[Senate Hearing 113-126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-126
S. 235, THE ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM LAND TRANSFER ACT;
S. 920, THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA NON-INTERCOURSE
ACT OF 2013; AND S. 1352, THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND
SELF-DETERMINATION
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-897 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
0COMMITTEE 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 July 31, 2013.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 20
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 27
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 23
Witnesses
Harris, Sarah, Chief of Staff to Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior....................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Henriquez, Hon. Sandra, Assistant Secretary For Public And Indian
Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development...... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, National Congress Of American
Indians........................................................ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Mcswain, Hon. Robert, Deputy Director for Management Operations,
Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Teuber, Andy, Chairman/President, Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium..................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Appendix
Brend, Toni Ann, Chairperson, Coquille Indian Housing Authority;
Vice Chairperson, Coquille Tribal Council, prepared statement.. 40
Bryan, Annette, Executive Director, Puyallup Nation Housing
Authority, prepared statement.................................. 34
Causley, Cheryl A., Executive Director, Bay Mills Indian Housing
Authority; Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing Council
(NAIHC), prepared statement.................................... 52
Diver, Hon. Karen R., Chairwoman, Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, prepared statement.......................... 30
Durglo, Hon. Joe, Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Indian Nation, prepared statement....... 44
Gore, Carol, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing Authority,
prepared statement............................................. 32
Masagatani, Jobie M. K., Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission,
prepared statement............................................. 54
Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement. 29
Thom, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Karuk Tribe Housing Authority;
Vice-Chairman, Karuk Tribe, prepared statement................. 36
S. 235, THE ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM LAND TRANSFER ACT;
S. 920, THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE
SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA NON-INTERCOURSE ACT OF 2013; AND S. 1352, THE NATIVE
AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairman 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 afternoon we are having a hearing on S. 235, the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act; S.
920, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Non-
Intercourse Act of 2013, and S. 1352, the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act
of 2013.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and my
colleague, the Vice Chairman of the Committee. I am sorry we
are late. A vote on the Floor kept us delayed.
As I said, this afternoon, we are having a hearing on
several bills. These bills address the issues at the core of
tribal self-governance and self-determination: land and
infrastructure. In order for tribes to thrive as governments,
they need an adequate land base to provide for their members.
Lands are vital for the basic tribal infrastructure needs such
as educational facilities, elder care centers, natural resource
protection and economic development projects.
The two lands bills before us today will allow the impacted
tribes to make the best use of their lands to improve the lives
of members and their surrounding communities. S. 235, the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act, would
transfer a parcel of land from the Department of Health and
Human Services to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.
With the transfer to the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium, they will be able to construct a 170-room
residential facility to accommodate patients from all over
Alaska to receive treatment at the medical center.
S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band legislation, will provide
Congressional authority for land exchange between the Fond du
Lac and Carlton County. This exchange will allow the Band to
acquire lands held by the county within the reservation and the
county will acquire lands owned by the Band within the county.
The Band will be able to consolidate its land holdings on its
reservation to provide housing for members as well as other
activities like gathering and hunting, and the county will be
able to use its acquired lands to enhance the county's forestry
resources.
This bill is a good example of how effectively governments
can work together in ways that are beneficial to the entire
community.
The final bill we will consider is S. 1352 reauthorization
of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. Senator Barrasso and I just introduced
legislation with the support of many of our colleagues,
Senators Johnson, Tester, Udall, Franken, Begich, Heitkamp,
Schatz and Hirono. So a lot of people on the Committee. I want
to thank all of them for their support.
In April, we had an oversight hearing on Indian housing
issues. We heard a lot about the crisis that still exists in
Indian Country. Currently there are 200,000 housing units
needed immediately in Indian Country, and 25 percent of
American Indian housing units have ``severe housing needs''.
This means that those homes lack basic plumbing or kitchen
facilities or other important infrastructure.
So the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act recognizes that tribal governments are in the
best position to allocate their funds for their members and the
Committee's legislation would authorize the program for five
years and streamline the processes among Federal agencies,
provide support for Native American veterans and remove
barriers for tribes to construct more sustainable housing.
So I think this bipartisan bill sends a clear message. We
need to act now on successful housing programs for Indian
Country. The bill is critical to providing adequate resources,
attracting economic development to reservations and providing
homes for teachers and public safety officers. So I look
forward to hearing all the witnesses today.
Now I would like to turn it over to the Vice Chairman,
Senator Barrasso, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
this hearing on these bills. All of these bills are very
important.
Specifically, S. 1352, the reauthorization of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, is
important to all Indian tribes. Your leadership, Chairwoman
Cantwell, on this reauthorization, is welcome and I am happy to
co-sponsor this measure with you.
I want to note that this bill would further streamline the
bureaucracy experienced in Indian housing development. In
addition, it would also provide mechanisms to increase funding
resources or leverage for more housing development. With the
tight budget conditions and limited private investment in
Indian Country, these changes should help the important work of
tribally-designated housing entities.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing
this bill, so that the Indian housing act is reauthorized
again. I also want to thank the witnesses for their testimony
today.
Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
We are going to start with our witnesses. We will start
with you, Mr. McSwain. Then we will just go down the line.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT McSWAIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. McSwain. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee,
good afternoon. I am Robert McSwain, Deputy Director for
Management Operations for the Indian Health Service.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on S. 235,
the Alaska Native Health Consortium Land Transfer Act,
providing for conveyance of Indian Health Service real property
located in Anchorage, Alaska, to ANTHC.
S. 235 would provide for the conveyance of certain property
located in Anchorage, Alaska from the Federal Government to
ANTHC in Anchorage, Alaska. It should be pointed out that ANTHC
actually assumed responsibility for provision of the IHS-funded
Health Service in 1999 under the authority of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
The Federal property described in S. 235 is used in
connection with health and related programs in Anchorage. In
fact, just recently, we transferred the land to ANTHC, on June
25th, under a quitclaim deed. And it is recorded in the City of
Anchorage.
Previously, on April 26th, IHS had executed a memorandum of
agreement with ANTHC which sets forth the terms and conditions
under which easements will be established, so IHS could
transfer the ownership of the property to ANTHC by quitclaim
deed. S. 235 provides for conveyance of the Anchorage property
from the United States to ANTHC. It proposes to replace the
quitclaim deed, transfer it by authorizing the use of a
warranty deed. The easements, which will be established under
the MOA, must be intact if a warranty deed is fully executed.
IHS supports the bill because it views the proposed
transfer as furthering the special partnership that exists with
American Indian and Alaska Native governments, and moreover, it
is in keeping with the Presidential Memorandum on
Administrative Flexibility as it pertains to tribal
governments.
We have a couple of points on the bill that I would like to
focus on. IHS believes the language relating to the following
issues needs to be clarified or revised. Conveyance language
should be revised to allow no less than 90 days to convey the
property to ANTHC. Secondly, legal description language, now
that we have done the quitclaim deed, we actually have a slight
change in that, and that is where we have indicated in our
testimony that it is Tract A-3A, Tudor Centre, according to
plat no. 2013-43, slight change then which adds in the bill,
but it is accurate in accordance with the current surveys that
we have done and actually moving the 2.79 acres over.
We look forward to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, on
measures to improve the health of the Alaska Native population.
This concludes my testimony and I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you to discuss this important bill. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McSwain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Mcswain, Deputy Director for
Management Operations, Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee:
Good afternoon. I am Robert McSwain, Deputy Director for Management
Operations of the Indian Health Service (IHS). I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify on S. 235, the ``Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (ANTHC) Land Transfer Act'', providing for the conveyance of
Indian Health Service (IHS) real property located in Anchorage, Alaska
to ANTHC.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) plays a unique role in the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) because it is a health
care system that was established to meet the federal trust
responsibility to provide health care to American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AI/ANs). The mission of the IHS, in partnership with American
Indian and Alaska Native people, is to raise the physical, mental,
social, and spiritual health of AI/ANs to the highest level. The IHS
provides comprehensive health service delivery to approximately 2.2
million AI/ANs through 28 Hospitals, 61 health centers, 33 health
stations and 3 school health centers. Tribes also provide healthcare
access through an additional 16 hospitals, 235 health centers, 164
Alaska Village Clinics, 75 health stations and 6 school health centers.
In support of the IHS mission, the IHS and Tribes provide access to
functional, well maintained and accredited health care facilities and
staff housing.
S. 235 would provide for the conveyance of certain property located
in Anchorage, Alaska from the Federal Government to the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) in Anchorage, Alaska. ANTHC assumed
responsibility for the provision of the IHS-funded health care services
in 1999 under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). The federal property described in S.
235, which is used in connection with health and related programs in
Anchorage, Alaska by the IHS, was transferred to ANTHC by quitclaim
deed and recorded in the Anchorage Recording District on June 25, 2013.
On April 26, 2013, IHS executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with ANTHC, which sets forth terms and conditions under which easements
will be established so IHS could transfer ownership of the Anchorage
property to ANTHC by quitclaim deed. S. 235 provides for the conveyance
of the Anchorage property from the United States to the ANTHC and
proposes to replace the quitclaim deed transfer by authorizing the use
of a warranty deed. The easements, which will be established under the
MOA, must remain intact if a warranty deed is executed.
The IHS supports this bill because it views the proposed transfer
as furthering the special partnership that exists with American Indian
and Alaska Native tribal governments, and, moreover, is in keeping with
the Presidential Memorandum on Administrative Flexibility as it
pertains to tribal governments. It is important to emphasize that, as a
normal practice, IHS does not transfer properties via the warranty deed
mechanism. However, we will support an exception in this case because
of the ANTHC initiative to expand access to its health care system for
IHS beneficiaries from throughout Alaska. This proposal will give the
ANTHC flexibility to leverage additional resources because ownership of
the property under a warranty deed will give them unencumbered
ownership of the property described in S. 235.
IHS believes the language, relating to the following issues needs
to be clarified and/or revised:
Conveyance language should be revised to allow no less than
90 days to convey the property to ANTHC;
Environmental Liability language needs to be clarified so
the ANTHC is responsible for any environmental contamination
which may have occurred since its control of the property began
in 1999, or for contamination that may occur or arise ``as of,
or after, the date of the 2013 conveyance''; and,
''Reversionary Clause'' language should be clarified to
apply in case of retrocession by ANTHC from their ISDEAA
compact.
Legal Description language needs to be changed to describe
accurately the property to be conveyed: ``Tract A-3A, Tudor
Centre, according to plat no. 2013-43, recorded on June 20,
2013 in Anchorage recording district, Alaska, containing 2.79
acres more or less''.
We believe that reasons to use this mechanism in future cases are
limited. IHS anticipates no problems with the quitclaim deed currently
being processed by IHS for ANTHC. Traditionally, Alaska Tribal Health
Organizations (THOs) have preferred to leave the title of their
facilities previously operated by the IHS with the Federal Government,
and the majority of the health care facilities used by the Tribes in
the other 35 states are located on tribally owned lands. This warranty
deed transfer would be the fourth of its kind in Alaska. IHS recently
issued three warranty deeds authorized by Congress to transfer parcels
of land to the Maniilaq Association previously transferred through a
quitclaim deed. On other numerous occasions properties were transferred
to Tribes or Tribal Organizations through quitclaim deeds.
We think retrocession is unlikely. We can count only four
retrocessions since the enactment of ISDEAA in 1975. Three were only
small program components which have been re-assumed by the Tribes. None
of these retrocessions was in the Alaska Area.
We look forward to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, on measures
to improve the health of the Alaska Native population. Madam
Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you to discuss S. 235. I will be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much. Thank you for being
here.
Mr. Teuber, thank you very much. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANDY TEUBER, CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, ALASKA NATIVE
TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM
Mr. Teuber. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell
and Ranking Member Barrasso, other members of the Committee.
My name is Andy Teuber. I am the Chairman and President of
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Thank you for the
opportunity today to testify in support of S. 235, the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act.
ANTHC, as it is known, is a statewide tribal health
organization that serves all 229 federally-recognized tribes
and over 143,000 Alaska Natives across the State of Alaska. We
are the largest, most comprehensive tribal health organization
in the United States. Through a self-governance compact, ANTHC
provides health services that were previously provided by the
Indian Health Service.
ANTHC jointly operates the Alaska Native Medical Center
with South Central Foundation. Located in Anchorage, this 150-
bed hospital is the statewide tertiary care center for over
143,000 Alaska Natives and American Indians who reside in the
State. Each year we provide over 287,000 outpatient visits,
54,000 emergency department visits, 8,000 inpatient admissions,
1,500 infant deliveries and over 10,000 annual surgical
procedures. We believe ANMC is one of the finest facilities in
the Indian health system.
As a level 2 trauma center, ANMC is the highest certified
trauma hospital in Alaska. This recognition certifies our
ability to provide quality care to people who suffer traumatic
injuries 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Today, Alaska Natives
are healthier and living longer as a result of the care
provided at ANMC and by the tribal health system.
However, there is much more work needing to be done. One of
our main challenges is meeting the increased demand for health
services of an ever-increasing population of Alaska Natives.
The population we serve has increased by over 34 percent since
ANMC first opened, increasing from 105,000 in 1997 to well over
143,000 today. To meet current and future needs, ANTHC has
developed a comprehensive campus facilities master plan. We
have identified an immediate need for increased patient housing
to increase the capacity at ANMC.
As ANMC serves as the referral hospital for tertiary cases
for the entire Alaska Tribal Health System, many of our
patients we serve are from villages many hundreds of miles away
and outside of Anchorage. We have included Exhibit A that
illustrates the span of our referral pattern. For these
individuals, the biggest challenge in accessing specialty
services at ANMC is the lack of housing and an affordable place
to stay while in Anchorage. ANTHC has undertaken extraordinary
efforts to accommodate traveling patients as best we can with
limited resources. However, the cost of providing housing to
patients and medically necessary escorts under the current
system has risen dramatically and will be unsustainable in the
future.
In 1999 the cost of providing housing for patients and
escorts was $600,000. This cost has increased eight-fold today,
to $4.8 million. Because we receive only minimal reimbursements
for providing patient housing, we expect an estimated net loss
of $4.5 million for in fiscal year 2012 for providing this
patient housing. This cost is borne solely by ANTHC from ANMC
operating funds. Our current capacity for patient residential
housing is 52 rooms at our Quyana House, managed by ANMC, and
110 hotel rooms that ANMC contracts for at another additional
expense.
In order to improve patient care and contain costs for
providing housing to patients and their escorts who receive
care at ANMC, we need to construct this 170-room residential
and outpatient guest facility. Estimated construction cost of
the patient housing facility is around $40 million. After
completion, the housing facility will save ANTHC an estimated
$2 million per year. The patient housing facility will be built
on the closest open land to ANMC, which is located directly
across the road, north of ANMC. The housing facility will be
connected to ANMC via a sky bridge, maximizing patient care and
minimizing transportation expenses.
On June 25th, the Indian Health Service provided a
quitclaim deed to ANTHC for the 2.79 acre parcel where the
Patient Housing Facility will be built. The housing facility
will be built using non-Federal funds. Currently there are no
buildings on the 2.79 acre parcel ANTHC is seeking to obtain
warranty deed title to, through S. 235, and the land is being
used for parking currently. To address parking issues that may
arise from displacement, ANTHC is also in the design phase of
constructing a parking garage on the 2.79 acres.
