U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–543 PDF 2007

REMOVING BARRIERS TO HOMEOWNERSHIP

FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 31, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–114

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

STEVAN, PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BARBARA LEE, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 31, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 31, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 65

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, JULY 31, 2006

Anspach, Allen, Regional Director for the Western Region, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Department of the Interior .................................................................... 25

Barbier, Steven, Management Consultant III, Neighborhood Reinvestment 

Corporation doing business as Neighborworks America ................................... 40

Browning, Edward, Arizona Rural Development State Director, Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture ............................................................. 23

Cabrera, Orlando J., Assistant Secretary, Public Housing and Indian Affairs, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................................. 21

Carl, Chester, CEO, Navajo Housing Authority ................................................... 42

DuCharme, George, Director, Office of Land Titles and Records, Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes ................................................................................. 5

Fullmer, Jamie, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation ............................................ 7

Green, Pattye, Senior Business Manager, Federal National Mortgage Association ........................................................................................................................ 45

Hellewell, Edward D., Senior Vice President and Senior Underwriting Counsel, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Legal Services ....................... 47

Kitcheyan, Kathleen, Chairwoman, San Carlos Tribe .......................................... 9

Marchand, Michael, Chairman, Colville Business Council .................................. 13

Shirley, Joe, Jr., President, The Navajo Nation Council ...................................... 11

Shuravloff, Marty, Chairman, National American Indian Housing Council ...... 50

Simons, Timothy L., Assistant Vice President, Federal Home Loan Bank 

of San Francisco ................................................................................................... 52

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Ney, Hon. Robert .............................................................................................. 66

Renzi, Hon. Rick ............................................................................................... 67

Anspach, Allen .................................................................................................. 116

Barbier, Steven ................................................................................................. 119

Browning, Edward ............................................................................................ 106

Cabrera, Orlando J. .......................................................................................... 99

Carl, Chester ..................................................................................................... 126

DuCharme, George ........................................................................................... 68

Fullmer, Jamie .................................................................................................. 70

Green, Pattye .................................................................................................... 131

Hellewell, Edward D. ....................................................................................... 137

Kitcheyan, Kathleen ......................................................................................... 75

Marchand, Michael ........................................................................................... 92

Shirley, Joe ....................................................................................................... 96

Shuravloff, Marty ............................................................................................. 142

Simons, Timothy L. .......................................................................................... 146

(1)

REMOVING BARRIERS TO HOMEOWNERSHIP 

FOR NATIVE AMERICANS 

Monday, July 31, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., at the 

Cliff Castle Convention Center, Camp Verde, Arizona, Hon. Robert 

Ney [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Ney and Renzi. 

Mr. FULLMER. I would like to defer to our elder, Mr. Bobby 

Baird, but on behalf of Yavapai Nation, I would like to welcome 

you all here, and thank you, Chairman Ney and Congressman 

Renzi, for holding these hearings. I think it is critical to Indian 

country that you come out here and see what it is we’re doing and 

what our needs are. 

So welcome to Yavapai-Apache Nation. It is customary in our 

way that whenever we deal with important issues and daily issues, 

that we are a powerful people. So on that behalf, I have asked one 

of our elders, and he graciously accepted, to give our morning invocation and prayer on behalf of our Nation. Welcome and thank you. 

(Speaks in Apache). 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. Good to see all of you here this morning, 

and I’m going to pray for each and every one of you, that you will 

do what you have to do, what you have come here for, and to accomplish everything. (Speaks in Apache). 

Chairman NEY. Remain standing. We’ll proceed with the Pledge 

of Allegiance. 

[Pledge of Allegiance recited] 

Chairman NEY. I want to begin. My name is Bob Ney from Ohio, 

and I am the chairman of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services, and I’m pleased to be here today with all of you, and with the 

chairman. We went with the chairman this morning, Congressman 

Renzi and I, and we had a great tour around to see the hard work 

that you have all done to try to make the lives better for the 

Yavapai-Apache Nation. 

I would mention that on my wife’s side, my two children have 

Apache blood and the boys are very proud of that, so I’m especially 

happy to be here. 

