[House Hearing, 117 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] NAHASDA REAUTHORIZATION: ADDRESSING HISTORIC DISINVESTMENT AND THE ONGOING PLIGHT OF THE FREEDMEN IN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ======================================================================= HYBRID HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND INSURANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 27, 2021 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 117-44 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 45-861 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina, NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member BRAD SHERMAN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio TOM EMMER, Minnesota JUAN VARGAS, California LEE M. ZELDIN, New York JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia AL LAWSON, Florida WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam TED BUDD, North Carolina CINDY AXNE, Iowa DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee SEAN CASTEN, Illinois TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio RITCHIE TORRES, New York JOHN ROSE, Tennessee STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina LANCE GOODEN, Texas RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania VAN TAYLOR, Texas ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York PETE SESSIONS, Texas JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Chairman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Ranking BRAD SHERMAN, California Member JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio BILL POSEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas LEE M. ZELDIN, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California JOHN ROSE, Tennessee AL LAWSON, Florida BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Vice CINDY AXNE, Iowa Ranking Member RITCHIE TORRES, New York LANCE GOODEN, Texas VAN TAYLOR, Texas C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: July 27, 2021................................................ 1 Appendix: July 27, 2021................................................ 27 WITNESSES Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Brossy, Jackson, Executive Director, Native CDFI Network (NCN)... 11 Hoskin, Hon. Chuck, Jr., Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation........ 4 Kolerok, Chris, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Cook Inlet Housing Authority................................... 10 Vann, Marilyn, President, Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association................................... 8 Walters, Anthony, Executive Director, National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC)........................................ 6 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Brossy, Jackson.............................................. 28 Hoskin, Hon, Chuck, Jr....................................... 32 Kolerok, Chris............................................... 38 Vann, Marilyn................................................ 44 Walters, Anthony............................................. 53 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel Written statement of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band. 64 Written statement of Damario Solomon Simmons, Esq............ 76 Hoskin, Hon, Chuck, Jr.: Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Chairwoman Waters.......................................... 86 Kolerok, Chris: Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Chairwoman Waters.......................................... 89 Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Posey....................................... 91 Vann, Marilyn: Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Chairwoman Waters, including attachments................... 94 Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Posey....................................... 103 Young, Hon. Don: Letter of introduction for his constitutent witness, Chris Kolerok.................................................... 105 NAHASDA REAUTHORIZATION: ADDRESSING HISTORIC DISINVESTMENT AND THE ONGOING PLIGHT OF THE FREEDMEN IN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ---------- Tuesday, July 27, 2021 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:16 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Cleaver [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Cleaver, Vargas; Hill, Rose, Steil, and Taylor. Ex officio present: Representative Waters. Chairman Cleaver. The Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Also, without objection, members of the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of this subcommittee are authorized to participate in the hearing today. Today's hearing is entitled, ``NAHASDA Reauthorization: Addressing Historic Disinvestment and the Ongoing Plight of the Freedmen in Native American Communities.'' I now recognize myself for 3 minutes for an opening statement. The treatment of the original inhabitants of the North American continent has been a stain on the history of our great nation. The establishment and expansion of the United States included the seizure and forced removal of Native Americans from their homes, particularly under Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act. Subsequent legislation continued to oppress and limit the mobility of Native Americans. The United States signed more than 370 treaties, passed laws, and instituted policies that have come to define the special government-to-government relationship between the Federal and Tribal Governments, and obligates the Federal Government to promote the general well- being of Native American Tribes. Yet, the United States has failed to provide that assistance. Native American communities continue to experience disproportionately high poverty rates and low incomes, overcrowding, chronic homelessness, and a lack of basic utilities such as plumbing, clean drinking water, and heat, and face barriers to housing and community development. In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA), which provides Federal funding to Tribal areas via the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program. That program is intended to support safe, decent, and affordable housing in Tribal areas while respecting Tribal sovereignty. Today's hearing is focused on the need to reauthorize NAHASDA, which is the central statutory framework through which the Federal Government helps Tribal Governments improve housing and other infrastructure. We are also here today to understand the history of the Black Native American Freedmen. If you are not familiar with this particular history, then I encourage you to take a good look, and to listen to this hearing today. Also, we are going to look at how certain Tribes, including Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations, known as the Five Tribes, who purchased and enslaved people from Africa, signed a treaty agreement and abolished slavery by freeing any insulated individuals, and agreed to treat them and their lineal descendants equal to Native citizens. Today's hearing will discuss this turbulent history, and how Congress may be used to ensure that all federally- recognized Tribes will receive the support and flexibility to make local decisions in how they serve low-income families. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hill, for an opening statement. Mr. Hill. I thank the chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing today. And I thank our panelists for being with us today. We are here to talk about the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, that we refer to as NAHASDA. In many ways, this hearing is long overdue, and there is much to discuss. In fact, other than a 2017 field hearing in Wisconsin, held by then-Chairman Sean Duffy, this subcommittee has not even had a hearing on NAHASDA in 14 years, going all the way back to June of 2007. Moreover, while NAHASDA has been amended several times since it was enacted, it has only been reauthorized twice, once in 2002, and once in 2008, and the program is currently receiving appropriations from Congress without authorization. That passive level of oversight bordering on apathy is no way to run our government or to administer this program. But it is even more devastating, given the extreme level of present need for too many of our 570 federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. It almost defies belief to witness the persistent pockets of poverty on Tribal lands. According to a Brookings Institution report from 2019, child poverty rates among American Indians and Alaska Natives have consistently exceeded 40 percent for the past 30 years. That is unacceptable to me, and I know it is to our Chair, and to all of the participants on our panel today, and we have to figure out a more effective way to combat it. While there are many technical questions to discuss here, I think it is important that we ask some bigger questions in order to get to the heart of the matter of these reforms, such as, has NAHASDA been successful in accomplishing its objective? How can the Tribes better leverage private capital to enhance their economic development opportunities? How can we better increase accountability for the use of NAHASDA funds, while maintaining the core principle of Tribal self-determination? After all, the worst thing anyone could take away from this hearing today is the notion that if we just enact a new NAHASDA reauthorization, all of the myriad problems and complexities in Indian country will simply go away. I wish that were the case, but life is never that simple. Still, anything worth doing is worth