If enacted, this important legislation would allow ANTHC to
successfully continue to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility by providing for the current and future health
care needs of Alaska Natives and American Indians.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Teuber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy Teuber, Chairman/President, Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium
Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Barrasso,
Senator Murkowski, Senator Begich and other members of the Committee.
My name is Andy Teuber. I am the Chairman and President of the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). Thank you for the opportunity
to testify in support of S. 235-the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium Land Transfer Act.
ANTHC is a statewide tribal health organization that serves all 229
federally-recognized tribes and over 143,000 Alaska Natives and
American Indians in Alaska. We are the largest, most comprehensive
tribal health organization in the United States. Through a Self-
Governance Compact, ANTHC provides health services that were previously
provided by the Indian Health Service.
ANTHC jointly operates the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC) with
Southcentral Foundation. Located in Anchorage, this 150-bed hospital is
the statewide tertiary care center for over 143,000 Alaska Natives and
American Indians who live in Alaska. Annually, we provide over:
287,000 outpatient visits;
54,000 emergency department visits;
8,000 inpatient admissions;
1,500 infant deliveries; and
10,000 surgical procedures.
We believe ANMC is one of the finest facilities in the Indian
health system. As a Level II Trauma Center, ANMC is the highest
certified trauma hospital in Alaska. This recognition certifies our
ability to provide quality care to people who suffer traumatic injuries
24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Today, Alaska Natives are healthier
and living longer as a result of the care provided at ANMC and by the
Alaska Tribal Health System.
However, there is much more work to be done. One of our main
challenges is meeting the increased demand for health services of an
ever-increasing population of Alaska Natives. The population we serve
has increased by over 34 percent since ANMC first opened, increasing
from about 105,000 in 1997 to over 143,000 today. To meet current and
future needs ANTHC has developed a comprehensive campus facilities
master plan. We have identified an immediate need for increased patient
housing to increase capacity at ANMC.
As ANMC serves as the referral hospital for tertiary cases for the
entire Alaska Tribal Health System, many of the patients we serve are
from villages many hundreds of miles outside of Anchorage (see Exhibit
A, attached). For these individuals, the biggest challenge in accessing
specialty services at ANMC is the lack of housing and an affordable
place to stay while in Anchorage. ANTHC has undertaken extraordinary
efforts to accommodate traveling patients as best we can with limited
resources. However, the cost of providing housing to patients and
medically necessary escorts under the current system has risen
dramatically and will be unsustainable in the future.
In 1999 the cost of providing housing for patients and escorts was
$600,000. This cost has increased 8-fold, to $4.8 million, in FY 2012.
Because we receive only minimal reimbursements for providing patient
housing, we expect an estimated net loss of $4.5 million for in FY 2012
for providing patient housing. This cost is borne solely by ANTHC from
ANMC operating funds. Our current capacity for patient residential
housing is 52 rooms at our Quyana House, managed by ANMC, and 110 hotel
rooms that ANMC contracts for at considerable expense.
In order to improve patient care and contain costs for providing
housing to patients (and their escorts) who receive care at ANMC, we
need to construct a 170-room residential and outpatient guest room
facility. Estimated construction cost of the Patient Housing Facility
is $40 million currently. After completion, the housing facility will
save ANTHC an estimated $2 million per year.
The Patient Housing Facility will be built on the closest open land
to ANMC, which is located directly across the road, north of ANMC. The
housing facility will be connected to ANMC via a sky bridge, maximizing
patient care and minimizing transportation expenses.
On June 21, 2013 the Indian Health Service provided a quitclaim
deed to ANTHC for the 2.79 acre parcel where the Patient Housing
Facility will be built (see Exhibit B, attached). The housing facility
will be built using non-federal funds. Currently there are no buildings
on the 2.79 acre parcel ANTHC is seeking to obtain warranty deed title
to, through S. 235, and the land is being used for parking. To address
parking issues that may arise from displacement, ANTHC is also in the
design phase of constructing a parking garage on the 2.79 acre parcel.
While the quitclaim deed allows ANTHC to begin construction of the
Patient Housing Facility, it is still necessary that ANTHC hold an
unencumbered title to the land on which the Patient Housing Facility
will be located on. Having an unencumbered title will allow ANTHC to
use the Patient Housing Facility as collateral to obtain the financing
necessary to achieve our long-term expansion needs. This can only be
accomplished through federal legislation, therefore the need for S.
235.
We respectfully request favorable consideration of S. 235, which,
if passed, would greatly improve the accessibility of much needed
health services for Alaska Natives and American Indians throughout
Alaska, whose health care status, despite years of progress, continues
to lag far behind other populations in Alaska and the rest of the
United States.
If enacted this important legislation would allow ANTHC to
successfully continue to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility by providing for the current and future health care
needs of Alaska Natives and American Indians throughout Alaska.
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Harris?
STATEMENT OF SARAH HARRIS, CHIEF OF STAFF TO
ASSISTANT SECRETARY--INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Harris. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice
Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee.
My name is Sarah Harris, and I am a member of the Mohegan
Tribe from Connecticut. I am here today in my capacity as the
Chief of Staff to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin
Washburn.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's
statement on S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Non-Intercourse Act of 2013. The Department supports
S. 920. The Department is aware the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa and Carlton County in Minnesota want to
finalize an agreement for an exchange of land. We are
supportive of their efforts to work together to resolve these
important land issues within their communities.
Under the agreement, the Band would exchange 1,451 acres of
off-reservation land that it owns in fee simple for 3,200 acres
of on-reservation land that is administered by Carlton County.
It is our understanding that the two parcels are of equivalent
value. It is important to note that this proposed land exchange
does not involve any lands held in trust by the Department or
the United States for the benefit of the band.
Both the band and the county have requested this
legislation because they believe that the land exchange is
prohibited unless authorized by Congress. Both cite Federal Law
25 U.S.C. Section 177, which prohibits any purchase, grant,
lease or other conveyance of lands or any title or claim
thereto from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians unless
authorized by Congress. Therefore, the State of Minnesota is of
the opinion that it cannot give final approval to the land
exchange without an act of Congress authorizing the Band to
convey its title to this land.
S. 920 is not limited to this specific land exchange.
Instead, the bill provides more broad authority for the Band to
lease, sell, convey, warrant or transfer all or any portion of
any interest in its real property not held in trust by the
United States for the benefit of the Band. Thus, S. 920 would
allow the Band to do with its lands what it deems fit, as long
as that land is not held in trust by the United States.
Therefore, the Department supports S. 920.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here
today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sarah Harris, Chief of Staff to Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a
statement on behalf of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Non-Intercourse
Act of 2013. The Department supports S. 920.
The Department is aware that the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa (Band) and Carlton County (County) in Minnesota propose to
implement an agreement that they have for an exchange of land. The land
exchange involves 1,451 acres of land located outside the Fond du Lac
Reservation, which are owned in fee simple by the Band. These lands
would be exchanged for tax-forfeited lands of equivalent value
(approximately 3,200 acres) that are administered by Carlton County,
the title to which is held by the State of Minnesota, and which are
located within the Fond du Lac Reservation. This proposed land exchange
does not involve any lands held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of the Band.
However, both the Band and the County are of the opinion that this
land exchange is prohibited unless authorized by Congress. The Band and
County cite federal law, 25 U.S.C. 177, which prohibits any
``purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title
or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians'' unless
authorized by Congress, and therefore the State of Minnesota is of the
opinion that they cannot give final approval to the land exchange
without an Act of Congress authorizing the Band to convey its title to
this land.
S. 920 is not limited to this specific land exchange, but instead
is more broad and would allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa in the State of Minnesota (Band) to lease, sell, convey,
warrant, or transfer all or any portion of the interest in any real
property not held in trust status by the United States for the benefit
of the Band. The legislation also clearly states that S. 920 does not
authorize the Band to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise
transfer all or any portion of any interest in any real property that
is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band.
Thus, S. 920 would allow the Band to do with those lands not held in
trust status, likely all lands held in fee simple by the Band, as the
Band deems fit. Therefore the Department supports S. 920.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Ms. Henriquez, thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. SANDRA HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Henriquez. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice
Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today on S. 1352, a bill to reauthorize
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996, otherwise known as NAHASDA.
My name is Sandra Henriquez, and I am the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian Housing at HUD. PIH is
responsible for the management, operation and oversight of
HUD's American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
housing programs. HUD is very pleased that the reauthorization
of NAHASDA is a priority for this Committee. We strongly
support reauthorization of NAHASDA, because this law is
essential to creating sustainable tribal communities.
NAHASDA provides a successful approach guided by the
principles of self-determination, consultation and self-
governance, to delivering decent and affordable Indian housing
and developing tribal economies. The Indian Housing Block
Grant, the largest program under NAHASDA, has infused almost
$10 billion in to Indian housing and community development
since its inception about 16 years ago. Over the life of the
program, IHBG recipients have built or acquired more than
35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country and
substantially rehabbed more than 66,000. Recipients currently
maintain almost 51,000 HUD units that were funded before
NAHASDA was enacted.
HUD is currently analyzing and reviewing S. 1352, and would
like the opportunity to work with the Committee and staff to
provide recommendations on some of the existing provisions as
well as offer insight on ways to further improve NAHASDA. We
are particularly pleased to see an effort on the part of the
Committee bill to address the needs of homeless veterans on
reservations.
For the past year, HUD's Office of Native American Programs
has collaborated with the Veterans Administration in an effort
to find ways that existing Federal programs can be used to
reduce the number of homeless vets living on reservations. We
are happy to assist with further development of this concept,
and explore ways in which HUD VASH can work in Indian Country
without creating a separate program or subjecting tribal
recipients to burdensome administrative requirements.
HUD also understands the desire of this Committee and IHBG
recipients to streamline environmental reporting requirements.
Staff is working diligently to develop an approach to
streamline the requirements in a way that can be supported by
all the agencies involved in Indian housing projects. We are
currently exploring the feasibility of creating one standard
for environmental reporting requirements that would meet the
needs of these agencies. HUD has proposed that the recently
created White House Council on Native American Affairs consider
working on this issue.
Finally, HUD is encouraged to see the Committee bill
supporting the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian
Homeownership Act. These programs are vital to providing
housing to more than 26,000 Native Hawaiian families currently
on the waiting list for decent, safe and affordable housing.
In addition to these important initiatives contained in S.
1352, HUD requests that the Committee consider including
language to support the following principles; clarification of
existing statutory language to preserve the intent of NAHASDA,
allocate more IHGB funding according to need and ensure that
homes are conveyed to families as intended; to authorize the
collection of data on sustainable construction practices,
energy efficiency, construction costs and the level of
assistance provided to elders and veterans from IHBG
recipients; to require non-dwelling structures funded by
NAHASDA to also be covered by adequate insurance, like housing
units are currently required to be covered under the statute,
as they represent a significant investment of limited funding.
Also, we are looking for the modification of hearing
requirements, to allow for the commencement but not completion
of a hearing with 60 days of instituting an enforcement action.
HUD has concerns with some of the amendments proposed in S.
1352. The change to Section 101 regarding program income would
further loosen already very flexible requirements regarding the
use and tracking of income generated from IHBG units. Under the
proposed amendment, income generated on the sale proceeds would
not be required to be spent on housing or housing-related
activities. Additionally, we are not able to support the
proposed amendment to Section 201, because we want to preserve
the affordability of housing units when NAHASDA funds are
invested. We want to prevent NAHASDA units from being flipped
to non-low income or even non-Indian families.
Finally, we understand that there are concerns regarding
Indian tribes requesting approval to exceed total development
costs, or TDC, and the desire to have some flexibility when
sustainability and housing practices are used in housing
consruction. We wholeheartedly support sustainability concepts
and recipients are able to use the statutory requirement
because it was developed as it is in response to an IG
investigation regarding the construction of large homes in the
northwest using NAHASDA funds.
I would say HUD supports sustainable practices. We are
happy to provide suggestions and assistance with drafting of an
amendment that allows for variances for sustainable
construction, TDC, which also preserves the underlying
integrity of the policy which is to prevent the investment of
IHBG funds in a few high cost homes, instead of dedicating the
funds to producing more affordable housing units.
We look forward to working with the Committee and the
Committee staff to provide technical assistance and to discuss
ways to refine S. 1352 to support our mutual goal: meeting the
housing needs of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian families, and continuing to create sustainable tribal
communities. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Henriquez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sandra Henriquez, Assistant Secretary For
Public And Indian Housing, U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban
Development
Good Afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on S
1352, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA.)
My name is Sandra Henriquez and I am the Assistant Secretary for
Public and Indian Housing (PIH) at HUD. PIH is responsible for the
management, operation, and oversight of HUD's American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian housing programs.
NAHASDA provides a successful approach, guided by the principles of
self-determination and self-governance, to providing decent and
affordable Indian housing and developing tribal economies. The Indian
Housing Block Grant, the largest program under NAHASDA, has infused
more than $9.9 billion into Indian housing and community development
since its inception 16 years ago.
Over the life of the program IHBG recipients have built or acquired
more than 35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country, and
substantially rehabbed more than 66,000. IHBG recipients also currently
maintain almost 51,000 ``HUD units'' that were funded before NAHASDA
was enacted.
HUD is very pleased that the reauthorization of NAHASDA is a
priority for this Committee. HUD strongly supports the reauthorization
of NAHASDA because the law is essential to building sustainable tribal
communities.
We are currently analyzing and reviewing S. 1352, and would like
the opportunity to work with the Committee and staff to provide
recommendations on some of the existing provisions, as well as offer
insight on ways to further improve NAHASDA.
Today, I would like to share with you our initial views on the
draft bill. First I will comment on the provisions included in the bill
and then discuss some principles HUD would like to see reflected in the
bill.
HUD is particularly pleased to see an effort on the part of the
Committee bill to address the needs of homeless veterans on
reservations. For the past year, PIH has collaborated with the
Department of Veterans Affairs in an effort to a find way to use the
HUD VASH program to reduce the number of homeless veterans living on
reservations. We look forward to working with the Committee to further
tailor the existing HUD VASH program to work in Indian Country.
HUD also understands the desire of this Committee and IHBG
recipients to streamline environmental reporting requirements. We
appreciate the Committees attempt to address this vexing issue but feel
the issue needs even further study. HUD ONAP staff has been working
diligently to develop an approach to streamline the requirements in a
way that can be supported by all the agencies involved in Indian
housing projects. We are currently exploring the feasibility of
creating one standard for environmental reporting requirements that
would meet the needs of these agencies. HUD will also be proposing that
the recently created White House Council on Native American Affairs
consider working on this issue.
And finally, HUD is encouraged to see the Committee bill supporting
the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Homeownership Act. This
program is vital to providing housing to the 26,546 Native Hawaiian
families currently on the waiting list for decent, safe and affordable
housing.
While we are still reviewing the bill in its entirety, I would like
to share some initial reactions to proposed amendments to two sections
of NAHASDA included in S 1352. First, proposed amendments to Section
104 would further loosen already flexible requirements regarding the
use and tracking of program income. We need to carefully explore the
implications of this change on funding for affordable housing and
Federal oversight. Additionally, we need to consider the possible
impacts of proposed amendments to Section 205 on the long-term
preservation of affordable NAHASDA units.
Finally, we understand there are concerns from Indian tribes
requesting approval to exceed total development costs (TDC), and the
desire to have additional flexibility when projects may exceed TDC.