I wanted to just take a second. Congressman Mike Oxley from 

Ohio is chairman of the full Financial Services Committee, and the 

2

ranking member is Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, 

and they send their regrets for not being able to be here. They are 

in full support of this hearing, and our subcommittee ranking 

member, Maxine Waters, who was here 2 years ago when we came 

out to Tuba City to do the hearing, was there at the time with Congressman Matheson and Congressman Renzi, of course, and she 

sends her regrets. 

I should also mention that we have some staff here today, and 

representing Mr. Barney Frank is Jeff Riley. We also, at the end, 

will say some names. Let’s have the staff raise their hands; these 

are wonderful people who work very, very hard in Washington, 

D.C. 

I’m extremely pleased to be here. Congressman Renzi, my great 

colleague, whom I get to share some time with every week as we 

commute back and forth to Washington, has just been a champion. 

Congressman Renzi, I want to thank you, but I also want to mention that Congressman Renzi requested a hearing 2 years ago in 

Tuba City, and when we looked back through the records, we wanted to see when the previous hearing by the Housing Subcommittee 

that oversaw Indian housing issues, when it was, and we went 

back a decade, and 3 decades, and 5 decades, and finally went back 

to when there was no more written record. That was the first hearing in the history of the U.S. House on Indian Nation land. 

This is the second hearing in the history of the U.S. House, so 

it’s very important to the hearing process. This will, without objection, serve as an official hearing of the U.S. House. It’s actually 

nice to be here. Ohio is hot, but it’s very humid, so this is a little 

bit more of a dry heat. It’s nice. But most importantly, it’s good to 

be here because all the hearings can’t be done in Washington. Coming out here where you, every single day, try to make things better 

for all the people that you represent, it’s a wonderful time to be 

here versus having this hearing in Washington. 

I want to let you know the importance of the hearing because 

this does count as an official hearing. We are able to take the 

thoughts and observations of the panelists we’re going to have 

today and put them into the official hearing record to be able to 

utilize that to try to help people here in the Indian Nation. 

So this morning, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 

Opportunity will meet to discuss removing the barriers to homeownership for Native Americans, and what can be done to improve 

homeownership opportunities on reservation lands. 

Today marks, again, the second time in the history of the U.S. 

House that the Housing Subcommittee has held a hearing on tribal 

lands. 

There are an estimated 2.5 million Native Americans in the 

United States, made up of 562 federally-recognized tribes. While 

1.7 million live outside tribal areas, more than three-quarters of a 

million Native Americans live on reservations and other tribal 

areas. This large population of Native Americans is often plagued 

with poverty, unemployment, and homelessness due to a lack of 

jobs and affordable housing. 

This situation is partially due to the unique, and at times very 

complex, relationship that the Native American tribes have with 

the U.S. Government. Native Americans living on reservations, of 

3

course, are U.S. citizens. Native American tribes, however, are recognized as domestic sovereign nations with treaty relationships 

with the Government. The Federal Government holds in trust approximately 56 million acres of trust land for tribes and Native 

Americans. 

Because this land has been taken into trust by the United 

States, specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the legal title to 

the land is also held in trust. Not having legal title means that 

while the tribe is the beneficiary of the land, they do not have the 

right to sell, lease, or mortgage the trust land, nor can they lose 

it for failure to pay taxes. This creates a unique situation that 

causes lenders to be hesitant to invest and lend money to Native 

Americans wishing to own their own homes, which is the dream of 

homeownership across this country. 

Lack of affordable housing for Native Americans has been exacerbated, in part, because of complicated land title issues and the 

amount of paperwork and time it takes to obtain a title to reservation land. 

I was talking with the chairman today and Congressman Renzi. 

Last year my family and I moved in the middle of our District. In 

3 to 4 days and I think at a minimal cost of $4- to $500, we were 

able to acquire our title, and I know that can be done, and that—

we were falling under the same situation, but with what you have 

to follow here, we wouldn’t have been able to acquire our house and 

have been able to have moved. 