doing well, and good Federal policy that leads to quality economic development, and with hard work and diligence, economic prosperity for our brothers and sisters on Tribal lands is certainly worth our time and effort. Which brings me to another point about a certain level of inescapable irony here. Just a week ago, we had the HUD Secretary, Secretary Fudge, sitting in this very room, proclaiming that she had no idea how much COVID emergency rental assistance money had been approved by Congress last year and had gotten into the hands of distressed tenants. That quote came nearly 6 weeks after I wrote Secretary Fudge a letter, with my colleague from Illinois, Rodney Davis, and asked her, in June, why HUD had still not spent the CARES Act money from 16 months ago, a letter to which she has not yet responded. Such a level of irresponsibility and disengagement is the last thing the American people want to hear right now. And now, one week later, we are here talking about giving HUD more Tribal rental assistance funding and expecting them to produce better and more productive results. Last week, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed willing to let accountability slip. Well, you can rest assured that on this side of the aisle, we do intend to hold HUD and others in the government accountable on their COVID emergency spending and on making sure that every dollar authorized for NAHASDA ends up going to a worthy cause without any unnecessary delay. Our citizens who rely on programs like NAHASDA deserve that level of accountability from Washington, and our job at this hearing and in oversight is to ensure that every promise we make is a promise that the U.S. Government will keep. I thank the chairman, and I yield back. Chairman Cleaver. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the full Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California, Chairwoman Waters. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Chairman Cleaver, for convening this important hearing. Unequal access to housing sits at the heart of many racial and economic injustices across the country, including among Native American communities. The legacy of land and cultural dispossession has contributed to Native people experiencing, of course, high levels of chronic homelessness, overcrowding, and poor housing conditions. We also know that a key determinant of housing access on reservations is Tribal citizenship, which is one of the barriers faced by descendants of Black Native American Freedmen today. Many remain unaware of the ongoing plight of the descendants of Freedmen, whose ancestors were held as enslaved people by five slave-holding Tribes, including the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole. Today, under their 1866 treaty agreement with the United States Government, these Tribes must recognize descendants of Freedmen as Tribal citizens and guarantee equal access to Federal housing resources. While many confuse this issue with Tribal sovereignty, I want to be clear that this is not a Tribal sovereignty issue. Rather, it is about honoring the treaty rights promised to the Freedmen and their descendants all those centuries ago. While it took decades of litigation, I am pleased that Chief Hoskin is leading the Cherokee Nation to honor the rights of Cherokee Freedmen. And other Tribes must follow suit. Today, we are considering my legislation to address Native housing needs by reauthorizing NAHASDA programs and guaranteeing equal access for all Tribal citizens, including the descendants of Freedmen. So, I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. This is a fight that is about fairness and equality. For one minority group to discriminate against another minority group cannot stand. And as the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, I do not intend for it to stand. I yield back my time. Chairman Cleaver. The gentlewoman yields back. Today, we welcome the testimony of our distinguished panel: Mr. Chuck Hoskin, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; Mr. Chris Kolerok, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs with the Cook Inlet Housing Authority; Ms. Marilyn Vann, President of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association; Mr. Anthony Walters, Executive Director of the National American Indian Housing Council; and Mr. Jackson Brossy, Executive Director of the Native CDFI Network. Thank you all for being here. Witnesses are reminded that their oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes. You should be able to see a timer on the desk in front of you that will indicate how much time you have left. When you have 1 minute remaining, a yellow light will appear, and I may tap very gently to remind you that your time is approaching its end. I would also ask that you be mindful of the timer, and when the red light appears, to quickly wrap up. And without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record. Chief Hoskin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHUCK HOSKIN, JR., PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION Mr. Hoskin. ``Osiyo,'' which means, ``hello,'' in Cherokee, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hill, Chairwoman Waters, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once wrote that, ``Great Nations, like great men, should keep their promises.'' I want to share a few words with you about Cherokee Nation's work to meet a promise that our Nation made to the Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants in the Treaty of 1866. That treaty is a living, powerful, and foundational document, Mr. Chairman, that ties together all of the Cherokee Nation treaties that existed before it. When we speak of our most important treaty rights, from our reservation lands to our right to a delegate to the House of Representatives, what we are really pointing to is language in the Treaty of 1866 which says that all provisions of treaties heretofore ratified and enforced are hereby reaffirmed and declared to be in full force. It is a document that we, as Cherokees, must defend and preserve. Article 9 of the Treaty, Mr. Chairman, states that, ``All Freedmen and their descendants shall have all of the rights of Native Cherokees,''--not some of the rights, Mr. Chairman, but all of the rights of Native Cherokees. And we criticize the United States when it fails to live up to its treaty obligations, yet we have the same responsibility. For Cherokee Nation, the issue of Freedmen citizenship was really settled 155 years ago, in the treaty that we agreed to, that the Senate ratified, and that the President of the United States signed. It was settled, Mr. Chairman, by our ancestors. Now, we talk a great deal in Cherokee culture about respecting our ancestors, and seeking guidance from them. Well, they were clear, in 1866. They agreed, by treaty, to forever cede the right to exclude Freedmen and their descendants. Because of this, some of the actions taken by some of my predecessors to exclude Freedmen were void ab initio, that is, Mr. Chairman, void from the beginning. Quite simply, Cherokee Nation has not possessed the ability, since 1866, to deny full citizenship to Freedmen. The enslavement of other human beings, and the subsequent denial to them and their descendants of basic rights, is a stain on the Cherokee Nation, and it is a stain that must be lifted. I offer both an apology on behalf of the Cherokee Nation for these actions, and more importantly, Mr. Chairman, I offer a commitment to reconciliation. I am proud of the actions that we have taken over the last decade to begin to right these wrongs. We did not appeal the Federal District Court decision in the Nash case, which confirmed that the 1866 treaty is alive and well and preserves the rights of Freedmen to have all of the rights of Native Cherokees. The day after that historic decision in 2017, our own Cherokee Nation Supreme Court affirmed that same principle. The Nash decision is the law of the land in the Cherokee Nation. We immediately began processing applications for citizenship of Freedmen descendants, and to this day, and on an ongoing basis, 8,500 applications for citizenship have been processed. Earlier this year, our supreme court determined that the, ``by blood,'' language in our constitution was also in violation of the Treaty of 1866, and that that language was void also from its inception. Interior Secretary Haaland recently recognized that the Cherokee Nation had brought the longstanding issue of Freedmen citizenship to a close and fulfilled our obligations, when she approved our constitution. But, Mr. Chairman, we know we must do more than just acknowledge the legal principle of equality. We have to embrace the spirit of equality every day. And we know it does not happen overnight. For more than a century, Freedmen have been disconnected from the Cherokee Nation. They have not had the same experience as Cherokee citizens. We have to bridge that gap. So to that end, I issued an executive order on November 7th of last year on equality, to reaffirm equality in the Cherokee Nation, to knock down barriers to access to services and programs if they exist. We have also undertaken an effort to recognize and celebrate Freedmen history and Freedmen art, so that we can celebrate our full history in the Cherokee Nation. I want to close by saying that the reason I am here today is because it is a moral imperative that I be here, and that the Cherokee Nation recognize equality. I am not here because of the 2008 NAHASDA rider that addressed the Freedmen issue. We took these actions because it was the right thing to do. I do not believe Congress should condition Federal housing policy and dollars on this type of public policy end. I think it breeds antipathy. I don't think it breeds understanding. But I will say this, Mr. Chairman, the Cherokee Nation is a better nation, and a stronger nation for having kept its promise with respect to equality for Freedmen. ``Wado,'' which means, ``thank you,'' in Cherokee. [The prepared statement of Chief Hoskin can be found on page 32 of the appendix.] Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Chief Hoskin. Mr. Walters, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WALTERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL (NAIHC) Mr. Walters. Thank you, and good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and the members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing today and for inviting NAIHC to provide testimony regarding NAHASDA. The committee uses the term, ``historic disinvestment,'' to describe the state of Tribal housing programs, and this is all too accurate. In Fiscal Year 1998, the first year of NAHASDA, Tribes received $600 million. In Fiscal Year 2021, Tribes received only $650 million for the same block grant. Factoring in inflation, this small increase actually represents a cut of over one-third of the purchasing power of Tribal housing programs. If the program had kept pace with inflation, the Indian Housing Block Grant today should equal $994 million. In these same 20 years, the HUD budget has almost doubled. Despite the funding shortfall, Tribes support NAHASDA and have been successful through the program. According to HUD, since NAHASDA was created, Tribes have built over 40,000 affordable housing units and rehabilitated over 100,000 more. Unfortunately, and also according to HUD, 68,000 units today are needed in Tribal communities to address substandard homes and to alleviated overcrowded conditions, which Native homes experience at nearly 8 times the national average. You may ask what Tribes are doing with the block grant funds they currently receive. We ask Tribes to do a lot with that funding. Tribes are tasked with maintaining tens of thousands of tribally-owned housing units across the country that have been developed over decades and which are now aging and in need of constant repairs. Tribe are also asked to provide low-income rental assistance, as well as to provide student housing assistance, housing and supportive services for veterans and elders, housing counseling services for prospective home buyers, and paying the operating costs for their own housing programs, and we also expect them to build new homes each year. Nearly 600 Tribes receive funds through NAHASDA, and they are expected to carry out all of these services with only $650 million in the block grant. Approximately 400, or two-thirds of those Tribes, receive less than $500,000 a year to do all of these activities, and 175 of these grantees receive less than $100,000 to do these housing activities. So, it shouldn't be hard to see why we are falling behind. The United States Commission on Civil Rights issued a report in 2018 entitled, ``Broken Promises,'' just 3 years ago, which found that since 2003, when the Commission on Civil Rights first reported on the housing crisis in Indian country, the situation had deteriorated further. The report stated that according to HUD, between 2003 and 2015, the number of overcrowded households without adequate kitchen or plumbing grew by 20 percent, from 90,000 households to 110,000 households. The number of families with severe housing costs grew by 55 percent, to 65,000 families. That is all in this century. That is just in these past 20 years that we are letting things get worse in our Tribal communities. But we can change that. This Congress can change that. Let's celebrate the 25th anniversary of NAHASDA this year by recommitting ourselves to fully supporting housing development in Indian country. NAIHC stands ready to work with any and every Member of Congress to address these housing issues. The current draft of the NAHASDA bill has a lot of great pieces. It contains some program improvements that Tribes have been asking for, for years. It includes proposals that will make housing development easier, including simplifying environmental reviews for housing, and relaxing flood insurance program requirements that would place Tribes on the same footing as States. It would make the HUD-VASH program for Tribal veterans permanent and open to all Tribal communities. Currently, the program only serves veterans in 27 of the 574 Tribes. The bill would also create substantial set-asides for USDA programs that seem like a perfect fit for Tribal communities that have historically had little impact. One area where the current draft falls short is the authorization levels. While NAIHC supports reauthorization, the draft bill would cap authorizations for the next 5 years, starting at current funding levels. This would essentially mean that Tribes will always be capped at two-thirds of the purchasing power that they originally negotiated for through NAHASDA. NAIHC, as a Tribal membership organization, also believes that provisions like Section 604, that target individual Tribes, should be discouraged from a larger housing bill without that Tribe's support. For the particular issue of the hearing today, it is also considered a membership issue by NAIHC, and thus should be treated as such and not directed into a housing program reauthorization. Prior to NAHASDA, Tribes were piecing their housing programs together with various grants and funding sources. Despite the original promise of the consolidated block grant, 25 years later Tribes are again piecing their housing programs together. While Tribes can and are leveraging resources from various Federal programs, it is not easy. Tribes are often confronted with a multitude of differing eligibility requirements, environmental views, and program rules. So what can we do, and what can Congress do? To end my comments, we can keep improving NAHASDA. We can reauthorize NAHASDA, and we can keep ensuring that national housing programs are also effective in Indian country. And we have to reverse the historic disinvestment and call on Congress, Federal agencies, Tribes, and the private sector to act. We must recognize that housing development in Tribal communities will rarely have the economies of scale that drive housing development in other areas, and we have to invest anyway, because it is needed in our Tribal communities and because it is a promise that the United States made to Tribal nations. With that, I will end my statement. NAIHC has submitted additional comments for the record. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you again for your support in improving housing opportunities for Tribal communities across the United States. [The prepared statement of Mr. Walters can be found on page 53 of the appendix.] Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Walters. Ms. Vann, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation. STATEMENT OF MARILYN VANN, PRESIDENT, DESCENDANTS OF FREEDMEN OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES ASSOCIATION Ms. Vann. Greetings, Chairman Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill, and members of the House Financial Services Committee. I am Marilyn Vann, President of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation of Freedmen Descendants. The organization supports enforcement of 1866 treaty rights of descendants of Freedmen who face discrimination in Tribal registration, and accessing federally-funded services. I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and her staff for support of the Freedmen in NAHASDA. Today, I request that the members support Title VI, Section 604, the compliance section in the final NAHASDA bill that is adopted by Congress. If adopted as written, the Secretary of HUD would be authorized to reduce or withhold NAHASDA for one of more of the five Tribes if such Tribe is found to be in violation of its 1866 treaty obligations to Freedmen descendants who were registered on the Dawes Rolls. I point out that none of these received degrees of blood. The rolls were approved by Congress in 1907. Currently, only the Cherokee Nation works to fulfill its treaty obligations to Freedmen descendants. Almost all of the Freedmen were Black slaves of Tribal members. Prior to the Civil War, the Tribes allied with the confederate States to protect slavery, and at the end of the Civil War, signed new treaties with the United States. These treated granted the Cherokee and Seminole Freedmen and their descendants the right to Native Indian citizenship. Many of the descendants of Freedmen today are impoverished and in need of housing, through no fault of their own. This began during slavery, when there were Black codes, slave codes. Blacks were barred from education and acquiring assets, later suffering race massacres like in Tulsa, Jim Crow laws, and redlining from the U.S. Government. Starting in 1979, Tribal Nations passed laws to exclude Freedmen and/or treat Freedmen descendants as second-class citizens. Blacks in Oklahoma have lower homeownership rates and lower income than Native Americans, and both communities, less than Whites. As a result of past and current systemic racism, descendants of Freedmen have substantial housing needs. Some of those in need of assistance include such Creek Freedmen descendants as Mr. Lovett of Okmulgee, a senior citizen on disability who needs rental assistance. He has had a double lung transplant. And Mrs. Wilson of Okmulgee, a widowed senior citizen who desperately needs a roof. She has a tarp on her roof, but needs housing repairs. And Ms. Rice of Okmulgee, a single mom who works a part-time job and is a student, and needs rental assistance that she tried to get from the Creek Nation, but was turned away. Now, will the Tribes change without Federal intervention? History says no. Cherokee Nation only came into compliance after Federal court decisions in the Cherokee Nation v. Nash, and Vann v. Zinke cases, and passage of the Freedmen protective language in a 2008 NAHASDA Reauthorization Act, and at great personal cost to the Freedmen descendants and their allies. This nation spent millions to exclude Freedmen in the previous Administrations. Some councilpersons and candidates for office still oppose Freedmen citizenship. I appreciate former Chief Baker and Chief Hoskins for what they have done to honor the treaties. Moving on to the Seminole Nation, they excluded Freedmen descendants from receiving services even after they lost the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton case in 2001. They re- categorized the Freedmen as citizens rather than members, reissuing the Freedmen Tribal membership cards to say zero, zero blood quantum and voting privileges only, and they tell other Tribes that Freedmen do not qualify for services, in spite of the DOI and HUD instructing the Tribe that Freedmen descendants do qualify for services. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation leadership stated that dialogue is needed about Freedmen but does nothing. The Tribe stresses validity of the 1866 treaty, Article 3, which confirms the Creek reservation [inaudible] Article 2 of the treaty, granting Freedmen the rights to share in national funds. In conclusion, the Tribal Governments receive money for housing programs, but the majority of Freedmen are excluded. I ask you to include the treaty obligation language in the final bill and support its passage in the full House. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Vann can be found on page 44 of the appendix.] Chairman Cleaver. Thank you. Mr. Kolerok, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your oral presentation. STATEMENT OF CHRIS KOLEROK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, COOK INLET HOUSING AUTHORITY Mr. Kolerok. Chairman Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill, Chairwoman Waters, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Chris Kolerok. I am Cup'ik Eskimo, a member of the Native Village of Mekoryuk, and I am the Director of Public Policy at Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the tribally-designated housing entity for the Cook Inlet region of Alaska. I was unanimously voted as the Legislative Committee Chair of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities, and unanimously voted as Board Member for the national American Indian Housing Council. My comments today represent all of the 14 regional housing authorities that cover every geographic corner and Native population group in Alaska. I and my Alaskan colleagues thank Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Waters for her respect of Tribal self- determination and the goal of distributing funding without administrative burden or waste by allocating Indian housing funds through the NAHASDA formula in the Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2021. Why do we need investments in Indian housing and the NAHASDA reauthorized? We do not have enough homes, and the homes we do have are often decrepit. Nationally, we need 33,000 new homes to alleviate overcrowding in Indian country today. The homes we do have are nearly 5 times as likely to have a physical deficiency as average, including lacking running water, or having electrical systems that are a fire hazard. Closer to home, in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region of Alaska, 40 percent of homes are either overcrowded or severely overcrowded, and 35 percent lack complete plumbing. What does this look like, and what does this actually mean? I have seen, with my own eyes, in Brevig Mission, Alaska, an 1,100-square-foot, 3-bedroom home, with 18 people living in it. With that many people, there are not enough bedrooms. There are not enough surfaces for everyone to sleep at the same time. Instead, they must sleep in shifts. In the hope that their children will grow up with a better life, some people sleep the day shift so that their children can sleep at night and attend school in the morning. Those people will never wake up in the morning for a job. Their children cannot learn at school if their home is too overcrowded to sleep or they carry the stress from that overcrowded home into school. Those children will face difficulty in getting a job forever if they cannot read, write, or do basic math. When 18 people share a home, and one person suffers from a substance abuse disorder, 17 other people also suffer from that affliction. There was at least one, and usually multiple homes like this in every village I served when I was the President of the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority in northwest Alaska. How did we get here? It is an oversimplification, but true, that past Congresses and Presidents forgot about us. The Indian Housing Block Grant, 20 years ago, Fiscal Year 2001, was $640 million. Last year, it was $647 million. HUD's budget 20 years ago was $28 billion, and last year, it was $60 billion. There is a long-running inequity in the distribution of new funding to HUD. Beginning to address this inequity is difficult, but I thank this subcommittee for doing this work. Second, there are no homeless people at 40 degrees below zero. So, what do we do going forward? I respectfully request the House and Senate to reauthorize NAHASDA. I also support the funding mechanism for Indian housing in the Housing is Infrastructure Act. I thank Chairwoman Waters again for her recognition and respect for self-determination in this Act. The NAHASDA formula works. It takes the many variables that quantify housing need and creates a single allocation that is noncompetitive and highly efficient to distribute. Self- determination is respected by the formula because it is a consensus model that was negotiated amongst all Tribes and HUD, representing the Federal Government. In the 25 years before NAHASDA, the Cook Inlet Housing Authority was able to construct 267 housing units, and in the 25 years after, we have constructed over 1,500. Competitive programs that change from year to year, that Tribes cannot count on, may be effective at achieving certain short-term goals, but they do not, however, provide for long-term operation of affordable housing units, and they take us back to pre-NAHASDA days when we competed with each other and had Washington tell us what we needed. I thank the subcommittee again for the opportunity to speak with you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kolerok can be found on page 38 of the appendix.] Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Kolerok. Mr. Brossy, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an oral presentation. STATEMENT OF JACKSON BROSSY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE CDFI NETWORK (NCN) Mr. Brossy. Chairman Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill, Chairwoman Waters, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jackson Brossy and I am the executive director for the Native CDFI Network (NCN). We are the only national member organization of community development financial institutions (CDFIs) that serves Native communities across the country. I am also a member of the Navajo Nation, and the subject of this hearing is near and dear to my heart, so thank you. At NCN, our member organization serves 27 different States. Our members provide access to capital for first-time homeowners, microentrepreneurs, consumers, and those who are often unable to get a conventional bank loan, and live in redlined areas across the country, and in Indian country, particularly. Yes, Indian country has been, historically, and currently is still being redlined when it comes to access to capital and housing finance. Redlining and underinvestment in programs like NAHASDA and the CDFI Fund, and the lack of access to capital contribute to the situation where Natives currently live in substandard housing, as this panel has wonderfully and explicitly described. It is a situation where no more than 30 percent of members of the Navajo Nation have access to running water in their homes. It is a situation where there is severe overcrowding at a rate of 700 percent of what it is in the rest of the country. And this is unacceptable. There are also problems with financial literacy, access to credit, and the prices that indigenous people pay when they finally do get access to a loan. The Federal Reserve recently found that Native Americans living on reservations who want to buy homes are significantly more likely to have high-priced mortgages, and those mortgages often are up to 2 percentage points more than non-Native Americans get in the same house. This means that a Native American family purchasing a house for $140,000 on a reservation could pay up to $100,000 more over the lifetime of a 30-year loan. Problems of higher costs of homeownership and redlining in Indian country are unacceptable, and I am here to bring a solution to the table, and that solution is Native CDFIs. Native CDFIs across the country are doing our part to address the untenable situation, and we can use help and investment to make a greater impact on this problem. There are 69 Treasury- certified Native CDFIs across the country, and they provide access to capital to those who are unbanked and underbanked, with financial literacy and technical assistance. These Native CDFIs operate a wide spectrum of organizations