Under current law, IHBG recipients are able to exceed TDC by 10 percent
without HUD approval. For example, in the Northwest were the TDC for a
three bedroom home is around $ 350,000, the current statute allows for
recipients to exceed this amount by $35,000 without HUD approval
bringing the TDC up to $385,000. If recipients wish to exceed the 10
percent cap, under the current regulations they may seek a variance
from HUD. The proposed amendment would provide recipients the authority
to exceed TDCs up to 20 percent over the TDC limit without prior HUD
approval. So if the TDC is $350,000 then it would allow IHBG recipients
to exceed the cap by $70,000 or up to $420,000 without prior HUD
approval. It is our understanding that this language is being requested
to allow for variances caused by the use of sustainable green building
practices. HUD supports sustainable practices. However, we need to
carefully balance this goal with the equally important goal of
preventing the investment of IHBG funds into a few high costs homes
instead of dedicating the funds to producing more affordable housing
units.
HUD would also like to work with the Committee on changes to
NAHASDA to reflect the following principles:
Enrich the type of data reported by recipients, including
data on energy efficiency, construction costs, and level of
assistance provided to elders and veterans.
Strengthen insurance requirements to better protect NAHASDA
investments and improve retention of records for monitoring
purposes.
Preserve the intent of NAHASDA by ensuring that homes are
conveyed to families as intended.
Protect NAHASDA funds in emergency situation.
HUD also shares Congress's concern about the concentration of
unexpended IHBG funds. In addition to providing intense technical
assistance to grantees to help build their capacity to expend funds, we
will work with the Committee on possible statutory amendments that
would provide HUD additional tools to ensure the timely expenditure of
IHBG funds by all grantees.
We look forward to working with the Committee and staff to refine S
1352 to support the goal we share of meeting the housing needs of
American Indian and Alaska Native families, and playing an integral
part in building sustainable Indian communities. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Henriquez.
Thank you for being here.
President Keel, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS
OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Keel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Senators,
members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you on behalf of the National Congress of
American Indians, this opportunity to testify about our views
on S. 1352, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. It is certainly an
important bill for us.
The enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act in 1996 was rightly seen as a
significant event in the history of Indian housing, because
NAHASDA consolidated a number of existing programs into the
Indian Housing Block Grant. As a tribal leader, I have seen
what self-determination has achieved for my tribe, and other
tribes, as we address our housing and infrastructure needs in a
way that best meets the needs of our citizens.
NAHASDA has enabled us to design and implement innovative
housing programs and to leverage those dollars with tribal and
private resources. NCAI has worked with tribal governments and
the National American Indian Housing Council to find solutions
that strengthen and improve housing infrastructure in Indian
Country.
NCAI supports Section 101 regarding the treatment of
program income and labor standards. This provision strengthens
tribal self-determination and enables tribes to respond most
effectively to local economic conditions by clarifying language
that allows tribes to apply their own adopted prevailing wages
instead of macro wages and to maximize employment opportunities
for their tribal members when implementing NAHASDA projects.
NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section
102 as it promises to expedite housing projects, improve
efficiencies and eliminate wasteful duplicative environmental
reviews. One of the innovations of NAHASDA was to allow tribes
to exercise environmental review requirements that would
otherwise be carried out by HUD. Tribes have utilized these
provisions to build their capacity and improve the efficiency
of their housing programs.
However, in many housing projects in Indian Country
involving funding and/or review by various Federal agencies,
there are additional overlapping and redundant environmental
review requirements imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Indian Health Service and/or the Department of Agriculture. The
resulting administrative and legal costs in doing so take funds
away from constructing houses and cause unnecessary delays for
critical housing projects. This section will save time for the
tribes developing housing projects and will save both Federal
and tribal resources. It is a critical change to ensure
efficient development of tribal housing projects.
Section 401, demonstration of rental assistance for
homeless or at-risk Indian veterans, I have to say that as a
veteran myself, it is absolutely disgraceful, in my opinion,
that in this great Country we have to use homeless and veterans
in the same sentence. NCAI expressed initial concern with this
demonstration that the resources were carved out from the
overall NAHASDA program. After further discussion with the
staff of the Committee, we understand this program will use
funds from HUD VASH and will complement the Senate
appropriation language regarding the HUD VASH setaside. NCAI
looks forward to working with this Committee on this important
issue. I applaud the intent of Section 401 to ensure tribes
have access to funding for rental assistance for these homeless
or at-risk Native veterans.
NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section
404. This provision is a top priority of NCAI's tribal tax
working group, and is supported by NCAI and our partners.
In addition to our position on the provisions outlined
above, NCAI's written testimony includes specific
recommendations that the Committee consider the following areas
of emphasis that will ensure success of NAHASDA. We urge the
Committee to ensure that the NAHASDA reauthorization considers
strategies to ensure the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee
program meets its intended focus of expanding home ownership on
tribal trust lands, expands lending and housing developments
through the HEARTH Act, ensure that integrated planning is an
eligible activity under NAHASDA, and ensure ongoing data
collection and analysis that supports tribal housing.
In conclusion, I would like to thank this Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you. As the President of NCAI, I
can assure you that this is one of the most important bills
that we will be working on. We look forward to working with
you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jefferson Keel, President, National Congress
Of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about our views on
S.1352, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Reauthorization Act of 2013. NCAI looks forward to working with the
Committee to ensure recommendations coming out of the Committee's
hearings process take into account the housing needs of Indian Country.
The 1996 enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) was rightly seen as a significant
event in the history of Indian housing. NAHASDA consolidated a number
of existing programs into the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). This
system drew lessons from the success of other self-determination and
self-governance programs. These programs in diverse areas--from health
to natural resources to economic development--had demonstrated the
positive impact of empowering tribes to more effectively develop,
implement, and manage strategies to meet the specific needs of their
community. The history of NAHASDA has shown the positive impact of
empowering tribes to develop strategies that meet the needs of their
communities.
NAHASDA has transformed how Indian housing programs recognize
tribes' authority to make their own business decisions and this 2013
reauthorization addresses the majority of the housing programs that
serve Indian Country. Tribes have made strides in addressing housing
and infrastructure conditions in Indian Country through developing and
managing their own programs and in many cases leveraging NAHASDA
dollars with tribal dollars. This flexibility is even more important
given the changed economic environment since 1996, and the various
policy developments that hold significant potential to enhance housing
development in Indian Country. NCAI has worked with tribal governments
and the National American Indian Housing Council to find solutions that
strengthen and improve housing infrastructure in Indian Country.
NCAI's comments regarding S. 1352, The Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013 are
outlined below. The first section addresses provisions in the bill
itself, the second section identifies additional areas of opportunity
for the Committee's consideration.
Section I: Analysis of S. 1352
Title I--Block Grants and Grant Requirements
Section 101. Treatment of Program Income and Labor Standards
NCAI supports this important provision as it strengthens tribal
self-determination and enables tribes to respond most effectively to
local economic conditions.
This language provides clarification that NAHASDA recipients
satisfy federal labor requirements when applying tribal adopted
prevailing wage rates to fund NAHASDA projects. The use of prevailing
wages instead of macro-wages is a critical distinction to ensure tribes
have the flexibility to maximize job creation at the local level. For
example, a Montana tribe who received American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funding applied their tribal adopted prevailing wages
so they could maximize employment for tribal members. The tribe was
able to offer numerous quality jobs for tribal members--in a
reservation facing significant challenges with unemployment--paying
between $16 to $18 per hour. Average wages in the nearest city at that
time (macro wages) stood between $20 to $22 per hour. If the tribe was
compelled to apply macro wage standards the result would have been less
jobs to address the unemployment crisis in that community. This
provision enhances NAHASDA's purpose to strengthen tribal self-
determination by acknowledging tribes are best positioned to develop
strategies to meet the needs of their communities.
Section 102. Environmental review
NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section 102 as
it promises to expedite housing projects, improve efficiencies, and
eliminate wasteful duplicative environmental reviews.
One of the innovations of NAHASDA was to allow tribes to exercise
environmental review requirements that would otherwise be carried out
by HUD. For those tribes that have the capacity in-house to conduct
environmental review, it is both an exercise of the tribe's sovereignty
and 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. Many tribes and TDHEs have built their capacity to carry out
environmental reviews consistent with the HUD-mandated process.
However, because many housing projects in Indian Country involving
funding and/or review by various federal agencies, in a number of cases
there are additional, overlapping, and redundant environmental review
requirements imposed by federal agencies including the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Indian Health Service (IHS), and/or Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The Bureau of Indian Affairs in exercising their authority to
review and approve residential leases on trust lands may require
environmental review. Further, when tribes or TDHEs leverage their
NAHASDA funds by using grant funds from other federal agencies (such as
the IHS or USDA--Rural Development), that agency's environmental review
requirements will also apply. Thus, tribes and TDHEs 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 take funds
away from constructing houses and causes unnecessarily delays for
critical housing projects. This section will save time for the tribes
developing housing projects and will save both federal and tribal
resources. It is a critical change to ensure efficient development of
tribal housing projects.
Title IV--Other Housing Assistance for Native Americans
Section 401. Demonstration of rental assistance for homeless
or at-risk Indian Veterans
NCAI expressed initial concern with this demonstration if the
resources were carved out from the overall NAHASDA program. After
further discussion with the staff of the Committee, we understand this
program will use funds from HUD-VASH and will complement the Senate
Appropriations language regarding the HUD-VASH set-aside. While NCAI
understands the intent of Section 401 to include Native veterans in
Indian housing programs, NAHASDA already enables tribes and tribal
housing authorities to provide housing services to Native American
veterans including rental and homeownership services.
NCAI sees significant potential in the demonstration and hopes that
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH) will create
a program to address the problem of veteran homelessness who live on
tribal lands and are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. NCAI supports
this demonstration to address homelessness among Native American
veterans equipping HUD, VA, and HUD Office Veterans Affairs to address
this issue by using funding from HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing Program, a program that has already demonstrated success in
decreasing veterans' homelessness by 17 percent since 2009.
Section 404. Preference for projects in Indian areas
NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in section 404.
This provision is a top priority of NCAI's tribal tax working group and
is supported by NCAI and our partners. The amendments to the Low Income
Housing Credit ensure access to a critical leveraging tool to develop
housing on tribal lands. Some tribes have faced barriers in accessing
the tax credit due to misunderstanding by state governments in
allocating their credits. NCAI fully supports this provision because it
appropriately inserts projects located in ``Indian areas,'' as defined
in Section 4 of NAHASDA, within the selected projects given preference
under a ``qualified allocation plan.''
Section II: Ensuring the Success of NAHASDA
In addition to our position on the provisions outlined above, NCAI
urges the Committee to consider the following areas of emphasis that
will ensure the success of NAHASDA. Emphasis on these areas will ensure
that NAHASDA reaches its full potential to advance economic opportunity
and strengthen self-determination.
Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
began to address one of the fundamental challenges faced by Indian
housing--the lack of private mortgage financing. The program provided
an assured federal payment of 100 percent of an outstanding mortgage
balance if a borrower defaulted on his/her loan. The program authorizes
the BIA and HUD to approve borrowers and land leases in order to
guarantee loans from private lenders to Native American families,
tribes, and housing authorities. The home and the leasehold interest in
the home site are mortgaged and are subject to liquidation in case of
foreclosure, although eligible tribal members, the tribe, or the
relevant Indian Housing Authority are first offered a chance to assume
the leasehold interest and continue payments. In order to participate
in HUD mortgage guarantee programs, HUD must review the tribe's legal
ordinances which include: leasing, mortgage lending, eviction and
foreclosure as well as the code enforcement process through the tribal
courts system or another court of competent jurisdiction (designated by
the tribe).
Using Section 184, Indian tribes or tribal members can purchase an
existing home; obtain single-close construction loans for stick-built
or manufactured homes on a permanent foundation; obtain rehabilitation
loans; or obtain both a purchase and rehabilitation loan. In 2004, HUD
expanded the Section 184 program to allow tribes to petition the agency
for the right to extend their service area or ``Indian Area'' to
include Native-owned homes off-reservation. These off-reservation units
exist in areas where a particular tribe traditionally resided or where
significant members now live. As a result, certain tribes can now apply
the Section 184 program to all of their members residing within a
particular state instead of just within their reservation's borders.
The Section 184 program is one of the most successful homeownership
programs for Indian Country and is a model for other homeownership
programs. Since the program was established, there have been almost
22,000 Section 184 transactions totaling $3.5 billion in loans that
serve Native borrowers. According to the most recent figures from HUD,
these loans include 2,656 transactions on tribal trust lands totaling
$290 million; 526 transactions on allotted land totaling $73.6 million;
and 18,760 transactions on fee simple land totaling $3.15 billion.
Based on these numbers, tribal trust and allotted land transactions
make up only 14.5 percent of Section 184 transactions. NCAI continues
to be concerned that a significant proportion of Section 184 loans are
not on tribal trust or individual trust lands, contrary to the original
intent of Section 184 to increase homeownership on tribal lands. NCAI
urges the Committee to consider the following challenges to increasing
Section 184 loans on tribal trust lands:
1. Financial Investors and Institution: Especially given the
tightening of mortgage markets and challenges faced by the
financial sector in general since the financial crisis, it is
imperative that Congress address the limited access to capital
on tribal lands. The most recent available data note that 86
percent of Native communities lack access to a single financial
institution. This absence presents significant challenges to
attracting investors and securing home mortgages in Indian
Country. This challenge has long-term implications for the
overall economic health of tribes given that the final report
of the President's Council on Financial Capability noted that
the lack of well designed and accessible financial products and
services challenges the capacity to enhance financial
capabilities.
2. Financial Capabilities: NCAI strongly advocates for tribes
to enact comprehensive programs and policies that promote
increased financial capability for tribes and for Native
peoples--and for Congress to assure that the resources to do
this are included in the NAHASDA reauthorization. Increased
financial capability is a foundation for building permanent
assets to strengthen their communities' economies. Housing
programs offer a critical opportunity to include programs and
policies that directly address individual's ability to become
financially literate and make more informed financial decisions
for themselves and their families.
3. Leasing Regulations: As outlined below, the July 2012
passage of the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal
Homeownership (HEARTH) Act presents a critical opportunity for
HUD to expand housing development utilizing expedited leasing
processes. This effort will require close coordination with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and consultation with tribes to ensure
effective implementation. NCAI believes that streamlined
leasing will increase Section 184 loans on reservation, and
enable potential tribal homeowners to successfully meet
requirements used by financial lenders to process and complete
home mortgage loan applications.
Expanding Lending and Housing Development through the HEARTH
ACT
The HEARTH Act presents the opportunity for tribes to lease
restricted lands for residential housing, and will spur homeownership
on tribal lands for middle class tribal communities. The new law is
focused on Indian housing, and authorizes surface leasing of tribal
lands without approval from the Secretary of the Interior. Instead,
tribal leases can be approved by the tribe under tribal leasing
regulations. The new law will enable tribes to move more quickly on
leasing and economic development, while maintaining the Secretary's
trust responsibility to oversee trust lands. The BIA has already
approved several tribal leasing codes, but much more work is needed to
implement the law and ensure that all tribes are able to take advantage
of its opportunities.