So I know the U.S. Government has worked in recent years to 

improve housing opportunities on the reservations. For example, 

HUD has a variety of the individual programs designed to assist 

Native Americans with housing needs, but there is still so much 

more to be done, and I want to thank, again, Congressman Renzi, 

who has tirelessly worked on behalf of his constituents with passion, and you can see it in his face, and we’ve heard it many times 

where he has been relentless on this issue and other issues dealing 

with Native Americans, of course a wide variety of other issues. We 

help each other in the process of recovery, because we’re at all representing our Districts, but we’re all representing as a Federal Legislature the entire country. 

I want to thank you, Congressman Renzi, for bringing all of this 

to the forefront, and I want to thank you again for having us out 

here. 

Without objection, I’m going to yield and let Congressman Renzi 

chair the subcommittee for today. 

Mr. RENZI. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, everyone, to the First District of Arizona, and, Jamie, thank you so 

very much for your hospitality, your kindness, and your leadership 

on housing issues and for taking the time to come to Washington, 

D.C., and teaching me. I feel like I’m among friends who have 

taken the time, Kathy and Joe, to teach me the issues. It’s been 

your advocacy that has allowed me to learn, and then working with 

Mr. Ney and Ranking Members Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, 

together we’ve become a team in trying to push this forward and 

fight to break down the barriers. 

I was listening to the prayer today, and I was saying to myself 

my own prayer. I hope that the facts on the ground today provide 

4

us with the knowledge to take back to Washington, not just for the 

sake of knowledge, but for change, and ultimately that’s what has 

to happen, is that these barriers, these impediments, this way of 

life must be lifted, and your leadership is some of the toughest 

leadership in the country. 

We were over on the Yavapai-Apache Nation at an elderly center 

with Jamie just a half hour ago, and we were talking about the fact 

that we are in the largest land mass of poverty in America, right 

here, all throughout eastern Arizona, up through San Carlos, 

Whiteriver, Yavapai-Apache, Navajo, and Hopi. The largest land 

mass of poverty in America. 

This chairman—the reason his heart is so big on this issue, is 

that he represents one of the highest concentrations of poverty in 

America, so he knows it. He understands it. He feels it, and he’s 

been a champion, and I’m grateful, and none of this could have 

happened without your understanding and leadership, and what 

you’ve seen in your own world and back yard, and the same goes 

for Barney and Maxine, and I’m grateful for their help. 

So I’m hopeful today that my friends will bring knowledge to us 

and will show us and talk to us, not just about the title search 

issue, which we are trying to understand, but we’ve got witnesses 

who have come from all over the country, from Alaska, from Washington D.C., and from the west. I’ve got my friends from the financial services industry here who have helped break down some of 

the barriers already, particularly up in Whiteriver, and we’ve got 

good people who have come together to help teach us on this issue 

so that we can move forward. 

I’m grateful that HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Orlando Cabrera, has made the trip from Washington. He has been different in Washington, not just a bureaucrat 

who gets up and reads speeches, but a man who has also understood the plight and the struggle, and I’m looking forward to understanding and listening to him and working with him, and I’m 

grateful for that. Thank you for coming out. 

This is the second field hearing on Indian housing in the history 

of the U.S. Congress. This chairman has made this happen. Can 

you imagine a Congress of the United States going all the way back 

to the 1800’s and never doing a field hearing, never doing a hearing that addresses Native American housing concerns, the poorest 

of the poor, and so I’m grateful, chairman, for your championship, 

and as I explained, we’re going to hear from BIA on this topic of 

title searches, but I’m not limiting or constricting you in any way 

to just title searches, because we have a chance to understand 

other impediments you can bring forward today, and we can take 

them away and work on that. 

I want to thank you—thank our team and the subcommittee 

members who pulled this together and came out in August, and I’m 

grateful. I bothered you for 6 months, but every time I came to you, 

you have been great in saying, ‘‘We’re going to do it, we’re going 

to do it as soon as we get to recess,’’ and you guys got it done for 

me. 

With that, I want to thank the chairman. Jamie, my friend, 

thank you for hosting this for us, and let’s go ahead and begin. 