and include tribally-sponsored CDFIs, like the Citizen Potawatomi Community Development Corporation of Oklahoma, and the majority of Native CDFIs, which are nonprofit loan funds, like the Native360 Loan Fund of Nebraska. Native CDFIs can offer homeownership loans, down payment assistance, and home buyer training so that new homeowners have the tools to keep their home and build a solid foundation for their family. Aligned with the spirit of NAHASDA, Native CDFIs are self- determination in action. They carry out the mission of NAHASDA and the CDFI Fund by increasing homeownership, and utilize both HUD opportunities such as the Section 184 Loan Guarantees, and HUD counseling, and other existing Federal programs such as the USDA Direct Loan Program, the Veterans Affairs Native American Direct Home Loan program, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. However, these tools can be improved upon, and we make some detailed recommendations in our written comments. But one area I wanted to bring up was coordination between the Department of the Interior and HUD around the slow turnaround for Title Status Reports. We also wanted to highlight a great program at the USDA, called the USDA 502 Direct Program, that is really making a difference. In 2019, there were 6,194 direct loans made by this program. Of those 6,000 loans, only 2 of them were made on Tribal trust land. Thanks to a great pilot in South Dakota, Native CDFIs like the Four Bands community development are making a big difference, and we urge Congress to expand this pilot. And to wrap things up, the pandemic has pulled back the veil around the challenge of inadequate and poor housing in Native communities. I urge Congress and this committee to build upon the focus of this hearing and support the spirit of self- determination in NAHASDA. It is time to provide the resources to fund housing efforts and to eliminate barriers to utilizing other existing housing tools. Native CDFIs stand ready to work and help in this progress, and I know that we commit fully to working with Congress to help alleviate this problem and making sure that Native people have fair access to housing. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brossy can be found on page 28 of the appendix.] Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Brossy, for your testimony. And I thank all of you for your testimony. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Hoskin, I would like for you, if you would, to describe any efforts that the Cherokee Nation has made to ensure that your members can access affordable prime mortgages, and what is the Nation going to do to help its membership overcome such barriers as limited credit histories, and how can NAHASDA reauthorization help address these barriers? Mr. Hoskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Cherokee Nation, we are focused on building paths to homeownership. One way in which we do that is a mortgage assistance program, and we use some resources to help people with down payments. But I think more important than that, we create an environment where they can get credit counseling, build their credit up as they need to, to access mortgages, including the HUD 184 program, which has been a successful program for Cherokee citizens. Those programs have proven successful so far, and as we go into our next fiscal year, we are determined to commit even more resources to those types of opportunities for homeownership. At Cherokee Nation, we believe that everyone needs to have their housing needs addressed. There are different levels. For those who are on their way to homeownership or could be counseled in a way that could get them worthy of credit, we want to help them get to a mortgage, and the mortgage assistance program that we offer has been very successful. Chairman Cleaver. I am talking about prime mortgage financing. Mr. Hoskin. Through our prime mortgage financing, we do work with a number of banks in our region. We do have good relationships with our banks. There are barriers, certainly, but the mortgage assistance program does pair them with mortgages through banks, but we provide some cash assistance to help them with things like down payments and things of that nature, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cleaver. We had the credit rating agencies here last week, I think it was, or the week before, I'm not sure. Is that a problem as well, the credit histories of those seeking prime mortgages? Mr. Hoskin. Certainly, it is. Certainly, those are barriers, and that is where our staff that works with citizens on counseling and identifying what has hit their credit history, that is where we address that. But certainly, it is a barrier to homeownership. Chairman Cleaver. I had questions for everybody, but I got into this. The credit history issue, are there alternative ways in which we could develop Tribal credit history? I know the system of measurement. Mr. Hoskin. That is an interesting concept, Mr. Chairman, and I think that it would be something to explore. There are some loans that we offer that are not, in fact, reported to the credit agencies, which is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we can help some of our people get access to credit--I am not talking mortgages but access to credit--when they are in need of a non-predatory lender. But it also takes them out of building a credit history. So, we are sort of beholden to the credit history reports and exploring a way to expand that in Indian country would be of interest. Chairman Cleaver. Thank you. Mr. Kolerok, are there some unique housing challenges that you face in Alaska that perhaps we would not normally even think about? Mr. Kolerok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I think about housing in rural Alaska, I like to think about a community called Savoonga, which is 150 miles into the Bering Sea. It is closer to Russia than it is to the coast of Alaska. There are no roads to this island. And in this community, the ice only allows ocean transport from July through September. So not just there, but if you think about, how do you build a home, and you think about the distance across Alaska, logistics is one of our biggest cost drivers, and logistics has risen in cost faster than the consumer price index. So as we talk about the difficulty of building homes now versus 20 years ago, we have to remember that the funding has stayed the same, but the cost of getting the material to an isolated, very small community, has gone up over 70 percent. Chairman Cleaver. Wow. My time is up. I now recognize the ranking member from Arkansas, Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank our panelists for a really good set of presentations. Mr. Brossy, when we look at some of the many families who are living on Tribal landsz, we too often, as I said in my opening statement, see the staggering and persistent poverty. And I mentioned in my opening statement this 2019 Brookings Institution report which found that child poverty rates for the Tribes have consistently exceeded 40 percent over the past 30 years. That is a staggering number. NAHASDA exists to help attack part of that problem on the housing side. I am interested in better understanding what can be done to fight Tribal poverty, more broadly. So since you represent the CDFIs working on Tribal lands, can you talk a little bit about how Tribes are leveraging private capital for both jobs and other economic opportunity on Tribal lands? Mr. Brossy. Thank you for the question. I am going to take a step back and maybe address, how does the generational wealth transfer, and how do we set up our Native students and children for financial opportunity and growth moving forward? I think the Native CDFIs are helping with that. The Tribes obviously are doing a part of that, and that includes financial literacy, building up credit so that they are able to transfer wealth on to their next generation. And when it comes to accessing financial markets, Tribes are doing great things. They are doing great things with Title VI of NAHASDA, and I think that is an area that our members are going to look more closely at; I think it is something that is underutilized. But bringing it back to CDFIs, I do believe that the change that can happen in a generation from now is around financial literacy, credit building for young entrepreneurs and young consumers right now, that will impact generations and families moving forward. Mr. Hill. Thanks. And going back to the housing issue, looking at this Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program, it seems that those programs are chronically undersubscribed. HUD says that the Title VI program has only generated about 100 loans, worth $252 million, over the whole history of the Act. And the Section 184 program has generated 46,000 loans over its history. Can you talk to us about why these guarantee programs are not more active and what barriers currently exist to getting them used? You referenced Tribal lands and access to Tribal lands, so if you can mention in your answer if there are bureaucratic issues at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on clearing land title, and just what are some of those barriers? Mr. Brossy. There are significant delays in the Department of the Interior and BIA turning around things called Title Status Reports. Mr. Hill. What should be reasonable there? Mr. Brossy. They should be able to get something done in 30 days. Mr. Hill. What is typical? Mr. Brossy. I don't know, but I have heard 6 months. Where deals fall apart, obviously the housing market is going up and valuations change. Mr. Hill. Right. Mr. Brossy. And there also is an issue with