First, tribal leasing codes under the HEARTH Act must be developed
and made consistent with the BIA's recently updated leasing
regulations, 25 C.F.R. 162. The BIA has also published a National
Policy Memorandum containing a list of criteria that should be
considered. Key requirements include leasing code development and an
environmental review process. Many tribes will need technical
assistance and staffing not only in developing codes, but also in the
review and approval processes. As the NAHASDA legislation moves
forward, we would encourage the Committee to authorize the use of
NAHASDA funds for this purpose.
Ensure integrated planning is an eligible activity under
NAHASDA
Tribes may already use NAHASDA funds for the basics of planning for
housing, including related infrastructure like water, power and sewage.
However, NCAI encourages the Committee to make more planning resources
available to integrate housing planning with all other planning for
economic development and jobs, education, transportation, agriculture
and food, and the development of communities with health active
lifestyles.
In Indian Country, there is a growing emphasis on planning for
economic development and jobs and recognition of the importance of
business agglomeration. Industries tend to cluster in certain regions,
and it is important for tribes to plan and build businesses and jobs
that complement their existing strengths.
Tribal industries tend to cluster in certain areas such as:
Gaming/Hotel/Recreation/Entertainment
Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Timber
Commercial Real Estate
Government Contracting--638 and 8(a)
Retail--Indian owned and taxed businesses
Housing
Roads
Health Care
Education
Law Enforcement
Native Arts & Crafts
All of these industries create jobs and create a demand for local
housing. By the same token, there is a need for job creation for the
Native people who live in Indian housing. Greater integration of
housing and economic development planning is needed.
In addition, as tribal communities grow, it is essential to look at
economic and environmental realities in order to make critical
decisions about our future. That means tribal planning must address
issues such as climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Food and
energy consume huge portions of tribal economies and must be considered
in relation to tribal self-determination. The new millennium is a time
when we are facing the joint challenges of an industrial food system
and a centralized energy system, both based on fossil fuels, and both
of which are damaging the health of our peoples and the Earth at an
alarming rate. Tribal communities have long supplied the raw materials
for nuclear and coal plants, huge dam projects, and oil and gas
development. These resources have been exploited to power far-off
cities and towns, while many tribes remain deficient in sources of heat
or electricity.
Tribal communities also laid the groundwork for agriculture on this
continent. Yet today, tribes produce less and less of their own food
and instead rely upon imported foods. This is not a sustainable way to
ensure the stability of our tribal communities, our environments and
our cultures. NAHASDA should support more planning for the linkages of
housing, jobs and lifestyles and support tribal efforts to create
sustainable energy and food economies for this millennium and for the
generations yet to come. Planning supports the creation of local
economies, using the resources available to each Indigenous community.
Ensure ongoing data collection and analysis that supports
tribal housing
As the Committee is well aware, tribes and tribal housing entities
face significant challenges in accessing current and reliable data to
develop the most effective housing strategies to meet the needs of
their people. This challenge is certainly partially the responsibility
of HUD--the most recent Native American Housing Needs Study was
completed in 1999--but the problem also extends to other agencies. The
three most prominent examples are:
1. the American Community Survey poses significant data
quality challenges at the local level with the concerns
identified by rural and remote communities being even greater
in Indian Country;
2. the 2001 Native American Lending Study, conducted by the
Department of the Treasury's CDFI Fund, provides critical data
about access to capital and is yet to be updated, 12 years
since its publication; and,
3. the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) essentially excludes
data from Indian reservations in the monthly labor force
reports, and there is a wide discrepancy between DOI labor
force reports and those presented by BLS.
NCAI urges the Committee to explicitly include regular data
collection and analysis in the 2013 NAHASDA reauthorization. As noted
above, there are challenges of timely data collection, but there are
also some challenges that could be addressed simply through more
effective interagency coordination. It is also clear that there are
several data reports required by HUD that are not analyzed or provided
to tribes to assist in developing the best housing strategies.
One solution that NCAI has proposed to address this challenge would
be to provide a clearinghouse to provide tribes and tribal housing
entities with access to pertinent data collected by the Federal
Government. As the President has noted in his ``open government''
strategies, access to data can enable more effective policy
development. Similar to the information collected and provided through
the Recovery.gov clearinghouse, HUD could partner with other agencies
to provide tribes and tribal housing entities with access to data that
can support effective policy making. This initiative could also map
existing data requirements and ensure data reports that are required of
tribes to ensure the requirements are useful to tribes and the Federal
Government in developing housing policies.
Conclusion
NCAI thanks the Committee for its commitment to the important goals
of tribal self-determination through flexible and effective housing
policy. We look forward to working with the Committee throughout the
reauthorization of NAHASDA to ensure the reauthorization takes the
steps necessary to enable tribes to improve the housing condition for
their tribal communities and effectively respond to the changed
economic environment.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, President Keel. Thank you for
your testimony.
Before I go to questions by numbers, I wanted to point out
on our agenda we were going to hear from the Chairwoman of the
Fond du Lac Tribe, who is unable to make it here today, a last
minute emergency situation. So I was wondering if Senator
Franken wanted to make a statement now on behalf of that bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Sure. I think Ms. Harris spoke to it very
well, so maybe I can speak to it when it gets to my turn to ask
questions. I would like to thank Ms. Harris. Chairwoman Diver
couldn't make it today, and it is too bad, because she is
wonderful.
The Chairwoman. Good. Thank you.
Well, let's turn to questions, then, and President Keel,
you mentioned some things aside from S. 1352 that you think we
should be doing. First of all, thank you for your service to
our Country. I think you articulated with passion this issue as
it relates to our veterans.
Are there other things you think we need to do? Because the
hearing that this Committee had on the housing issue, I can
say, just about everybody who was here expressed some level of
frustration at the state of housing in Indian Country.
Mr. Keel. I think you have heard from others previously
that housing, safe, affordable housing in Indian Country is in
dire need. You have heard that there are over 200,000 units
that are needed right now. Tribes have been able to develop
programs to best suit their needs in Indian Country or in their
own communities. But oftentimes there are so many regulations
that are imposed that it becomes very discouraging and time,
well, we just run out of time.
The Chairwoman. What about that, Assistant Secretary
Henriquez, this issue of, for example, the major Federal
partners program and streamlining that? More efforts to allow
housing to happen more quickly?
Ms. Henriquez. I do believe that I would agree with the
Chairman. I believe that what we need to do across Federal
Government is really look to see what all of our programs do
and where the gaps are and then figure out, like we were
suggesting in environmental, to streamline so that we can,
across the Federal Government, accept each other's reports or
decide that there is one report we will all accept, so that we
can streamline both for ourselves, but more importantly, for
our partners in Indian Country who want to make sure that the
resources go as far as possible.
The Chairwoman. What about waiver requests? We heard even
at our hearing that waiver requests were slowed down, not a
very timely response.
Ms. Henriquez. From our experience at HUD, for example, on
the total development cost, in the past three years we have had
three waivers to exceed the 10 percent. We have approved those
three. We have not been aware that they have held up any of the
construction-related opportunities that they were meant to
remedy.
So we do them on a case by case basis. But we understand
timeliness. We understand in some places in Indian Country it
is more costly, you lose a construction season and so on. So if
there are specifics, we would like to hear what those are, but
we have not seen them yet come across our desks.
The Chairwoman. Okay. We will be glad to get some of those
specifics for you.
Ms. Henriquez. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Ms. Harris, you mentioned your support of
the Senate Bill 920, and obviously, if we pass this
legislation, how long will it take for us to actually see the
land transfer? Is this something that can be timely done?
Because obviously this negotiation has been going on for a long
time. So obviously, the ease of passage of this legislation, we
would assume that that land into trust would be done in a
reasonable time frame. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Harris. Certainly. It is difficult to predict exactly
how long it would take to put the land into trust. But if and
when the tribe does submit a fee to trust application, the
Department would certainly work expeditiously to take the land
in trust for the tribe as we do with all fee to trust
applications. Acquiring land in trust for Indian tribes is our
mission and it has been a priority.
The Chairwoman. So on something like this, when an
agreement has been reached, are we talking a year or years,
less than five years?
Ms. Harris. I can't predict how long it would take. It
really just depends on the application. There are a number of
criteria that we consider under our regulations. We would work
expeditiously to work through those criteria.
The Chairwoman. But one of the reasons why we are passing
this legislation is obviously to clear up some of the issues
that might have to be sorted out.
Ms. Harris. I understand. I am happy to speak with the
folks at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and get back to you.
The Chairwoman. That would be great. We would love a
general time frame. The Committee is trying to understand, on a
lot of different issues, what the process and time frame is so
that we have a clear understanding.
Mr. McSwain. obviously the Consortium, how much will the
Consortium save in outside contracts when the residential
facility is built?
Mr. McSwain. That is a question I will defer to Mr. Teuber.
He mentioned that he had a fair amount of costs, just in the
tribal people. It sounds like a lot of housing that he has to
provide in the absence of that . I defer to Mr. Teuber to
answer that question.
Mr. Teuber. Yes, thank you. I believe the annual sum is
estimated for this year to be $4.5 million for outside
contracts that we are using for local Anchorage-based hotels.
The Chairwoman. Okay. So very cost efficient process to
build the facility?
Mr. Teuber. That is correct. I think that the opportunity
before us is one where we can provide a more culturally
appropriate setting for our expectant mothers, for those who
are traveling in with traumatic injuries, for the convenience.
Anchorage can sometimes be a difficult place for Alaska Natives
who come from rural parts of the State to navigate in order to
receive their services at ANMC.
The Chairwoman. Okay. Vice Chairman Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Questions for Jefferson Keel. Everyone here knows your
service as a former Army Ranger. You are a decorated military
veteran, we are so grateful for your service and for what you
continue to do for this Country. I know that you are quite
familiar with issues facing our Nation's veterans, and you
specifically spoke to that.
S. 1352 includes a demonstration project to assist Indian
veteran housing. It allows tribal housing programs to use
current administrative infrastructure to operate the HUD
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher program. You talked
about running out of time, trying to use different programs. I
am wondering if you think the current tribal administrative
infrastructure needs to be adjusted to operate this voucher
program?
Mr. Keel. Thank you, Senator. I believe that there are,
first of all, we do support the demonstration project. I think
that is a very important project. As soon as we can get that in
place, it would be a tremendous advantage. I think there are
times when many of our people don't qualify for some of these
vouchers. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding between the
access to those vouchers between the State. Some of the housing
authorities are chartered under State law. Therefore we have to
go through the State administration to get our veterans applied
to this. I think that will be clarified by this.
Senator Barrasso. One of the components of this
demonstration project for the Indian veterans requires that the
tribal grantees provide information to the Secretary of HUD to
assess the project's effectiveness. I am wondering how you
think the effectiveness of this demonstration project should
really be determined.
Mr. Keel. That is very difficult to say until it actually
begins. But I would think that there are a number of tribal
housing authorities across the Country that have, there are a
number of tribes that have developed programs already to assist
these veterans in their own communities. So I think that
reaching out to them for information and their input would be
very helpful.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Senator Tester?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Barrasso for introducing, along with a bunch
of co-sponsors, myself included, the NAHASDA bill. My
questioning is going to focus on that.
I am going to start with you, Sandra Henriquez. Thank you
for being here. There are statistics out there that show that
American Indians suffer from homelessness and severe housing
needs, such as overcrowding, lack of plumbing, heating,
electricity. Have you seen those statistics?
Ms. Henriquez. I have seen the statistics; more
importantly, I have seen the housing.
Senator Tester. Perfect. What do you see as your role in
improving that situation?
Ms. Henriquez. I think there are several things. I think my
role is, one, to both advocate for the program, to advocate for
funding for the program, and to advocate for a set of rules,
regulations, that streamline the operations, so that money can
be used more effectively by the tribes.
Senator Tester. Good. Did you have money set aside for
Indian housing directly? Is there a carve-out for that in your
budget?
Ms. Henriquez. There is a line item in the HUD budget for
Native American, Native Hawaiian and Native Alaska housing.
Senator Tester. How much is in that line item?
Ms. Henriquez. I think with the President's 2014 request, I
think it was about $650 million.
Senator Tester. So if you are a tribe in, let's say the
Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, how do they get access to
that money?
Ms. Henriquez. It is done by formula. And the formula is
done through a consultation, negotiated rulemaking process. The
last consultation and formula happened a number of years ago.
In fact, by the end of August, we will start a new one. It is
all formula driven by membership.
Senator Tester. So each tribe right now there is a formula
out there that each tribe, and I assume Alaska Natives and
Hawaiian Natives would be in the same boat?
Ms. Henriquez. Alaska Natives are. Hawaiian Natives are in
a different allocation.
Senator Tester. Okay. That is fine. So each tribe gets X
number of dollars, is that the way it works?
Ms. Henriquez. Correct, based on their size and membership
enrollment.
Senator Tester. Based on population or based on land mass?
Ms. Henriquez. Based on population.
Senator Tester. Okay. And when was the last time that that
formula was looked at?
Ms. Henriquez. Five years ago, I am being told, sir.
Senator Tester. And then I assume it is updated with every
census?
Ms. Henriquez. We will be going into it again at the end of
this month, I am sorry, at the end of August, we will start
formal negotiations again with tribes.
Senator Tester. There is $650 million in that fund.
Realistically, just realistically, how many dollars should be
in that fund?
Ms. Henriquez. I don't know how to answer that question. I
would say this. We are currently conducting a housing needs
survey in Indian Country, which will help us quantify what the
need is. The 200,000 number that we have right now we think is
probably low. We think the need is significantly greater.
Senator Tester. When do you anticipate that needs survey to
be back?
Ms. Henriquez. We are probably a year away. We started the
survey instrument in collecting and training and have asked
other tribes as well to use the survey and submit it to give us
more information.
Senator Tester. I certainly hope that that will be
distributed to this Committee when it is done.
Ms. Henriquez. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Very good, thank you. A number of the
Plains Tribes have contacted me, there are concerns about
training and technical assistance dollars. Are you familiar
with this fund?
Ms. Henriquez. Yes.
Senator Tester. They argue that NAHASDA's original
negotiated rulemaking determined that the spirit and intent of
NAHASDA was to deliver training and technical assistance
through the National American Indian Housing Council. However,
administrators tell me this process has changed. Has it
changed?
Ms. Henriquez. Yes, sir. It changed in the fiscal year 2013
appropriations language. It directed us to initiate competition
for organizations and contractors with experience in Indian
housing to provide services.
Senator Tester. So that was done in 2013?
Ms. Henriquez. Yes.
Senator Tester. HUD approps?
Ms. Henriquez. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Okay, thank you for that.
We have a little bit of time left. I am going to go to
Jefferson Keel. Jefferson, you represent NCAI, you represent,
and correct me if I am wrong, about 560 tribes, somewhere
around there?
Mr. Keel. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Could you give me an idea, number one, are
they pretty well united behind NAHASDA? Are there issues that
they have with this bill generally speaking that are systemic?
Or are they pretty happy with the way it is designed?
Mr. Keel. Generally speaking, I believe that across Indian
Country, Indian Country is united that NAHASDA does definitely
need to be reauthorized.
Senator Tester. Okay. I just want to thank you all for your
testimony. I appreciate it. I am sorry I didn't ask the other
three questions, but, next time.
The Chairwoman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
this hearing. Thanks to the Vice Chairman.