5

Our first panel consists of George DuCharme, the director of the 

land and title records office for the Salish and Kootenai Tribes; 

Jamie Fullmer, chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation; Kathy 

Kitcheyan, chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Nation, the first female chairman in the history of San Carlos; Mike Marchand, chairman, The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and the 

Honorable Joe Shirley, president of the Navajo Nation. Mr. President, thank you for coming all the way down. We’re grateful that 

you came. 

With that, George, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DUCHARME, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

LAND TITLES AND RECORDS, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND 

KOOTENAI TRIBES 

Mr. DUCHARME. Good morning, Chairman Ney, and members of 

the subcommittee. 

On behalf of The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and 

our tribal chairman, the Honorable James Steele, Jr., it is my 

pleasure to deliver testimony on the issue of removing barriers to 

homeownership for Native Americans. My name is George 

DuCharme, and I am an enrolled member of The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. I am the director of the Land and Title 

Records Office for the Tribal Lands Department, and I have served 

in that capacity since December of 1996, when the tribes compacted 

the title plant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Flathead Reservation is located in the great State of Montana. The reservation comprises 1.3 million acres and has a Native 

American population of just over 7,000. Due to the Homestead Act 

and the Allotment Act in the early 1900’s, the tribes’ ownership in 

the 1960’s and the 1970’s fell to less than 50 percent of the land 

base. Today we own approximately 65 percent of the land base. 

We have a very active acquisition program. The individual tribal 

membership ownership is less than 3 percent of the reservation. 

The Homestead Act took all of the prime building lands, what was 

left of the mountainous timber lands, farm lands, and wetlands, so 

area for housing is a scarce commodity. 

As I said, we have a very active acquisition program. We use 

tribal revenues and settlement. The Kerr Dam Litigation—the Kerr 

Dam was built and flooded much of the reservation, so we’re actually buying back higher ground, I guess, for housing. 

We also receive funding from the Federal Government for the 

buying of the individually-owned fractionated interests due to probates, and that is through the Indian Land Consolidation Act. 

In 1990, the tribes implemented Public Law 93–638, contract 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to operate the lands program. 

The contracts were converted to self-governance agreements in 

1993, when the tribes consolidated all Bureau of Indian Affairs 

funding as one of the first 10 tribes to be included in the Self-Governance Demonstration Project. In the Tribal Lands Department, 

our staff of approximately 30 employees administers agriculture, 

minerals, grazing leases, rights of way, appraisals, probates, land 

acquisition, billing and receiving, and resource planning programs. 

We have contracted and do all of the Bureau’s function on the Flathead Indian Reservation, except for the superintendent and his secVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
6

retary, and we have an irrigation project, and that is the sole entity of the Bureau on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The tribes do 

all of the management. 

I mentioned all these other appraisals, rights of way, probates, 

and acquisition. Title status reports isn’t all that the LTRO is 

doing. We record and encode all of those documents into a national 

database. It’s not just TSR’s we’re dealing with. We’ve got a much 

larger charge than producing a title status report. All of these 

other documents are related to that title status report and they’re 

encumbranced against that title statute report. 

Originally, when the tribes sought to include all land programs 

in a self-governance agreement, the BIA deemed LTRO as an inherent Federal function that was not eligible for inclusion. So we 

asked—we the tribal government asked—for a solicitor’s opinion on 

this, and the solicitor came up with an opinion that yes, it was, in 

fact, compactable, and we compacted it and we operate it today. 

So in 1996, the tribe assumed management of the LTRO. We believe it makes sense to have the land title and records on the reservation for the people and the land itself. I publicly acknowledge 

Mr. Stanley Speaks, Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Northwest Regional Office and his staff for their commitment. 

Once he realized that we were serious, that we were going to compact the title function, they got behind us and made sure that we 

were a success, and we are a success today. It isn’t because we, the 

tribal LTRO, can do the job better than the BIA LTRO. It’s because 

of our vested interest in the outcome. 

First, we have a closer tie because it is our land we’re dealing 

with. It’s our people, our friends, our neighbors. So we serve these 

people on the reservation. The BIA in the northwest region, on the 

other hand, must serve 44 reservations or tribes in five different 

States. We can do it sometimes faster, but it’s not because we’re 

better. We’re dealing with one tribe. The Regional Office has a multitude of tribes they must deal with. 