coordination between the Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development, and within this past year there was a brief stall of taking on Section 184 loans, and we think that is unacceptable. Also, in our comments, we say that there is an opportunity for Native CDFIs to be the lender right now. Many in the private sector, the large banks have backed out of doing the Section 184 loans. Native CDFIs are ready to step in, but we need to make-- Mr. Hill. And what is the key reason why the banks have stepped away from it? Mr. Brossy. I can't speak to that. You may need to bring somebody from the banks in. But I guess designing this type of program for the market segment is cumbersome to the larger banks, and they are not able to take advantage of economies of scale, whereas Native CDFIs would serve our community and we would be able to do it right away. Mr. Hill. You referenced the USDA 502 Direct Loan Program in your remarks, and you said that you were pleased with that pilot. Tell us more about that. Mr. Brossy. It is a great pilot in South Dakota. One of our members, the Four Bands Community Fund in Eagle Butte, South Dakota, has been able to create a pipeline of loans in rural development on Tribal trust land, which, going back to the issue of getting these Title Status Reports, has been really challenging and difficult. And like I said, the year before there were only 6 out of 6,000 of these direct loans that were made on Tribal trust land. Flipped on its head, in South Dakota, we want to see it expanded. There is a great bipartisan bill in the Senate. We would love your support and we would love the committee to move it forward. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Brossy. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Cleaver. The Chair now yields to the Chair of the full Financial Services Committee, Chairwoman Waters. Chairwoman Waters. Today, we are here to discuss the chronic housing and community development needs of Native American communities and the reauthorization of Native housing programs. However, we must ensure that Federal funds are not used to perpetuate anti-Blackness and racial injustice. Not many are familiar with the history of those who came to be known as the Freedmen. The Freedmen were Black individuals who were enslaved by five formerly slaveholding Tribal Nations. The Freedmen were forced to walk the Trial of Tears alongside their slave masters, and at the end of the Civil War were guaranteed full Tribal citizenship under treaty agreement between these formerly slaveholding Tribes and the United States Government in 1866. While Tribes like the Cherokee Nation have begun to make good on that promise, after decades of litigation, others have not. To this day, there are descendants of Native American Freedmen who are denied the full benefits of equal citizenship in certain Tribes based on their African ancestry. First of all, I want to say thank you to Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Chief Hoskin, I want to thank you for your wonderful presentation here today and the way that you described what is right and what is fair. And I would hope that the other Tribes would follow suit, but my understanding is that they have no intentions of doing that. And once somebody said, ``We will let this issue be settled in the court.'' Well, there are some that have even started to talk about going to the courts. They just don't do it, and they just don't want to do it. And Ms. Vann, I would like to say thank you for never wavering on your fight for human dignity and equal recognition as a descendent of Freedmen, despite the complex layers of what it means to be both Black and Indigenous. I know that has not been easy. Your tireless efforts paid off when the Cherokee Nation finally began to recognize you and your fellow descendants of Freedmen as equal citizens of the Cherokee Nation. However, the fight continues for many other Freedmen descendants of other Tribal Nations that continue to disenfranchise and marginalize them. Your organization represents descendants of Freedmen from all of these Tribes. Can you tell us about the ongoing struggle for those descendants of Freedmen who continue to be discriminated against despite treaty obligations that should protect them? Are they in need of housing? Are they in need of health care? Or just as we are talking about reauthorization, and we are talking about how desperate it is for everybody, are the descendants desperate also? Do they need to share in these appropriations that they get from the Federal Government, with CDFI? Of course, we are responsible for CDFI funding right here in this committee, and we did a great job in giving COVID money to all of the Tribes. I will not go through the numbers. Ms. Vann? Ms. Vann. Greetings, Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, again. Yes, ma'am, the descendants of Freedmen people are in desperate need of housing as well as other programs. I really did not have time to get into the Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen, but yes ma'am, they also have great needs too. We have here two representatives of the Seminole Nation, the Freedmen bands. In the Seminole Nation, for instance, there are persons who have homes they can no longer afford to live in due to desperate poverty. Among the Freedmen people, you are talking about other services, medical services, within the pandemic, Freedmen not being able to get shots, and the Seminole Nation telling the Indian Health Service (IHS)-- Chairwoman Waters. As I understand it--interrupting you just for a minute--the Seminole denied vaccination for COVID- 19, despite the fact that we had given the money to all of the Tribes. Is that correct? Ms. Vann. Yes, ma'am. They had told IHS, and gave them a list of people to not serve with vaccinations. And people died, including leaders of the Freedmen people. That is correct. Chairwoman Waters. I don't know what else to say. Ms. Vann. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Waters. The case is very clear. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It is so very important. But I want to tell you, this issue is not going to go away. I am going to work on this issue until we get the right thing done. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Cleaver. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her prophetic comments. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Cleaver and Ranking Member Hill, for organizing this hearing, and thanks to our witnesses for your time here today. As Congress considers reauthorizing NAHASDA, it is important to acknowledge which parts of the program have worked well. One of the core tenets of NAHASDA is the flexible nature of the block grant, which allows for self-determination by Tribes. Could each of you on the panel discuss how the flexibilities included in this program have allowed Native communities to develop units, compared to the number developed when they received multiple single-use streams of funding from HUD? Mr. Brossy, if you would start? Mr. Brossy. Taking a step back, the majority members of our organization are not tribally-designated housing entities, so most of ours do not directly receive the block grant. However, there are a few native CDFIs that are subsidiaries of a Tribal Designated Housing Entity (TDHE), and there is a great example in Alaska, the Tlingit and Haida. And they are able to work with the Treasury to create a program where they are able to provide financing for working-class members who might otherwise make too much money to participate in a lot of HUD programs, but still do not have the credit history to get a conventional loan. And so, they are able to find and finance that gap there. And I think that is also an area that a lot of folks on the panel might have some thoughts about. Mr. Rose. Sure. I will start with Mr. Walters, and work my way across the panel. Mr. Walters. Sure. Thank you. You are right when you talk about the flexibilities provided under NAHASDA. Each Tribe is submitting their own Indian Housing Plan each year that addresses their unique community needs. Tribes are different, based on their geography, where they are across the country, how urban they are, how rural they are. So, giving the funds directly to Tribes through a consolidated block grant has worked wonders over the last 20 years. In the beginning years of NAHASDA, they were outproducing the prior years under HUD funding and under HUD control of the housing programs. They were building more new homes under NAHASDA than before NAHASDA was enacted. That has gone down, due to the stagnant levels of NAHASDA funding. The Tribes have, overall, been very successful with NAHASDA, so they very much support the program and wish it to continue. Mr. Rose. And Chief Hoskin, would you like to address that? Mr. Hoskin. Certainly, briefly. The direct funding of NAHASDA and the ability to craft Indian Housing Plans has been indispensable for the Cherokee Nation. Indian country is not a monolith. You will find different needs on the Cherokee Nation than you will elsewhere, and our ability to craft those programs is important. So, we certainly support reauthorization and the flexibility that comes with it. Mr. Rose. Would any of the rest of you like to add anything there? Ms. Vann. I will go ahead and add something here. I certainly believe that NAHASDA should be flexible. I believe in Tribal sovereignty, only that Tribes need to follow the law. But each Tribe, for instance, as earlier said--geography, the needs of the Tribes--in some places, there may be more rental assistance needed or such. And I agree with that flexibility, but not in issues, for