I want to thank Ms. Harris for her testimony, all the
witnesses. As you mentioned, Chairwoman Karen Diver was
supposed to be here today. She couldn't make it, and she was
going to talk about this bill, S. 920. So I ask that her
testimony be added to the record.
The Chairwoman. Without objection.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
I would like to briefly describe the bill. S. 920 would
allow the Fond du Lac Band of the Ojibwe in Minnesota, transfer
its lands at its own discretion, it is a tract of land.
Basically their land is checkerboarded. This would just be
exchanging land with the county, Carlton County, that is
outside the reservation. Carlton County would get that. The
tracts of land are of equivalent value. And it has to be done
this way, because the law that is relevant here prohibits any
``purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of lands or of any
title or claim to thereof from any Indian nation or tribe of
Indians unless authorized by Congress.''
So we just have to pass this, and that is what we have to
do, right, Ms. Harris?
Ms. Harris. Right.
Senator Franken. And you guys are for this?
Ms. Harris. Yes. We are certainly for this.
Senator Franken. It is non-controversial.
Ms. Harris. Right.
Senator Franken. This is just allowing these things that
are of equal value, for Fond du Lac to get land within its
reservation back that it can build houses on and also use for
hunting and stuff like that. I just want my colleagues to know
this is really a non-controversial piece of legislation. I will
move on.
Assistant Secretary Henriquez, as you know, Minnesota
tribes have been leaders in providing services to Native
American veterans. One thing, Native Americans volunteer for
military service at a higher rate than any other ethnic group
in the Country.
Ms. Henriquez. That is correct.
Senator Franken. And the Fond du Lac Band just held a grand
opening for a new development to provide 10 units of supportive
housing for Native American veterans. This is the first
project, as I understand it, in the United States that
specifically addresses the needs of homeless veterans on a
reservation.
I support the provision in the reauthorization of the
Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act that will
help tribes better access funding through the HUD Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing program. Let me ask you, how would
your administration help innovative tribes like the Fond du Lac
access this program?
Ms. Henriquez. Let me start by saying that the VASH
program, as you know, is done with HUD in conjunction with the
Veterans Affairs. They provide the referrals of veterans to
housing authorities. Our intent is to replicate that program,
not to make it more complicated. We talked about a
demonstration, we asked the Veterans Affairs if they could
identify for us where they would do referrals in Indian
Country. They have a program with Indian Health Services to act
on their behalf. We think that there is plenty of need. We want
to be able to streamline it, provide greater access to a source
of funds for rental assistance that tribes have not had access
to before.
Senator Franken. Thank you. This is for Chairman Keel. As
we consider reauthorizing the Native American Housing and Self-
Determination Act, I think it is important for everyone to
remember that homelessness in our tribal communities often
doesn't look like homelessness in other parts of the Country.
In Indian Country there aren't a lot of emergency shelters or
transitional housing. Those who need help often are taken in by
other members of the community, which can lead to overcrowding.
That also makes it hard to measure the true level of need
in Indian Country. When we can't measure the true level of
need, it is difficult to secure the resources to improve access
to safe and affordable housing.
So my question, Chairman Keel, is can you talk to me about
some of the ways tribes have worked to document the need for
affordable housing in their communities? How can the Federal
Government support efforts to get an accurate measure of the
true level of need in Indian Country?
Mr. Keel. Thank you, Senator, for that question. You
described it very well. Many times in Indian Country, in our
communities, homelessness is not really officially documented,
because we have family and friends who will come and stay, they
have no other place to go, and their families are not willing
to put them out on the street. So they actually become
residents of that shelter or that home.
So we may have upwards of two or three families occupying
one building or a home that is designed to accommodate one
family. Even in our housing authority, and HUD, our homes are
built two or three bedroom. Very few four bedroom to
accommodate larger families. And so again, it is very, very
difficult to document.
But in many of our communities, we utilize our community
health representatives, the CHRs and other tribal employees,
and community health nurses and those folks, to help us acquire
or get the documentation that is needed. Then we assist those
families in going and applying for housing.
Another issue is that many of our families don't qualify
because of either income guidelines, there is a catch-22. If
you have no income you don't qualify for housing. But you can't
have income if you don't have a job. In many of our
communities, the jobless rate, the high unemployment rates in
many of our communities is sometimes upwards of 25, 30, 50
percent in some communities. That is very hard to document.
So it is a revolving cycle. But again, we utilize our
tribal employees, many of our health representatives, our
veterans assistance programs and even just family members to
come and help provide some of that documentation.
Senator Franken. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. Senator Johnson?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Mr. Henriquez, housing needs in Indian
Country, I am concerned about unspent NAHASDA funds. Have you
found that unspent funding is a widespread issue or one that is
attributable to just a few agencies? What steps has HUD taken
to address this issue?
Ms. Henriquez. Thank you, Senator, for the question. First,
I want to say that it is important for everyone to realize that
most tribes, the vast majority, get their allocations and spend
it and spend it in a timely way. Until recently, there was no
time frame in which housing agencies or tribes had to obligate
their money. As of 2012, there is now a five-year obligation
deadline.
That said, the monies put into our control system for
housing authorities to draw down, for tribal agencies to draw
down, the oldest money gets drawn out first, so that we try and
make sure that people are staying as current as possible. We
have also implemented new reporting requirements through the
last negotiated rulemaking. That gives us a fuller picture and
we continue to take enforcement actions where we are noticing
that spending habits and patterns are not consistent with both
need and with the plans that the tribes file for themselves.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Henriquez, as Paul Iron Cloud from
Pine Ridge noted at a recent hearing, tribes in South and North
Dakota have undertaken a Dakota housing needs assessment pilot
project in order to get population and needs data to counter
less accurate census numbers. What obstacles do tribes face to
use this data in lieu of census data for purposes of the
housing formula?
Ms. Henriquez. I can't think of any obstacles. In fact, we
are conducting a housing needs survey, and we have asked
tribes, such as Pine Ridge, to contribute the work they are
doing in their own tribes to augment the survey that we are
taking, that is being done by the Department. We think that
pulling both the statistically significant sample that we are
doing along with the information that the tribes are collecting
and sharing with us, will give us a very broad and better
picture of the need of what housing is required in Indian
Country.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Henriquez and President Keel, are
there tools HUD needs from Congress in order to assist tribes
in leveraging their NAHASDA funds with private and other
Federal sources of funds?
Ms. Henriquez. Thank you, sir. It is a great question. I
should say that what we need is the expansion, the use of tax
credits in Indian Country, using those as a development tool to
get other people's money into the mix to augment Federal
dollars, so those dollars would go farther. It would help
stimulate both economic development, increase housing.
Increasing housing is an economic driver as well, but also to
put in place much-needed housing for tribes on reservation
land.
I also think that we need to encourage the banks to do
business in Indian Country. When I do an event in Indian
Country, I always see who has been funding a particular housing
project that has been built, and I ask those bankers and
investors to please go talk to their colleagues in the business
to get them to understand that these are dollars well invested,
will be well spent, will be cared for. It is a good risk, it is
a worthy risk, and that they should think about expanding their
business models into Indian Country as well.
Senator Johnson. President Keel?
Mr. Keel. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator, for that question.
The idea that, well, first of all, in Indian Country, Indian
tribes lack access to capital. The limited number of financial
institutions or lending institutions or investors really
inhibits our ability to develop programs that will accommodate
our citizens.
The most recent data that we have has noted that 86 percent
of Native communities lack access to a single financial
institution. That is incredible. So we would ask that the
President's Council, now, this new Council on Indian Affairs,
would address that and take that across all Federal agencies.
We also believe that the HEARTH Act will assist in the
tribal leasing laws, so that tribes can develop then their own
systems and accommodate that.
The final thing would be the HUD 184 loan program that
allows tribes to, or individual homeowners, to access loans to
build homes.
Senator Johnson. To what degree does trust status and
Indian law impact the lack of financial institutions in Indian
Country?
Ms. Henriquez. Thank you, Senator. I do believe that having
trust land in the mix in terms of developing housing makes it
harder for financial institutions just to understand the model.
I think if they just spent time understanding the model,
understanding that it doesn't increase the risk, that they
would be more comfortable over time seeing it work and having
examples that are successful.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. I want to thank all the members of the
Committee for their presence today, and for the witnesses being
here and your testimony. All three of these pieces of
legislation are important to the Committee and we look forward
to moving them when we return in September. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian Schatz, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
I want to thank the Chair and Vice-Chair for holding this important
hearing today to consider three important legislative measures. I
especially want to thank Senator Cantwell and Senator Barrasso for
their strong leadership in introducing and holding a prompt hearing on,
S. 1352, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA) through the end of fiscal year 2018. I
strongly support NAHASDA reauthorization and share the high priority
the leadership and members of this Committee place on addressing the
unmet housing needs of Native Americans.
S. 1352 seeks to further tribal self-governance, streamline and
simplify the process of providing housing assistance to Native
communities and strengthen the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) housing assistance programs 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.
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 illustrates the widely disproportionate
rates of unmet housing need faced by Native Americans.
Approximately 28 percent of reservation housing units lack
adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities, a rate more than 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.
These national statistics are a stark reminder of existing housing
disparities between Native and Non-Native communities in the United
States, and yet the data for the State of Hawaii is even worse.
Unfortunately, HUD statistics have shown that Native Hawaiians face the
highest rates of inadequate housing, overcrowding and homelessness in
the nation.
There are other factors, but two facts contribute significantly to
the challenges faced by many Native Hawaiian families in search of
decent and affordable housing: Native Hawaiian families rank last in
the nation in average annual pay, while the cost of living in Hawaii
ranks the highest of all fifty states--116 percent of the national
average.
NAHASDA housing assistance has played a critical role in helping to
address the housing needs of Native Hawaiian families in my state. I
have witnessed the success of these HUD programs--how they have
benefitted Native Hawaiian communities, increased homeownership,
improved living conditions, and changed lives. Native Hawaiian housing
assistance programs remain an integral part of the NAHASDA success
story and I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this
measure through the Congress.
Thank you to all of the witnesses who travelled here to participate
in this hearing. Your contributions will be invaluable to the Committee
as we move forward on this Native American housing assistance
reauthorization legislation. We must all pledge our best efforts to
support, S.1352, to sustain and improve housing opportunities, build
stronger and more self-sufficient Native communities, and create a more
vibrant national economy.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman, Fond du Lac Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa
I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa. On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band, I would like to
thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing to consider S. 920, and
for inviting me to testify regarding this bill. I would also like to
thank Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar for their work in
considering the Band's request for this measure and for introducing
this bill.
The Fond du Lac Band and Carlton County, Minnesota have been
working jointly on a number of matters. One of these, which brings us
to Congress, is our effort to find ways in which the Band and the
County can address problems arising from checkerboard land ownership
within the Fond du Lac Reservation, and enhance the ability of both the
Band and the County to make the best use of the lands that each of us
holds.
S. 920 would enable us to do this. S. 920 would provide the Band
with authority under federal law to convey title to land that the Band
holds in fee simple. This would address the last remaining step that is
needed in order for the Fond du Lac Band and Carlton County to
implement an agreement that we have for a land exchange that will
greatly benefit us both and which has been processed through and
satisfied all other requirements of Minnesota law. Carlton County's
support for this measure is set out in a letter dated July 3, 2013 from
Robert Olean, Chair, Carlton County Board of Commissioners, to Maria
Cantwell, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A copy
of the County Commissioner's letter is attached to this testimony and
we ask that it be included as part of the record.
We also note that a companion bill to S. 920, H.R. 2650, was
introduced in the House on July 10, 2013 and referred to the House
Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Indian Alaska Native
Affairs which held a hearing on that bill on July 23, 2013.
Background
The Fond du Lac Band occupies a Reservation in northeastern
Minnesota that was carved out of our aboriginal territory pursuant to
our 1854 Treaty with the United States. Treaty of September 30, 1854,
10 Stat. 1109. Our Reservation is but a fraction of the Band's
aboriginal territory and is the home of more than 6,700 Tribal members
and other Indians who live on and near the Reservation. The 1854 Treaty
established a Reservation that encompassed more than 101,000 acres.
While the Treaty provided that this was to be a permanent homeland for
the exclusive use and benefit of the Fond du Lac Band, as a result of
the federal allotment policies in the early Twentieth century, a
considerable part of our Reservation lands were opened to private entry
by homesteaders and others. Over the years, many of those lands were
forfeited for nonpayment of taxes, and have since been administered by
the County with title held by the State of Minnesota. Land-ownership
within the Reservation is checkerboarded, with tax-forfeited lands held
by the County intermixed with trust land held by the Fond du Lac Band
and our Band members.
The checkerboard landownership significantly limits both the Band's
and the County's ability to make effective use of our lands. Several
years ago, the Band and the County began to look for ways in which to
work together to improve this. We determined that we could do this
through a land exchange, and the Band and the County subsequently
entered into an agreement to implement a land exchange.
The Band and the County have worked jointly on this land exchange
and it will greatly benefit both the Band and the County. The land
exchange involves 1,451 acres of land located outside the Fond du Lac
Reservation which are owned in fee simple by the Band. These lands
would be exchanged for tax-forfeited lands of equivalent value
(approximately 3,200 acres) that are administered by Carlton County
which are located within the Fond du Lac Reservation.
By this land exchange, both the Band and the County can consolidate
scattered tracts of land into areas that can be more effectively
managed and productively used. The land that would be transferred by
the County to the Band lies within the Fond du Lac Reservation. Because
these lands are intermixed with Indian trust lands, and tend to be of
poorer quality, there are limits to the County's ability to effectively
use them. A transfer of this land to the Band, however, will greatly
benefit the Band by providing land on which the Band can construct
much-needed housing for Band members as well as areas that can be
preserved in their natural state to enhance Band member hunting and
gathering opportunities.
The land that would be transferred from the Band to the County is
held by the Band in fee simple, lies outside the Reservation, and is
very good timber land. The transfer of these lands to the County will
greatly enhance the County's forestry resources. Independent third
party appraisals have been done and the property to be exchanged is of
equivalent value.
Why Legislation Is Needed
The proposed land exchange has been processed through and met all
of the requirements of Minnesota law for such an exchange. Minn. Stat.
Ch. 94.344. This includes the appraisals, public hearings,
environmental review, and title review. However, because the federal
Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. 177, prohibits any ``purchase, grant,
lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto,
from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians'' unless authorized by
Congress, Minnesota advised the Band and the County that the State
cannot give final approval to the land exchange without an Act of
Congress authorizing the Band to convey its title to this land.
The Non-Intercourse Act has been in effect since the earliest days
of the Republic. Under that statute, a sale or other conveyance of
tribally-owned land is of no effect unless the sale or conveyance is
made pursuant to either a treaty with the United States or federal
statute. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226,
234 (1985); Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661,
677-678 (1974). See also Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law,
15.06 at pp. 1027-1039 (2012 ed.) (Cohen's Handbook). The statute is
broadly written. In recent years, however, questions have been raised
about whether the restrictions contained in 25 U.S.C. 177 would apply
to land purchased by a tribe without federal involvement and held by
the tribe in fee simple. See Cohen's Handbook, 150.06[4] at pp. 1034-
36. To date, the United States Supreme Court has not resolved that
question. In its most recent decision where the issue was raised, the
Court stated that ``[t]his Court has never determined whether the
Indian Non-Intercourse Act, which was enacted in 1834, applies to land
that has been rendered alienable by Congress and later reacquired by an
Indian tribe.'' Cass Cnty., Minn. v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians, 524 U.S. 103, 115 n. 5 (1998). The Court there declined to
decide that question because the issue had not been presented to or
considered by the lower federal courts in that case. Id. The Supreme
Court has not since resolved the issue left open by the Cass County
case.