On the Flathead Indian Reservation, as it is in all of Indian 

country, in order to obtain a mortgage on trust land, a certified 

TSR is required. This is true whether you are borrowing from a 

bank or the tribal credit program. Between January of 2004 and 

January of 2005, my office produced 275 certified TSR’s for mortgages alone, and as I stated before, mortgages isn’t the only thing 

we produce the TSR for. It is for a deed, for land transfers. It is 

for a probate. TSR’s for mortgages isn’t the only issue. 

It can take anywhere from 3 to 10 days to produce a certified 

TSR. The short timeframe to produce a TSR is due to the fact that 

we in the LTRO are personally familiar with each allotment, who 

the owner is, and where the allotment is located on the reservation; 

and, additionally, we have local signatory authority. The superintendent at the agency was delegated has the Secretary’s signatory approval. 

Also, prior to the tribes compacting the LTRO, the Northwest Regional Office LTRO certified all of our tracts and ownership, so I 

don’t have to go back to the original trust patent and chain forward 

to today. I can go back to where it was last certified and chain forward to today. 

7

Compacting or contracting the title function from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs may not be the solution for all tribes. We were fortunate on the Flathead Indian Reservation to have had a successful 

working knowledge of the realty functions performed by the BIA. 

The tribal realty staff is the old BIA staff. They’re just wearing a 

different hat. We just hired them straight across and they’re tribal 

employees. You’re a tribal employee today, and yesterday you 

worked for the Bureau. So we have a working knowledge. We didn’t 

get rid of them and start over from scratch. 

Mr. RENZI. Can you wrap up? 

Mr. DUCHARME. Okay. I’ll do that. In closing, I emphasize that 

the tribes are proud of what we have done and I appreciate your 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DuCharme can be found on page 

68 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. I apologize. Your testimony is profound. You all have 

done it, so I wanted to let you know we have 5 minutes because 

we have 20 people and we’re going to be here until midnight if we 

don’t. Thank you for being here. 

Chairman Fullmer. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE FULLMER, CHAIRMAN, YAVAPAIAPACHE NATION 

Mr. FULLMER. Good morning, Chairman Ney and Congressman 

Renzi, and welcome to Yavapai-Apache Nation. I was proud and 

honored to show you around today, so that you can see the work 

that we’ve done as a Nation and what we’re working on as a people 

to better ourselves for the future. We appreciate the opportunity to 

address you with our concerns in this forum. We have several 

issues we would like to present for your consideration. 

We see some very real barriers to Native American homeownership and housing development within our own community. To 

start, income requirement guidelines for participation in Government-subsidized programs needs to be increased. Current income 

levels are at or below poverty level and discourage self-sufficiency 

and self-determination in our community. 

Each Federal and State Government agency authorizing grants 

awards to American Indian housing has different income thresholds for qualifying. This lack of consistency creates competition 

among the programs and is confusing to our tribal program and to 

our community members. This needs to be changed to one acceptable income standard, maybe within each State. This way projects 

in very low-income areas, particularly our Indian tribal communities, would not be at such a competitive disadvantage to applicants from higher income areas such as the metropolitan areas. 

Because we serve families directly from our waiting list, and we 

serve the very lowest income tenants first, we, as a Nation, can 

never hope to receive enough income from rents to cover all of the 

operating expenses. This leaves huge burdens on our tribal government to fund and carry the remaining overall cost burdens. 

Funding needs to be increased in all Federal Indian housing programs, and there needs to be coordination and flexibility between 

these Federal programs to enable the tribal housing departments 

to utilize funding from all these different programs. 

8

With the tax credit program, generally grants made from Federal 

funds used to operate a housing project after it is built and occupied causes a reduction in tax credits available to this project. This 

reduces investor equity, which will make the projects much more 

expensive and impractical. 

The IRS put forth a regulation saying certain types of rental assistance, including HUD Section 8, do not require a reduction in 

tax credits. We would like to request that the IRS add NAHASDA 

rental assistance to this same list. The argument is that 

NAHASDA replaced HUD financing in Indian country, including 

Section 8, and NAHASDA rental assistance should be treated like 

Section 8. This would effectively prevent a reduction in low-income 

tax credit program funds. 

