.
Question 2. Does the HIP program duplicate the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Indian housing programs or any
other Federal housing program? If so, how?
Answer. The BIA's Housing Improvement Program (HIP) provides grant
funding for home improvement and replacement and serves American Indian
and Alaska Natives who have substandard housing or no housing at all
and have no immediate source of housing assistance.
Other federal housing resources available to American Indians and
Alaska Natives are provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Housing Program, and the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs Direct Home Loan Program, which provides direct loans to Indian
veterans who are members of federally-recognized tribes, for the
purchase, construction, refinancing, or improvement of homes located on
Federal trust lands.
Question 3. In light of the various Federal housing programs,
particularly the HUD Indian housing programs, does the HIP remain a
significant or meaningful component of Indian housing strategies? How
should the HIP be improved to facilitate Indian housing strategies?
Answer. Even though the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request
proposes to eliminate the HIP program altogether, it is our view that
HIP provides important assistance for Indian housing. The BIA HIP
program allows flexibility in reaching the neediest Native people--low,
no income, handicapped and the elderly. BIA HIP has been the long
standing federal Indian housing program that has evolved over the years
to include interacting with other federal agencies to address a variety
of barriers, including repair, renovation and replacement of existing
housing.
As Indian country continues to experience dwindling federal
resources for Indian housing and community development programs, NAIHC
feels the HIP program continues to play an important role in tribal
housing development and strongly urges Congress and the Administration
to fund the program at significantly higher levels in order to meet its
mission. Additionally, the income guidelines for the BIA's HIP program
should be revised to reflect the current cost of housing. Currently
established at 125 percent of poverty, there remains a gap between what
clients can afford and their eligibility for assistance.
Question 4. Your written statement indicates that tribal housing
entities are increasingly encouraged to leverage their Indian housing
block grant funding to secure other sources of financing. It further
notes that solutions to address the current housing conditions in
Indian communities include new and innovative partnerships between the
Federal and tribal governments as well as the private sector. Could you
elaborate further on how tribes leverage their Indian housing block
grant funds?
Question 4a. Are there any particular barriers or impediments
tribes face in attempting to leverage their Indian housing block grant
funds?
Answer. ``Leveraging'' scarce funding is a common approach to
financing not just housing but capital goods and other large-scale
investment in general. Tribes and tribal members are no different and
are increasingly encouraged to leverage their IHBG funding to secure
other sources of financing, such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
They are also beginning to combine funding streams from multiple
sources such as the USDA Rural Development, U.S. Treasury Department's
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the Federal Home
Loan Bank, private foundations, and commercial banks. Even this,
though, can be difficult because compliance requirements vary from
program to program and agency to agency, presenting unnecessary
barriers to efficient administration of multiple funding streams and
limiting the ability of tribes to access multiple programs in an effort
to reach adequate scale.
While tribes are doing their best to minimize these barriers and
achieve economies of scale that accompany resource ``pooling,'' one
solution this Committee might investigate is to launch a demonstration
project authorizing tribes to reach across the spectrum of federal
programs to access currently disparate programs and resources. This is
already being done in the realm of labor and employment training with
the universally popular Indian Employment, Training and Related
Services Act (Pub.L.102-477), otherwise known as the ``477 Program.''
Question 5. Please identify the various reasons for this large,
unexpended balance of Indian housing block grant funds?
Answer. As noted at the Committee's oversight hearing,
``Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding
Solutions,'' on April 10, 2013, the total obligated, unexpended balance
of Indian housing block grant funds currently totals nearly $900
million.
When this figure is put in proper context, however, the dollar
figure drops precipitously: the $900 million figure provided by HUD
actually includes funding from the FY 2011 and FY 2012 cycles. Not only
does NAHASDA authorize the carryover of funds for a period of years,
but as a practical matter and laid out in more detail below, housing
and related infrastructure construction routinely takes 3 to 5 years to
complete. When these two fiscal years' worth of block grants are
removed from the calculation, the total amount of obligated, unexpended
funds total approximately one-third of the yearly amount appropriated.
When housing is built with NAHASDA funding, the money is rarely
spent the same year it is received. Rather, a developer will engage in
a process that includes leveraging the federal investment to obtain
additional funding from state, local, and private sources, procuring
the land through a purchase or lease, engaging in project design, and
finally, beginning construction.
Leveraging and predevelopment often require a year or more, and
site acquisition can be particularly cumbersome when land leasing is
involved. The design and construction of larger projects typically
takes one to two years. More complex projects, such as those which
require remediation of environmental contamination, take additional
time, due in large part to regulatory requirements.
The barriers that do exist in the timely expenditure of funds
derive largely from delays incurred in the transfer of funds from HUD
to tribal recipients, and delays in seeking and securing required
approvals by tribal recipients from HUD and the Interior Department.
For example, each and every surface lease of trust land for
residential/housing purposes have historically required the review and
approval of the Interior Secretary. While leases of fee land may take
days or weeks to develop and execute, reviews and approvals of leases
of trust land have taken months if not years. Once implemented, the
recently enacted HEARTH Act will authorize Indian tribes to develop and
manage their own surface leasing laws without the review or approval of
the Interior Secretary. Hopefully, this year's reauthorization of the
NAHASDA statute will carry with it other creative solutions to barriers
that continue to hamper fund expenditure and housing development.
Other barriers include seasonal construction in areas like Alaska,
statutory requirements such as National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) compliance, weak or non-existent transportation and
infrastructure, and generally poor economic conditions.
Question 6. What can be done, either administratively or
legislatively, to help expedite the use of these funds so that the
tribes can build homes? Please be specific.
Answer. To help expedite the use of these funds, the following
needs to be considered:
Set strict deadlines for federal approvals to occur and,
absent approval, amend NAHASDA to have such requirements
``deemed approved;''
Streamline or ``tribalize'' federal environmental review
requirements as was done in the HEARTH Act which does not
include NEPA compliance, but does require tribes to establish
meaningful environmental review processes that include public
notice and a reasonable dispute resolution mechanism;
Provide targeted technical assistance that will teach
recipients how to timely navigate a labyrinth of federal
regulatory requirements;
More discipline in the federal budget and appropriations
process so that recipients could better plan to spend funding
once it is received if the federal budget process offered
better predictability in both the timing and amount of funding
to be received;
Improved coordination among federal agencies to provide
programmatic consistency and interagency collaboration;
Investigate the feasibility of ``638-ing'' NAHASDA and put
the tribes in the decisionmaking driver's seat rather than HUD.
The 2005 study and report conducted by HUD falls far short of a
clinical review of this idea and the Committee should launch
its own review of this matter, or request the Government
Accountability Office to undertake such a review;
Permit tribes to blend funding from multiple agencies, for
instance by authorizing the use of funding for sanitation
facilities appropriated to the Indian Health Services when
constructing new homes funded by HUD; and
Other specific proposals contained in the draft
reauthorization of the NAHASDA.
Question 7. Your written testimony notes that tribal communities
suffer from some of the worst housing conditions in the United States
and delays in necessary approvals and funding by the Federal government
are a contribution factor. Ms. Annette Bryan also testified that there
is no timeline for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to act on a waiver request of the Local Cooperation Agreement
required by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self
Determination Act (NAHASDA).
In addition to the waiver request, please elaborate on other
NAHASDA requirements that may cause tribes to experience delays in
receiving Federal funding or approvals. How should the NAHASDA be
amended to expedite Federal decisionmaking?
Answer. See answers to question immediately above.
Congratulations, again, on becoming the Chairwoman of this esteemed
Committee, and thank you for your ongoing leadership in the realm of
Indian housing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to
Russell Sossamon
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]