To address this Congress has, in other circumstances, provided the
necessary federal authorization for Indian tribes to convey interests
in tribally-owned fee lands. Two such examples involve other tribes in
Minnesota. In particular, Act of June 20, 2000, Pub. L. 106-217, 114
Stat. 344, provides that the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota
``may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any
part of the Community's interest in any real property that is not held
in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Community''
``without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the
United States.'' Similarly, in the Native American Technical
Corrections Act of March 2, 2004, Public Law 108-204, section 126, 118
Stat. 542, Congress did the same for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community in Minnesota, authorizing the Tribe to convey land it holds
in fee simple to others without further federal approval.
S. 920 would do the same for the Fond du Lac Band. S. 920 is
modeled on the 2000 and 2004 statutes that were enacted for the other
Minnesota tribes. S. 920 would provide the necessary congressional
authorization for the Fond du Lac Band to convey its title to the lands
that the Band holds in fee simple, and thereby enable the Band and the
County to complete their proposed land exchange.
While the immediate need for this legislation is the current
proposed land exchange, the Band and the County have identified other
lands which are appropriate candidates for similar exchanges in the
future. Accordingly federal legislation that would generally permit the
Band to convey land that the Band holds in fee simple--as done in S.
920--will facilitate similar transactions in the future.
Conclusion
The Fond du Lac Band and Carlton County have worked together to
find ways to meet our shared interest in improving our ability to
effectively use and manage our lands so that we can better meet the
needs of the people we serve. S. 920 would provide the Band with the
federal authorization needed to complete the land exchange that would
serve those objectives.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Committee may
have and to provide any additional information that the Committee may
need to review this. We very much appreciate the Committee's
consideration of this important matter, and ask that the Committee
favorably report on this bill.
Miigwech. Thank you.
Attachment
Commissioners Office, County of Carlton, Carlton County
Courthouse
Carlton, MN, July 3, 2013
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairwoman,
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Re: S.920--the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Non-Intercourse Act Bill
Dear Chairwoman Cantwell:
The Carlton County Board of Commissioners supports the Fond duLac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in its quest to seek passage of S. 920,
a bill introduced on May 9, 2013 by Senator Franken, cosponsored by
Senator Klobuchar, which would allow the Fond du Lac Band to convey
Band fee simple property without further federal approval. The bill has
been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. As a representative
for the Carlton County Board of Commissioners, I would be pleased to
answer any questions and provide any additional information the
Committee may need to review on this matter, and the Board asks that
the Committee favorably report on S. 920.
The County Board and the Fond du Lac Band entered into a ``Class
B'' land exchange under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 94.344, which
governs the process by which Tax Forfeited Lands administered by County
Government can exchange titles to land with other entities. The process
requires independent third party appraisals of all subject properties,
public hearings, environmental review of properties by the State of
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and title review by the State
of Minnesota Attorney General's Office before titles to property can be
exchanged. All conditions of the Statute have been met except for the
Attorney General's Opinion that Fond du Lac Band does not have
authority to exchange titles subject to federal law, 25 U.S.C. 177, the
Indian Non-Intercourse Act which states that consent must be given by
Congress before the Fond du Lac Band can alienate fee simple property.
The purpose of the land exchange is to consolidate County managed
lands in the headwaters of the Nemadji River system and to return to
Tribal management tax forfeited lands within the Reservation boundary.
The tax forfeited lands within the Reservation boundary are scattered
amongst Tribally managed lands and in exchanging with the Band, would
consolidated Tribal lands. The lands Fond du Lac will be exchanging to
Carlton County will consolidate and provide access into existing county
Memorial forest land and also protect the headwaters of the Nemadji
River, a State-listed impaired water.
The U.S. Congress has enacted bills authorizing other Minnesota
tribes to convey tribally-owned interests in fee simple property. The
Carlton County Board supports the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa in their pursuit of seeking passage of S. 920 from Congress
allowing the Band to convey interests in tribally owned property now
and into the future.
The Carlton County Board of Commissioners looks forward to working
with you and the Committee and with Fond duLac Band. If you have
further questions or need additional information, please feel free to
contact us at any time. The Board appreciates your consideration of
this matter and fully supports Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Robert Olean,
Chair, Carlton County Board of Commissioners.
Gregory J Bernu,
Carlton County Land Commissioner.
______
Prepared Statement of Carol Gore, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing
Authority
Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and members
of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for this opportunity to
provide testimony regarding a bill that is of critical importance to
American Indian and Alaska Native families across the nation--the
NAHASDA Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 1352.
Headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, Cook Inlet Housing Authority
(CIHA) has a service area that covers a vast portion of southcentral
Alaska. These lands are home to tens of thousands of Alaska Native and
American Indian people, all too many of whom struggle to find safe,
sanitary, affordable housing. Unfortunately, the severity of the need
for housing among American Indian and Alaska Native families is
ubiquitous not just in the communities we serve and the remainder of
Alaska, but throughout Indian Country.
The passage of NAHASDA in 1996 represented a major advancement in
the Indian Housing delivery system. Recipients have since built,
acquired, and/or rehabilitated more than 110,000 homes. They have
developed new housing; modernized, weatherized, and rehabilitated old
homes; provided rental assistance; created home loan programs;
delivered housing and financial literacy counseling; offered down
payment assistance; prevented crime; and even revitalized deteriorated
neighborhoods. Although NAHASDA has empowered tribal recipients to
effectively address housing needs in their communities, the severity
and pervasiveness of those needs makes continued federal investment in
Indian housing a top priority for virtually all Indian tribes.
NAHASDA is presently authorized through September 30, 2013, making
the timely passage of S. 1352 a time-sensitive endeavor. We thank
members of the Committee and their dedicated staff for the work they
have already done on the reauthorization bill, and we stand ready to
provide whatever assistance may be needed to ensure that S. 1352 is
enacted promptly.
S. 1352 Contains Important Amendments
S. 1352 contains amendments to NAHASDA that will streamline and
otherwise improve the delivery of Indian housing. The following
provisions stand out to CIHA as being particularly effective in
addressing existing barriers and promoting innovation:
Section 101 eliminates the need for tribes to painstakingly
account for income that is generated off of income that is in
turn generated off of grant amounts. If such a requirement
sounds unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic, that is because it
is.
Sections 101 and 102 address tribally-determined wage rates
and environmental review requirements in a manner that will
eliminate administrative redundancies where multiple funding
sources are being used in a single project.
Section 204 allows for modest increases in Total Development
Cost limits, which present a significant barrier to energy
efficient construction and the integration of alternative
energy technology into Indian housing projects.
Section 404 enables tribes to be competitive when seeking
Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Mark-Ups Needed to S. 1352
Cook Inlet Housing urges the Committee to consider three important
changes during the mark-up of S. 1352. These changes are necessary to
implement provisions in the manner we believe the Committee intends.
1. Demonstration Program for Homeless or At-Risk Indian Veterans
Cook Inlet Housing applauds Committee members for taking bold steps
to address the shameful prevalence of homelessness among American
Indian and Alaska Native Veterans. We strongly support the concept of a
rental assistance demonstration program for homeless and at-risk Native
veterans, as outlined in section 401 of S. 1352. However, one minor but
critical amendment is needed for the demonstration program to achieve
its intended results.
Section 401 of S. 1352 presently provides that the program must
benefit Indian veterans who ``are residing on or near Indian lands,''
making the definition of the term ``Indian lands'' critical. The
definition used in S. 1352 comes from the Native American Business
Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 4302).
That definition, in turn, cross-references multiple other definitions
in other pieces of legislation. This approach is confusing and
cumbersome, and it does not reflect the manner in which Indian housing
is actually delivered under NAHASDA.
The Indian housing delivery system is structured around the
delivery of housing within ``Indian Areas,'' as that term is already
defined in NAHASDA. Further, the meaning of the term ``Indian Areas''
has been carefully considered and clarified during Negotiated
Rulemaking between the tribes and the Federal Government. The term has
been thoughtfully defined to reflect the realities of the Indian
Housing delivery system.
Proposed Revision: We urge the Committee to replace the term
``Indian lands'' in section 401 with the term ``Indian areas''
and to define the term ``Indian areas'' as having the meaning
given the term in section 4(11) of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 4103(11)) and
its implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 1000.
2. Environmental Review
S. 1352 includes language proposed by Indian Country that will
allow NAHASDA-based environmental reviews to cover other federal
funding sources, so as to reduce potential redundancy (Section 102 of
S. 1352). However, rather than include such language as a new section
105(e) as proposed, the Senate language would replace existing section
105(d). The existing 105(d) contains provisions that authorize HUD to
waive environmental review requirements when a waiver will not
frustrate NEPA or threaten the health or safety of the community, is
the result of an inadvertent error, and may be corrected through the
sole action of the recipient. This limited waiver authority is an
important provision that tribes and TDHEs have relied upon, and which
has not been controversial. The waiver authority should remain in
NAHASDA.
Proposed Revision: CIHA believes that the removal of the
limited waiver provision in current section 105(d) of NAHASDA
may be unintentional. We suggest that the new environmental
review language be inserted as a new 105(e) and not as a
replacement for 105(d).
3. Conversion of Rental Unit to Homebuyer Unit
Multiple recipients have expressed concern about potential
ambiguity in the changes to section 205, specifically the new 205(d)
(section 201 of S.1352). CIHA supports this provision but wants to
ensure that its effect is clear. We believe that any ambiguity can
likely be resolved with the following minor revisions:
Proposed Revision: ``(d) PURCHASE.--In the case of rental
housing that is made available to a current rental tenant for
conversion to a homebuyer or lease-purchase unit, the current
rental tenant may purchase through a contract to purchase,
lease-purchase agreement, or any other sales agreement so long
as the current rental tenant was if the unit is made available
for occupancy by a family that is a low-income family at the
time of initial occupancy.''
Additional Provisions Should Be Included in S. 1352
S. 1352 does not contain several provisions that were offered by
the National American Indian Housing Council at the consensus of its
membership, which includes 271 organizations representing 463 tribes.
Notable among those provisions are:
Elimination or modification of the 30 percent maximum rental
payment requirement. S. 1352 does not contain any language
eliminating or modifying the 30 percent rule, which imposes an
unsustainable operating cost burden on projects developed under
NAHASDA.
Reserve accounts. S. 1352 does not include the language
proposed by NAIHC to expand the purposes for which reserve
accounts can be used beyond administration and planning.
Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include language
that would limit insurance requirements to those units actually
owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE. Presently, tribes are
required to maintain insurance on any units assisted under
NAHASDA, even if those units are privately owned and the
assistance provided is relatively minor.
Including the foregoing provisions in S. 1352 will address barriers
to the delivery of Indian Housing and enable tribes to improve access
to safe, affordable housing in the communities they serve.
Again, we extend our sincere appreciation to the Chairwoman, Vice-
Chair, and Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. S. 1352
makes a number of critical improvements to the Indian housing delivery
system, and we fully support the bill subject to the critical mark-ups
identified above.
______
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). I would like to thank the Chair, the
Vice-Chair, and other Committee Members for introducing S. 1352, the
bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA). 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 addressing the housing needs of
our Tribe, but there is still a significant unmet need that is far too
large. The NAHASDA has been and will continue to be a critically needed
tool to enable tribes to meet the overwhelming need for safe,
affordable, and sanitary housing for their members. Since the current
version of the statute expires on September 30, 2013, timing is
important. We appreciate the efforts of the Committee members and their
staff to introduce the reauthorization bull and we look forward to
working with you to ensure that it is enacted as soon as possible.
S. 1352 Contains Much Needed Amendments
S. 1352 contains a number of amendments to the NAHASDA and related
legislation that will provide important benefits to Indian housing.
PNHA supports the proposed amendments contained in S. 1352 (subject to
the needed mark ups described below to fix what appear to be
inadvertent ambiguities or confusion). In particular, PNHA appreciates
and supports the following provisions:
Section 101, dealing with program income, which will foster
greater flexibility and creativity in use of program income and
in the use of income generated by such funds.
Sections 101 and 102, dealing with tribally-determined wage
rates and environmental review respectively, which will reduce
administrative redundancies where multiple funding sources are
being used in a single project.
Section 201, which authorizes a family who initially
occupied a rental unit as a low-income family but later gains
enough income to exceed the low-income threshold to convert to
a homebuyer for that same unit without having to re-qualify as
low-income.
Section 204, allowing for increases in the Total Development
Cost limits, which are one of the significant barriers to
energy efficient design and construction.
Section 404, which will foster greater competitiveness for
tribes in seeking Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Mark-Ups Needed to S. 1352
We urge the Committee to consider two changes during the mark-up of
S. 1352. Both of these changes are needed to effectively implement two
of the amendments in the bill.
Environmental Review
S. 1352 includes the language proposed by Indian Country to amend
Section 105 (Environmental Review) to allow for NAHASDA-based
environmental reviews to cover other funding sources, so as to reduce
potential redundancy (Section 102 of S. 1352). However, rather than
include such language as a new section 105(e) as proposed, the Senate
language would replace the existing 105(d). That section (existing
105(d)) contains the provisions that authorize HUD under certain
limited circumstances to waive the environmental review requirements.
The waiver authority is an important provision that tribes and TDHEs
have relied upon, and which has not been controversial. The proposed
amendment in S. 1352, however, would eliminate that waiver authority.
This change may be inadvertent. The waiver authority needs to remain in
the NAHASDA. With this, PNHA proposes the following revision.
Proposed Revision:
PNHA urges that the new language be inserted as a new 105(e)
and not as a replacement for 105(d).
Conversion of Rental Unit to Homebuyer Unit
We have heard some concern expressed about potential ambiguity in
the changes to Section 205, specifically the new 205(d) (section 201 of
S. 1352). PNHA supports this provision, but wants to ensure that its
objective and effect are clear. We think that any ambiguity can be
resolved with a couple of minor wording changes, as follows:
Proposed revision:
3 ``(d) PURCHASE.--In the case of rental housing that is made
available to a current rental tenant for conversion to a
homebuyer or lease-purchase unit, the current rental tenant may
purchase through a contract to purchase, lease-purchase
agreement, or any other sales agreement so long as the current
rental tenant was if the unit is made available for occupancy
by a family that is a low-income family at the time of initial
occupancy.''
Additional Items PNHA Would Like to See in S. 1352
As necessary as its proposed amendments are, S. 1352 does not
contain several items that are very important to Indian Country. Among
them are the following:
30 percent maximum rental payment requirement. S. 1352 does
not contain any language eliminating or modifying the 30
percent rule, which imposes costly burdens on Indian Country
housing development and maintenance.
Timelines for HUD to act and ``deemed approved'' provisions.
S. 1352 does not include timelines for HUD to act with regard
to certain waiver or approval requests, and which would provide
that such a request is ``deemed approved'' if HUD fails to act
within timeline.
Reserve Accounts. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would expand the purposes for which
reserve accounts can be used beyond just administration and
planning.
Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would limit the tribe/TDHE insurance
requirements and maintenance policy requirements to those units
owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this
requirement homes that are only ``assisted'' with NAHASDA
funds).