instance, say it is blood quantum or those kinds of things that are used to determine the services for the members of the Tribe. Mr. Rose. Mr. Kolerok? Mr. Kolerok. The Cook Inlet Housing Authority, in the 25 years before NAHASDA, built 267 housing units, and in the 25 years after NAHASDA, has built over 1,500. NAHASDA put control of housing where it should be, which is in the hands of the Tribes. Prior to that, there were strict limits on housing costs, there were design standards, and that legacy is still visible today. Homes designed in California and shipped up whole are sitting, decaying and decrepit, in our Alaskan villages right now. Unshackling us from HUD's mandates allowed us to get creative. The Cook Inlet Housing Authority was the first entity to mix NAHASDA funding with low-income housing tax credits. Getting away from the competitive nature of HUD's prior funding into the formula fund freed us from annual competition, and it allowed us to partner with our sister organizations in Alaska. For example, the AVCP Regional Housing Authority in southwest asked us to help them with their tax credits indication and modeling. We actually helped another organization develop tax credit property off the road system that would not have been possible when we were competing for every single dollar, in eight separate programs every year. Mr. Rose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, for 5 minutes. Mr. Vargas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to speak, and I appreciate all of the witnesses being here today. I do apologize that I missed a little bit of the testimony at the beginning, so some of my questions may be repetitive, and I apologize for that at the outset. I do want to say that I am very thankful about the conversation that has been going with respect to how successful NAHASDA has been, the flexibility that it has provided for Indian Tribes. In fact, as was just stated by Mr. Kolerok, I think you said that it placed the--I don't want to put words in your mouth--I think you said it put the control of the housing where it should be, with the Indian Tribes, although you did mention California homes rotting in Alaska. I am not sure about that. I may question that, since I am from California. But I did want to ask, Mr. Hoskin, you are the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. I apologize that I missed your testimony. I was really anxious to hear your testimony about the Freedmen. I don't know if you spoke more extemporaneously other than your comments that you had here, but I would like to hear your view--you were praised by the Chair of the Full Committee--I would like to hear more of your testimony, and I apologize again that I was not here. I will let you add to what you said earlier. Mr. Hoskin. Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate the kind words from Chairwoman Waters. Quite simply, this is the law of the land in the Cherokee Nation: equality. Equality not stemming necessarily from recent actions, but equality recognizing that we made a sacred promise 155 years ago. If we believe that treaties are the law of the land, and the United States should live up to their end of treaties, then we have to do the same. And if we look back to what our ancestors did, they agreed to equality. In the Treaty of 1866, they resolved that issue. But 155 years have passed, and it was not resolved. So, we are undertaking efforts for reconciliation today, not only legal equality on paper, but equality in action, making sure that every person who comes into a Tribal office building, or a program or service, is treated equally based on the fact that they are a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. And I would note, Congressman, that if you are a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, what signifies that is a card with your name on it, your birthdate, and your citizenship number. And it doesn't have anything to do with your descendancy. It is whether you are a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and you are treated equal on that basis. We have to make sure that we practice that every day, so we have to make sure that any barriers that might have existed, historically, to access are knocked down. For example, my good friend, Marilyn Vann, has mentioned Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) cards, degrees of Indian blood. That idea is not relevant to a Cherokee Nation program or service because that is contrary to principles of equality in the Cherokee Nation. So, those are just a few of the ways in which we are making sure we embrace the spirit of equality, and we are also undertaking efforts to look back at history and culture, artistic expressions of Freedmen descendants that for too long have not been part of the Cherokee story. They are going to be part of the Cherokee story today. So I could speak a great deal on the subject. It is something that I think has made the Cherokee Nation a better nation, a stronger nation. I can only speak to how the Cherokee experience has gone, and I think other Tribes may look at our experience, may look at our legal history, and they may find instruction based on what we have done and our experience. Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much for those comments. I do want to probe a little further if I could with you. You said, sir, that it has been difficult to resolve over time, and that although it has been difficult, obviously you have a better nation, a stronger nation. Well, what made it difficult? Why was it difficult, and why is it difficult for other Tribes? Mr. Hoskin. I can't speak for other Tribes, but I can, for the Cherokee Nation--let's look at the Treaty of 1866. Following that period of time, there was still a period of great change and tumult in Indian country. And then, you find the imposition of the State of Oklahoma. So for most of the 20th Century, you find Indian nations--and I will speak really only to the Cherokee Nation, a nation not allowed by the Government of the United States to exercise its rights of self- government. And it is only when we get to the 1970s, that we begin to pick ourselves back up. I think that interruption of many, many decades really arrested the development of the Cherokee Nation in terms of our civil society. And I think as we have regained our footing, and we had a century of, frankly, suppressing and denying the history of the Freedmen, that it took some time for the body politic to sort of understand that history. That history simply wasn't taught a great deal, Freedmen history, and I think as Freedmen activists and advocates have raised that issue in the 1980s and the 1990s, and into the 2000s, I think it came to penetrate the consciousness of Cherokee leaders, not only me, but certainly including me. That process takes time, and I think it is just the unique history of Tribes, particularly within the State of Oklahoma, that caused some delay and difficulty in achieving that. There is something about a history that involves enslaving other people. I think the United States could relate to this. It just doesn't feel very good, and it's something that perhaps for generations, people don't talk about. But we are talking about it today at the Cherokee Nation. I think we are a better nation for having done it. But when you don't talk about it, Congressman, you don't take action to correct it. Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I appreciate the extra time. Thank you, Chief Hoskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Chairman Cleaver. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil, for 5 minutes. Mr. Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walters, I think you would agree that many Tribes still face pretty significant housing challenges. It was noted that one of the last committee hearings on this topic was a remote hearing in the State of Wisconsin, hosted by our former colleague, Sean Duffy. And I have spent time at some of the reservations in Wisconsin and I have seen this firsthand, that Native Americans, in many ways, are more likely to experience poor housing conditions and overcrowding than some other communities. And as we consider the NAHASDA reauthorization, I think it is important that we also discuss the regulatory and procedural issues in addition to the overall funding levels, that we are looking at process, not just dollars. And so, the question I would like you to expound on, if you would, is ways that we can streamline the construction process for NAHASDA housing so that each dollar can go further. And should Congress consider any national environmental policy act or other permitting reforms that would allow us to be more efficient with our spending? Mr. Walters. Thank you for the question. I think that is a very good place to start. I think the current NAHASDA draft bill includes provisions regarding the Environmental Protection Act. I think when Tribes are developing housing, they are now using multiple sources of funding, from different Federal agencies--Treasury, DOI, HUD, USDA. So, all of those agencies have their own rules and regulations, whether it is environmental or otherwise. Whereas the current draft bill, and to the extent now Tribes are undertaking housing projects with just HUD funding, they can control that environmental review process and all the other kind of administrative logistics work on their own. But when you start blending these other streams of funding in, you start running into that issue. Currently, the bill would allow the Tribe to keep control of an environmental review process if the NAHASDA dollars were the primary source of funding. That is not necessarily realistic for a lot of