LOCCS edits. The Senate Bill does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would require that HUD give notice and
opportunity for a hearing before imposing a ``LOCCS edit'' on a
recipient's funds.
All of these additional items would enable tribes and TDHEs to
better address the housing needs in their communities. We ask the
Committee as it moves forward on S. 1352 to include them in the final
legislation.
In closing, we greatly appreciate the effort of the Chair, Vice-
Chair, Committee Members, and their respective staff in developing and
introducing a NAHASDA reauthorization bill in a timely fashion, and for
addressing a number of critically important issues. While we think that
some improvements could be made, we fully support the proposed
amendments (subject to the requested mark ups).
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Thom, Chairman, Karuk Tribe Housing
Authority; Vice-Chairman, Karuk Tribe
Greetings Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My
name is Michael Thom, and I am the Chairman of the Karuk Tribe Housing
Authority (KTHA), as well as the Vice Chair of the Karuk Tribe. I am
honored to provide these comments as testimony for today's hearing in
support of the reauthorization of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHSADA) and in support
of S. 1352, which contains amendments to NAHASDA to make it even
stronger.
On behalf of the Karuk Tribe and the KTHA, I would like to thank
the Chairwoman and the members of the Committee for introducing S.
1352, and for establishing the reauthorization of the NAHASDA as a
priority legislative item for the Committee. In particular, we would
like to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts to provide resources to
meet the severe needs for housing assistance in Indian country and
other rural areas. The housing needs for the Karuk Tribe, and across
Indian country, are extreme. The NAHASDA has provided KTHA 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, but
reauthorization is not enough: NAHASDA must also be funded in
accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian country.
The Karuk Tribe is made up of several communities, which are
located along the Klamath River in two extremely rural portions of
Siskiyou and Humboldt Counties located in northwestern California. The
Tribe has approximately 3600 enrolled tribal members and the Tribe's
current reservation is approximately 600 acres, located on
noncontiguous parcels within the three communities. The Karuk Tribe
Housing Authority serves one of the most remote and poverty stricken
areas of California. Many of our members live in remote, rural region
where economic opportunity and jobs are very limited and unemployment
is as extraordinarily high as the per capita income is low. This region
was estimated to be 85 percent timber-dependent, and its economy has
not recovered from the closures of local mills, a condition borne out
the fact that, in 2006, 90 percent of the students enrolled in the
local elementary school qualified for free lunch program. The census
data for the Tribe's Happy Camp community, which is where the Tribe's
administrative offices and the KTHA office are located, indicate that
the median income of $23,095 is less than half the median income for
the state and the per capita income only $13,614. The census data
indicate that the unemployment rate for the Tribe is 83 percent, and
BIA labor force data indicate that unemployment is at 89 percent. Not
surprisingly, the KTHA waiting list for homes has over 350 families and
individuals, many of whom have no other viable housing options.
The Karuk Tribe Housing Authority--Innovations and Unmet Needs
Since the passage of NAHASDA, the KTHA 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. For example, we have established
a tribal direct loan program using our Indian Housing Block Grant
(IHBG). With this program we are able to fund four to five low interest
loans each year for eligible Indian participants seeking to purchase a
home off reservation. 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. Both 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.
Additionally, the KTHA has implemented rental voucher programs to
service the unique needs of college students and elders living off
reservation. With these programs, we are able to provide rental
assistance to between 28 and 36 students and 26 elders each year. While
these programs help address real housing needs, they are also targeted
and do not assist the majority of those families on the waiting list.
The vast majority of those on our waiting list (approximately 85
percent) do not have the means to participate in homeownership
programs, and they are not students or elders. They are families and
individuals seeking on-reservation low income rental units. However, we
have only 187 low income housing units located on tribal land, of which
40 are set aside to serve the needs of low income elders and rents for
elders are capped at $125/month. Unfortunately, at the current level of
NAHASDA funds available to the KTHA, we do not have the resources to
build new low income rental units. The lack of resources is compounded
by a lack of infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and, in some
communities, electricity, and our remote location, which increases the
cost for labor and materials. These environmental circumstances
increase the cost of new construction significantly. Therefore, our new
construction is limited to the replacement of one or two homes per year
for families and individuals living in substandard housing, who are
living in extreme poverty (i.e., an annual income below 30 percent of
the poverty level).
Unmet Housing Needs in Indian Country
The circumstances facing the KTHA are not unusual in Indian
Country. In 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issues the report
entitled ``A Quiet Crisis in Indian Country, which includes a stark
assessment of the unmet housing needs in Indian Country. The statistics
cited in the report illustrate the dire needs of Native Americans
nationwide. We cite the following of examples that reflect the issues
we face at KTHA:
Approximately 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under
housed.
30 percent of reservation households are overcrowded, which
is six times the national rate.
18 percent of reservation households are severely over
crowded, which leads to a variety of other social ills such as
domestic abuse, substance abuse, an increase in school dropout
rates.
Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is
considered inadequate as compared to six percent nationwide.
A lack community infrastructure (water and sewer systems,
electricity, and telephone service).
The Civil Rights Commission also noted that unmet housing needs in
Indian Country are compounded by a number of factors such as depressed
reservation economies, extreme poverty, lack of infrastructure to
support housing communities, geographic isolation, environmental
conditions on reservations, poor access to credit, and a lack of
funding. Additionally, tribes and Indian housing authorities also face
a myriad of overlapping and often duplicative administrative
requirements, which require that tribes coordinate federal, local, and
sometimes state requirements with tribal requirements, which is both
time and resource intensive.
In NAHASDA, Congress expressly recognized the acute housing needs
in Indian Country and in Indian communities, and Congress recognized
that the provision of affordable houses in safe and health environments
is an essential element in the special role of the United States in
helping tribes and their members to improve their housing conditions
and socio-economic status. However, as the report of the Civil Rights
Commission details, the purchasing power of the IHBG decreased during
the years assessed (1998 to 2003). The report also contrasts the loss
of IHBG purchasing power to the overall HUD budget, which increased
during this period. The report notes that, when adjusted for inflation,
the overall HUD discretionary budget increased by 39.6 percent, while
the funding for HUD's Native American programs decreased by 1.3
percent. Since the report was issued the funding for IHBG has remained
flat or decreased at the same time construction costs have spiked,
further eroding the purchasing power of tribes and Indian housing
authorities.
In 2000, HUD estimated that the NAHASDA funding at that time would
only meet 5 percent of the need for Indian housing and that more than
230,000 housing units would still be needed. The Civil Rights
Commission also cites an estimate by the Coalition for Indian Housing
and Development that $1.1 billion would be needed to adequately fund
NAHASDA. In testimony provided this year to the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, the Native American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC)
stated that the funding request for 2013 was only $650 million but that
$875 million would be needed just to keep up with inflation. At these
funding levels, even with additional flexibility and efficiencies,
tribes and Indian housing authorities will not be able to even maintain
the status quo, never mind addressing the unmet need. The 350 families
on the KTHA waiting list are a symptom of this systematic underfunding.
S. 1352--NAHASDA Reauthorization Bill
First, let me emphasize that reauthorization of NAHASDA is a
priority. As Congress has recognized repeatedly, Indian programs work
best when Indian tribes have the authority to plan, implement, and
administer federal programs and are freed from federal micromanagement.
NAHASDA was enacted in 1996 to begin to implement the longstanding
federal policy of tribal self-determination in the housing arena, and
it is critical to continue that process.
Despite the great progress that NAHASDA represents toward the goal
of selfdetermination, amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase
flexibility and efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and Indian
housing authorities to stretch our underfunded block grants. We need
the flexibility to identify and target our local needs, and we need to
be free of micromanagement and overlapping and duplicative oversight
requirements.
S. 1352 includes many amendments which we support as a means to
provide greater flexibility and to promote tribal self-governance and
self-sufficiency. We do not oppose any of the proposed amendments, and
we highlight several of the amendments we believe will have the
greatest positive effect. We also offer suggested amendments to a few
of the current proposals, which we believe will increase their
effectiveness. Finally, we note that the discussion draft does not
address certain issues which are very important to tribes and Indian
housing authorities. While the proposed amendments may appear, at first
sight, to merely be a laundry list of particulars, when you step back
and look at the big picture, these amendments are integrated pieces of
the larger goal inherent in NAHASDA--furtherance of tribal self-
determination in meeting the housing needs of its members. I will
address several of the proposed amendments to illustrate this point.
Important Concepts Included in S. 1352
Program income: Any income generated from program income (as
opposed to being generated by IHBG funds) will be treated as
nonprogram income and will have no restrictions. Currently, HUD
treats income that is generated by program income as program
income, with the attendant restrictions. Establishing greater
flexibility in this area will spur innovation and development.
Tribally determined prevailing wage rates: If a tribe has
adopted prevailing wage rates applicable to a NAHASDA-funded
project, those rates will apply to the entire project,
including other federal funding sources. This amendment will
greatly reduce redundancy in tracking and enforcing applicable
wage rates, and allow for more funding to be used for
constructing homes rather than administrative requirements.
Environmental review: If a tribe has carried out an
environmental review on a NAHASDA-funded project consistent
with the applicable HUD requirements, that review will satisfy
the environmental review requirements from other federal
funding sources. This amendment will greatly reduce redundancy
in environmental reviews, also allowing for more funding to be
used for constructing homes rather than administrative
requirements.
Binding commitments: Binding commitments would no longer be
required for funds utilized on privately owned homeownership
units if aggregate cost is less than $10,000 over a five year
period. While KTHA supports a larger cut-off (of $40,000), this
amendment will also save time and resources.
Conversion of rental unit to homebuyer unit: If a family
initially occupied a rental unit as a low-income family, but
later gains enough income to exceed the low-income threshold,
that family can still convert to a homebuyer for that same unit
without having to re-qualify as low-income. This amendment is
necessary so that we don't punish those tribal members who
succeed in bettering their financial circumstances.
Total Development Costs: Authorizes recipients to exceed
total development cost caps by 20 percent (under current HUD
regulations, it is 10 percent). This language should allow some
additional use of energy efficient building designs and
materials that we were prevented from doing so by TDC caps.
Self-Monitoring: The self-monitoring requirement would be
changed from annually to every other year, except for
subrecipients, who must be monitored by the recipient every
year. This amendment will help reduce the administrative burden
on our housing programs.
Indian Veterans' Housing Assistance Demonstration Project:
HUD would be authorized to take up to 5 percent of the rental
assistance amounts appropriated under the 1937 Act to establish
an Indian Veteran specific housing assistance voucher program
for the benefit of Indian veterans who are homeless or at-risk
of homelessness and who are residing on or near Indian lands.
The program would be operated by IHBG recipients. This
amendment is an important change, and provides much needed
support to our vulnerable Indian veterans.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits Preference. Section 42(m)(1)
of the Internal Revenue Code would be amended to require states
to provide preference to applicants for Low Income Housing Tax
Credits who are tribes, TDHEs, or entities whollyowned by
tribes/TDHEs, or subrecipients of tribes/TDHEs. There would
also be a preference for projects being developed in Indian
areas as defined by NAHASDA. This amendment should assist in
moving tribal applications forward in states, like California,
that do not have a good track record of awarding LITHC to
Indian tribes.
Indian Community Development Block Grant Eligibility for
TDHEs: TDHEs would be defined as Community-Based Development
Organizations eligible to apply directly for ICDBG funding.
KTHA supports this attempt to facilitate ICDBG funding to
TDHEs.
Cherokee Nation funding: The restriction on the Cherokee
Nation receiving IHBG funds, which was tied to resolution of
the ``Cherokee Freedmen'' issue, would be removed.
Native Hawaiian NAHASDA: The title providing for a Native
Hawaiian housing program would be restored.
Matching or Cost Participation: IHBG funds would qualify to
be used as matching or cost participation funds for projects
where other federal or non-federal funding is conditioned on
having matching or cost participation funds included.
Important Self-Determination Proposals Not Included in S. 1352
There are a number of important self-determination proposals that
have been proposed by Indian country, by which are not included in S.
1352. We hope that you will consider these as you markup S. 1352. These
proposals include:
30 percent maximum rental payment requirement. The Senate
Bill does not contain any language eliminating or modifying the
30 percent rule.
Exclusions from adjusted income. S. 1352 does not contain
authorization for tribes/TDHEs to adopt exclusions from
adjusted income (which is the basis for determining income
eligibility) through policy rather than through Indian Housing
Plans, which require HUD approval.
Timelines for HUD to act and ``deemed approved'' provisions.
The NAIHC bill included timelines for HUD to act with regard to
certain waiver or approval requests, and provided that request
is ``deemed approved'' if HUD fails to act within timeline.
None of those provisions were included in S. 1352.
HUD Section 3 requirements. The NAIHC bill proposed
excluding applicability of HUD Section 3 requirements (to hire
low-income persons in the community for construction and
development of projects) where tribe has adopted tribal
preference in employment and contracting standards of its own.
This provision was not included in S. 1352.
Reserve Accounts. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would expand the purposes for which
reserve accounts can be used beyond just administration and
planning.
Adding ``maintaining units'' to definition of affordable
housing activities. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed
language that would add ``maintaining'' dwelling units to the
list of affordable housing activities authorized under NAHASDA.
Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would limit the tribe/TDHE insurance
requirements and maintenance policy requirements to those units
owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this
requirement homes that are only ``assisted'' with NAHASDA
funds).
Binding commitments. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would require the form of ``binding
commitment'' necessary for useful life to be developed by
negotiated rulemaking rather than--as in current language--
complete discretion of HUD.
LOCCS edits. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed
language that would require that HUD give notice and
opportunity for a hearing before imposing a ``LOCCS edit'' on a
recipient's funds.
Statute of Limitations on enforcement actions: S. 1352 does
not include the NAIHC-proposed language that would impose a
three year statute of limitations on HUD enforcement actions.
Recaptured funds. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would require that any IHBG funds
recaptured by HUD in an enforcement action be redistributed to
the other tribes/TDHEs, rather than simply going back to the
Treasury general fund, or that would prohibit HUD from
recapturing funds for any reason if the funds have already been
expended on affordable housing activities.
Training and Technical Assistance funding. S. 1352 does not
include the NAIHCproposed language that would require that any
training or technical assistance funds that are not distributed
to a regional entity go to NAIHC.
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, the S.
1352 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. The need is there in Indian Country and we look forward
to working with the Committee on the best ways to address it.
______
Prepared Statement of Toni Ann Brend, Chairperson, Coquille Indian
Housing Authority; Vice Chairperson, Coquille Tribal Council
Greetings Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My
name is Toni Ann Brend, and I am the Chairperson of the Coquille Indian
Housing Authority (CIHA) and the Vice Chairperson of the Coquille
Tribal Council, the governing body of the Coquille Indian Tribe. I am
honored to provide these comments as testimony for the Legislative
Hearing in support of the reauthorization of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and in
support of S. 1352, which contains amendments to NAHASDA to make it
even stronger.
On behalf of the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Coquille Indian
Housing Authority, I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the members
of the Committee for introducing S. 1352, and for establishing the
reauthorization of NAHASDA as a priority legislative item for the
Committee. In particular, we would like to thank the Chairwoman for her
efforts to provide resources to meet the severe needs for housing
assistance in Indian Country. The housing needs for the Coquille Indian
Tribe, and across Indian Country, are extreme. NAHASDA has provided
CIHA 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 NAHASDA provides a necessary opportunity
to strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and efficiency, but
reauthorization is not enough. NAHASDA must also be funded in
accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian Country.
The Coquille Indian Tribe is located along the southern coast of
Oregon, along the Coquille River watershed and lower Coos Bay, the
lands inhabited by our elders and ancestors since time immemorial. In
the 19th Century, members of our tribe were forcibly relocated to the
Siletz Reservation, but a number of them escaped and made their way
back to our homelands. Our Tribe was one of the many in Western Oregon
subjected to the misguided policy of ``termination'' in the 1950s. But
we never lost our identity as a tribe and as a people, and in 1989 were
finally successful in obtaining restoration of our federal recognition
from Congress.
One of the first steps our Tribe took, when it reorganized as a
federally recognized tribe, was to establish the Coquille Indian
Housing Authority, so that we could begin providing housing for our
people. In the mid-1990s, when we obtained lands for our reservation,
the Coquille Indian Housing Authority immediately embarked on an
ambitious course of construction and development, turning 62 acres of
former forest lands into a new homeland for our people through a mixed
income residential development.
The Coquille Indian Housing Authority--Programs and Unmet Needs
Since the passage of NAHASDA, CIHA 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
constructed and operate a low-income housing development on our Tribal
lands. We provide rental vouchers to low-income Tribal members and
other American Indians and Alaska Natives to find rental housing on the
private market. We operate a lease-to-own homebuyer program that
enables Tribal members to become homeowners. We provide homebuyer
assistance and counseling.
Despite these programs and the efforts of our staff, we still are
unable to meet the need for housing for our people. We have long
waiting lists for each of our programs. We simply do not have enough
funding to build enough homes to meet the critical need out there.
In NAHASDA, Congress expressly recognized the acute housing needs
in Indian Country and in Indian communities, and Congress recognized
that the provision of affordable houseing in safe and healthy
environments is an essential element in the special role of the United
States in helping tribes and their members to improve their housing
conditions and socio-economic status.
S. 1352--NAHASDA Reauthorization Bill
First, let me emphasize that reauthorization of NAHASDA is a
priority. As Congress has recognized repeatedly, Indian programs work
best when Indian tribes have the authority to plan, implement, and
administer federal programs and are freed from federal micromanagement.
NAHASDA was enacted in 1996 to begin to implement the longstanding
federal policy of tribal self-determination in the housing arena, and
it is critical to continue that process.
Despite the great progress that NAHASDA represents toward the goal
of selfdetermination, amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase
flexibility and efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and Indian
housing authorities to stretch our underfunded block grants. We need
the flexibility to identify and target our local needs, and we need to
be free of micromanagement and overlapping and duplicative oversight
requirements.
S. 1352 includes many amendments which we support as a means to
provide greater flexibility and to promote tribal self-governance and
self-sufficiency. We do not oppose any of the proposed amendments, and
we highlight several of the amendments we believe will have the
greatest positive effect. We also offer suggested amendments to a few
of the current proposals, which we believe will increase their
effectiveness. Finally, we note that the discussion draft does not
address certain issues which are very important to tribes and Indian
housing authorities. While the proposed amendments may appear, at first
sight, to merely be a laundry list of particulars, when you step back
and look at the big picture, these amendments are integrated pieces of
the larger goal inherent in NAHASDA--furtherance of tribal self-
determination in meeting the housing needs of its members. I will
address several of the proposed amendments to illustrate this point.
Important Concepts Included in S. 1352
Program income: Any income generated from program income (as
opposed to being generated by IHBG funds) will be treated as
nonprogram income and will have no restrictions. Currently, HUD
treats income that is generated by program income as program
income, with the attendant restrictions. Establishing greater
flexibility in this area will spur innovation and development.
Tribally determined prevailing wage rates: If a tribe has
adopted prevailing wage rates applicable to a NAHASDA-funded
project, those rates will apply to the entire project,
including other federal funding sources. This amendment will
greatly reduce redundancy in tracking and enforcing applicable
wage rates, and allow for more funding to be used for
constructing homes rather than administrative requirements.
Environmental review: If a tribe has carried out an
environmental review on a NAHASDA-funded project consistent
with the applicable HUD requirements, that review will satisfy
the environmental review requirements from other federal
funding sources. This amendment will greatly reduce redundancy
in environmental reviews, also allowing for more funding to be
used for constructing homes rather than administrative
requirements.
Binding commitments: Binding commitments would no longer be
required for funds utilized on privately owned homeownership
units if aggregate cost is less than $10,000 over a five year
period. While KTHA supports a larger cut-off (of $40,000), this
amendment will also save time and resources.
Conversion of rental unit to homebuyer unit: If a family
initially occupied a rental unit as a low-income family, but
later gains enough income to exceed the low-income threshold,
that family can still convert to a homebuyer for that same unit
without having to re-qualify as low-income. This amendment is
necessary so that we don't punish those tribal members who
succeed in bettering their financial circumstances.
Total Development Costs: Authorizes recipients to exceed
total development cost caps by 20 percent (under current HUD
regulations, it is 10 percent). This language should allow some
additional use of energy efficient building designs and
materials that we were prevented from doing so by TDC caps.
Self-Monitoring: The self-monitoring requirement would be
changed from annually to every other year, except for
subrecipients, who must be monitored by the recipient every
year. This amendment will help reduce the administrative burden
on our housing programs.
Indian Veterans' Housing Assistance Demonstration Project:
HUD would be authorized to take up to 5 percent of the rental
assistance amounts appropriated under the 1937 Act to establish
an Indian Veteran specific housing assistance voucher program
for the benefit of Indian veterans who are homeless or at-risk
of homelessness and who are residing on or near Indian lands.
The program would be operated by IHBG recipients. This
amendment is an important change, and provides much needed
support to our vulnerable Indian veterans.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits Preference. Section 42(m)(1)
of the Internal Revenue Code would be amended to require states
to provide preference to applicants for Low Income Housing Tax
Credits who are tribes, TDHEs, or entities whollyowned by
tribes/TDHEs, or subrecipients of tribes/TDHEs. There would
also be a preference for projects being developed in Indian
areas as defined by NAHASDA. This amendment should assist in
moving tribal applications forward in states, like California,
that do not have a good track record of awarding LITHC to
Indian tribes.
Indian Community Development Block Grant Eligibility for
TDHEs: TDHEs would be defined as Community-Based Development
Organizations eligible to apply directly for ICDBG funding.
KTHA supports this attempt to facilitate ICDBG funding to
TDHEs.
Markup Needed
There are two changes that we would urge the Committee to consider
during markup of this legislation, both of which are needed to
effectively implement two of the amendments addressed above.
First, the bill includes the language that Indian Country proposed
to amend Section 105 (Environmental Review) to allow for NAHASDA-based
environmental reviews to cover other funding sources, so as to reduce
potential redundancy (Section 102 of the bill). However, rather than
include such language as a new section 105(e) as proposed, the Senate
language would replace the existing 105(d). That section (existing
105(d)) contains the environmental review waiver provisions, which
authorizes HUD under certain circumstances to waive the environmental
review requirements. The waiver authority is an important provision
that tribes and TDHEs have relied upon, and which has not been
controversial--and the proposed amendment would eliminate that waiver
authority.
Proposed Revision: CIHA urges that the new language be inserted as
a new 105(e) and not as a replacement for 105(d).
Second, we have heard some concern expressed about potential
ambiguity in the changes to Section 205, specifically the new 205(d)
(Section 201 of the bill). We think that the ambiguity can be resolved
with a couple of minor wording changes, as follows:
Proposed Revision: ``(d) PURCHASE.--In the case of rental
housing that is made available to a current rental tenant for
conversion to a homebuyer or lease-purchase unit, the current
rental tenant may purchase through a contract to purchase,
lease-purchase agreement, or any other sales agreement so long
as the current rental tenant was if the unit is made available
for occupancy by a family that is a low-income family at the
time of initial occupancy.''
Important Self-Determination Proposals Not Included in S. 1352
There are a number of important self-determination proposals that
have been proposed by Indian Country that are not included in S. 1352.
We hope that you will consider these as you markup S. 1352. These
proposals include:
30 percent maximum rental payment requirement: S. 1352 does
not contain any language eliminating or modifying the 30
percent 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 Housing
Act Public Housing program, there is a specific line item for
maintenance and operation of managed premises. 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 CIHA--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. CIHA supports an amendment to NAHASDA that
would eliminate or modify the application of the 30 percent
maximum rent rule to Indian housing programs.
Timelines for HUD to act and ``deemed approved'' provisions:
The NAIHC bill included timelines for HUD to act with regard to
certain waiver or approval requests, and provided that a
request is ``deemed approved'' if HUD fails to act within
timeline. None of those provisions were included in S. 1352.
Reserve Accounts: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would expand the purposes for which
reserve accounts can be used beyond just administration and
planning.
Adding ``maintaining units'' to definition of affordable
housing activities: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed
language that would add ``maintaining'' dwelling units to the
list of affordable housing activities authorized under NAHASDA.
Insurance requirements: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-
proposed language that would limit the tribe's/TDHE's insurance
requirements and maintenance policy requirements to those units
owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this
requirement homes that are only ``assisted'' with NAHASDA
funds).
LOCCS edits: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed
language that would require that HUD give notice and
opportunity for a hearing before imposing a ``LOCCS edit'' on a
recipient's funds.
Statute of Limitations on enforcement actions: S. 1352 does
not include the NAIHCproposed language that would impose a
three-year statute of limitations on HUD enforcement actions.
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, the
proposed S. 1352 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. The need is there in Indian Country and
we look forward to working with the Committee on the best ways to
address it.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Durglo, Chairman, Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Nation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Cheryl A. Causley, Executive Director, Bay Mills
Indian Housing Authority; Chairwoman, National American Indian
Housing Council (NAIHC)
Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide a written statement on S. 1352, a bill to
reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA) and for other purposes.
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 providing
this statement 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 four decades has provided
invaluable training and technical assistance to all tribes and tribal
housing entities; provided information to Congress regarding the issues
and challenges that tribes face in the many issues of housing,
infrastructure, and community and economic development arenas; and
worked 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 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
important to 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.
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
Passage of NAHASDA in 1996 signaled a shift in the relationship
between federal and tribal governments with respect to housing
programs. NAHASDA is based on tribal decisionmaking at the local level
and has resulted in improved housing conditions throughout Indian
Country.
In enacting NAHASDA, Congress moved to address the housing crisis
in Indian Country by consolidating federal housing programs into a
single block grant made directly to Indian tribes or their tribally-
designated housing entities (TDHEs).
For over 17 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.
Essential Input from Practitioners
Throughout 2012, NAIHC held a series of outreach meetings to gather
input from tribal leaders, Indian housing professionals and advocates
for consideration during reauthorization deliberations on Capitol Hill.
NAIHC's input relied heavily on individuals working in tribal housing
management who possess the extensive experience necessary to assess
NAHASDA's original intent and to take the lead in discussions on best
practices and barriers (within NAHASDA) that Indian housing directors
face on a regular basis.
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.
Input from this year-long process was catalogued and developed into
a consensus reauthorization bill. NAIHC maintained regular
communication with Members of Congress and staff throughout this
process and shared copies of provisions and reasoning for those
provisions in draft legislative language. In summary, NAIHC's proposed
NAHASDA reauthorization is designed to strengthen tribal self-
determination and remove agency-created barriers by establishing
timelines for departmental approvals and streamlining administrative
processes. NAIHC has partnered with the National Congress of American
Indians on NAHASDA reauthorization efforts in order to ensure tribal
leadership remain at the forefront of these important legislative
activities.
S. 1352, To Reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act
NAIHC appreciates efforts to enhance and further tribal self-
determination in the NAHASDA reauthorization bill. Several proposed
amendments aimed at removing barriers and streamlining processes to
implement Indian housing development are not included in S. 1352, and
we respectfully request they be reconsidered
Language to enforce departmental deadlines currently set
forth in NAHSADA;
Language authorizing Indian tribes, in their discretion, to
use funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service to
construct sanitation facilities for housing assisted with HUD
funds.
Language clarifying that the Act's minimum rent requirement
do not apply if a block grant recipient has a written policy
governing rents or homebuyer payments charged for housing
units, and such policy does not include a provision governing
maximum rents or homebuyer payments.
Language directing the Office of Native American Programs to
develop and implement a policy that provides for Indian
preference in opportunities for employment, vacancies, training
and promotion.
Indian Country needs NAHASDA reauthorized because it directly
affects the health of communities and well-being of Indian people
nationwide. NAIHC stands ready to assist in the development and
promotion of a more effective statute that will ultimately provide
safe, quality, and affordable housing for tribal communities in the
least restrictive manner. We encourage swift passage of NAHASDA
reauthorization to provide our federal partners with the necessary
tools to uphold its trust responsibility to Indian country.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman
Barrasso, and all Members of the Committee for holding this hearing to
reauthorize and extend NAHASDA to address ongoing housing challenges
throughout Indian Country.
We appreciate your strong support for the NAHASDA programs and your
ongoing commitment to Indian tribes and their members.
______
Prepared Statement of Jobie M. K. Masagatani, Chairman, Hawaiian Homes
Commission
Aloha Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank
you for this opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf of the
Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and
the 37,000 native Hawaiian beneficiaries of our land trust. We strongly
support the reauthorization of NAHASDA as it has provided tools and
resources to native communities across the country to help meet the
needs for safe and affordable housing.
Since the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands began receiving
resources through Title VIII of NAHASDA in 2001, we have used this
funding to support home construction activities (including homes,
roads, sewers, street lighting, and utilities); direct loans to income-
eligible families; individual development accounts; down payment
assistance; subsidies for home rehabilitation; and administrative cost
support to non-profits who provide self-help home construction; home
repair training; financial counseling; and home energy efficiency
training services. Over 1,400 low-income families have benefited from
this program and, in many cases, homeownership would not have been
possible without NAHASDA support.
In consideration of the $630,000 median price of a single-family
house on the island of Oahu, we are currently launching several new
programs using NAHASDA funds to help families who simply cannot afford
housing. One program couples the purchase packaged home kits with
construction financing to provide families the opportunity to own a
home for less than $200,000. Another program under development is a
rental (with option to purchase) that will leverage NAHASDA funds with
low-income housing tax credits and other State resources.
Our program was established be the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act by
the U.S. Congress in 1921. This Act set aside 200,000-plus acres of
land in the then Federal territory to return the native people of
Hawaii to their lands. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has
administered this trust since statehood in 1959. On December 27, 2000,
the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (P.L. 106-569) amended NAHASDA by
adding a new title, ``Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians.'' Title
VIII authorized the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, which
is parallel to the Indian Housing Block Grant program, and serves
families eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands. Native
Hawaiians share many of the same attributes as our American Indian and
Alaska Native counterparts: our housing needs are significant and our
trust lands require significant infrastructure to realize new housing
developments.
In closing, we recognize how NAHASDA has expanded the collective
capacity of tribes and native communities to address housing and
infrastructure needs. Although we continue to leverage Housing Block
Grant dollars with State and other Federal funding, housing needs for
native Hawaiian families remain unmet. For this reason, we support the
reauthorization of NAHASDA and we appreciate your continued support of
housing and native communities. Mahalo nui loa.