these housing developments. These housing developments are usually million- dollar projects, and they don't always have the most HUD funding as part of that. They are going to blend a lot of other funding sources. So certainly, easing administrative burden will help a lot of Tribes build more home faster. Mr. Steil. I think you bring up a really good point that there are multiple streams of funding that are going into many of these projects. Each stream of funding is going to have its own rules and regulations. Is there an approach that you think would be successful in streamlining this, to create more efficiency, or as we look to kind of trying to streamline this, make this more efficient, and remove some of the regulatory red tape that you are facing? Mr. Walters. I think it is a recognition that Tribes are able to do this on their own. They are doing it now under HUD, under Indian Housing Block Grant dollars. So, where they have shown the ability to do that and carry out those processes, there is no reason to make Tribal housing programs jump through the hoops of other agencies just because the funding stream may have come from there. So to the extent possible, I would encourage where a Tribe is building housing and they have that expertise built up over 25 years, let them control the administrative processes under one process overall. Mr. Steil. I appreciate your insight on that, and I think there is a lot to be learned from your testimony there on the importance of local control, removing some of that regulatory red tape. We see this time and again here in Washington. Let me shift gears with my remaining time, if I can, to you, Mr. Brossy. I want to step outside the housing discussion just for a moment and look at some of the broader financial challenges that many Tribes are facing. We have heard from some of the witnesses here today about difficult circumstances in many Tribal areas. I think improving access to financial services can be a really important component of our overall strategy to create more economic opportunity for Tribal members. You noted some of this in your written testimony. Can you just comment on what you think are some of the clear impediments for financial inclusion that Congress should be looking to address? Mr. Brossy. Thank you for the question, Mr. Steil. Again, taking it back to financial literacy, financial training, these are things that are often not taught in schools. They are taught in homes, and when we are dealing with Native communities, we are talking about being in a cash economy for only a couple of generations. So, what Native CDFIs can do around financial literacy, financial education, and credit building is very important, and we want Congress to support it 100 percent. One thought I had on the earlier question about streamlining dollars for construction and making sure that they go the furthest, there is a movement toward eliminating what we call dual or even triple taxation on development on Indian lands. And that deals directly with the States. I am getting outside of what the Native CDFIs do, but I do think that if we really want to make sure that there is an incentive and not a disincentive for doing projects on Tribal lands, States shouldn't be able to tax those operations at the same level and then not provide services there. There should be some sort of waiver. Some States are looking at this individually, but it also could be at a Federal level. Mr. Steil. Thank you very much. And thank you all for your testimony. I yield back. Chairman Cleaver. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor, for 5 minutes. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. And I will make a broad comment that the discussion we are having about whether or not to reauthorize a program that continues to be appropriated for really underscores the brokenness of the Federal budgeting process. And just something I have noticed since I have been here--this is only my second term in Congress--is that whereas virtually every government that I have ever seen has a single-bill budget, the Federal Government has an authorization process, technically a budgeting, and then a 12-bill appropriations process. That is a very unique budgeting process. It is the only place on Earth that this process is attempted to be tried. In 45 years of trying it, we have actually only gotten 4 budgets on time with this particular process. And, unfortunately, you are the victims, right? You are trying to come and authorize a program that keeps getting appropriated for, but the authorizations are kind of an extraneous political exercise rather than actually having a real, substantive policy thing. Anyway, that is a process comment. But you are here, and obviously, this is an important program for your communities. We have heard a lot of advocacy from the witnesses about the importance of flexibility, the ability to use this program as you see fit. And I was just going to throw it out--are there any other additional flexibilities specifically that you would like to see? If you want to raise your hand, I will call on you. But you all have already said it. It is in your written testimony. Yes? Mr. Walters. I think this goes to some of the other questions we have heard from other members, is the flexibility regarding getting private capital and investment into Indian country, a lot of the questions have kind of been geared towards, where can Tribal communities receive or reach out to private investment? But it is making private investment also work in Tribal communities. There are a lot of tax credit programs that encourage banks and other lenders to participate in development across the country, and there are a lot of programs that emphasize underserved communities. But Tribal communities are always the last group out of the underserved communities in this country--based on their geography, based on their land tenure, based on legal aspects. So, adding flexibilities there and encouraging that partnership between Tribes and capital and private markets will help overall development in Indian country. Mr. Taylor. Just to that end, as someone who was in the banking industry for a while--and I was reading a 2017 HUD report, and I will just read what it says: ``Mortgage lending in Indian country is made difficult by factors common to underserved markets and rural areas,'' pointing out that lending in Indian country is even more difficult because Tribal land trusts cannot be alienated or encumbered. In other words, if I put a lien on a property, the judicial process may not be clear, whereas in Texas, where I am from, you can foreclose and the bank can take the property if they are not paying their money. And so, that special legal structure, I think goes to the redlining that you referred to earlier, which is illegal. Under Federal banking law, we don't allow banks to redline, but if you create this special legal structure--and that is a choice that you are making; maybe I am incorrect on that and Congress needs to fix that for you--but the legal structure you have created then, in turn, made it difficult for banks to come in and encumber land. And that may be different by Tribe. I just threw out a ton of stuff. Yes, Mr. Brossy? Mr. Brossy. I have one more thing to add, and that is when we talk about bringing in outside investment and kind of thinking outside the box, one area that we wanted to touch on was bringing folks to the table with new market tax credits. This is something that is not new to the Financial Services Committee. Last year, the Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing, and they sent a letter to the Treasury asking them why there has been almost zero dollars invested, less than 1 percent of allocations for new market tax credits going to Native-led operations, including Native CDFIs and CDEs. And there hasn't been anyone in any Native-led organizations in the past 4 years who has received allocations, despite need and capacity. And that is something that Congress has looked at, and I think it deserves additional scrutiny. Mr. Taylor. Going back to the question of encumbrances and foreclosures, the way property is structured in 50 States, but sometimes not necessary--do you want to speak to that, why you are structured that way, or should you change? Do we need to help you change that? Can you change that? Do you want to change that? Mr. Brossy. Yes, that is going to take us about an hour. Land title in Indian country, there are, I think, about 10 different layers. Oklahoma is different than the Navajo Nation, where I am from. But the area that we focus most on, or that we think has been the most difficult to develop, is Tribal trust land. And we need to get folks from the Department of the Interior and HUD together on the same page, working with us. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Cleaver. Thank you. Let me thank the witnesses for being here and I apologize--this joint where we work sometimes creates conflicts, and so we had five votes, and you were sitting here waiting patiently for us. So, we apologize for that. It happens all too frequently. Thank you very much. Under normal circumstances, we probably would have had another round of questions. We won't today, but I would have asked a question about whether or not it is true that some of the five Tribes actually inflate their numbers in order to get a higher allocation of dollars. I am not going to ask the question now or even bring it up, but I thought that it might have been a good question, if we had a little more time. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for these witnesses, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X July 27, 2021 [all]