Land and land lease issues are a major barrier to Native American homeownership. Currently the Bureau of Indian Affairs reviews, approves, and records all land leases and other land-related 

documents. 

In the case of our Nation, one BIA office, the Truxton Canyon Office, handled these tasks for the entire northern half of the State 

of Arizona. This office employs one individual to handle this activity for five tribes residing in our area. 

Also, there is a major disconnect, as I see it, between the regional offices and the real estate headquarters, which, believe it or 

not, for Arizona is located in New Mexico. While in the local counties, recording land documents such as deeds and right-of-way for 

non-reservation land takes approximately 30 days, as was mentioned earlier, and it can take the BIA upwards of 1 year to complete this same type of transaction. 

This indicates to me several points: lack of trained personnel; 

lack of adequate working procedures;, and a lack of commitment of 

resources by this agency. Title status reports, as was brought up, 

are a requirement for compliance with Federal funding by several 

programs, as well as getting home loans from lenders. 

The Yavapai-Apache Nation has applied on several occasions for 

TSR’s, some of which we’ve never received to this day, and others 

have taken as long as 2 years to receive through the Bureau. This 

level of performance, to me, is unacceptable, and it must be improved to allow participation in these programs by our tribal community. 

Finally, as I’m sure you’re all aware, Federal program reporting 

requirements are laborious, complicated, and needlessly verbose. 

Everyone agrees that grant dollars must be accounted for and all 

expenditures paid with grant funds approved. However, progress 

reports should show progress from one period to the next with a 

forward progress for completion and compliance, and not recanting 

every activity from the previous reporting periods. This type of activity is nonproductive and unnecessary. 

In closing, I want to thank you for your time and consideration, 

and on behalf of my Nation, we’re very proud of what we’ve accomplished on our own accords, and we believe in ourselves, but we 

also recognize that we need the support, both financial support, as 

well as support of programming from the Federal Government, and 

would ask that you please consider these in your thoughts. Thank 

you. Kayhah. 

9

Mr. RENZI. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fullmer can be found on page 70 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Chairwoman Kathy Kitcheyan. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KITCHEYAN, CHAIRWOMAN, SAN 

CARLOS TRIBE 

Ms. KITCHEYAN. Welcome back to Arizona, Chairman Ney, and 

also our Congressman, Rick Renzi. Thank you for coming. As already noted, my name is Kathy Kitcheyan, and I am honored to 

testify today to provide the views of the San Carlos Apache Tribe 

on the issue of removing barriers to homeownership for Native 

Americans. 

With me in the audience today are tribal council member Robert 

Olivar, who is the chairman of the San Carlos Housing Board of 

Directors; Ronald Boni, executive director of housing; and also Cassandra Kid who is the director of planning. 

Thank you for your deep commitment to addressing the needs of 

housing in Indian country. In particular, I would like to thank Congressman Renzi again for his tireless efforts. You are also a champion, sir, in helping us obtain a better standard of living for our 

people. 

Two years ago, I testified in Tuba City on our housing needs. I 

expressed my hope at that time that we could work together to find 

ways to increase decent and affordable housing. Since then, my 

tribe has redoubled its efforts to address this problem. Today I am 

pleased to report that the tribe, with your help, has made some 

strides in providing more housing opportunities for our people, but 

there is much left to be done. 

My reservation is in desperate need of decent housing. I have attached pictures to my testimony of some of the substandard housing conditions that continue to plague my community. As you can 

see, we are still struggling to meet a very basic standard of living. 

Here are some statistics on my reservation. There are 3,325 families on the reservation and 3,147 families are low-income under 

NAHASDA. 1,327 families live in substandard housing conditions, 

similar to the pictures you have, sir. Another 1,358 families live in 

overcrowded conditions, some as many as 15 people in two rooms—

two bedrooms or three-bedroom homes. 2,700 families still need 

homes. 

In fact, we need to build 145 homes per year for the next 10 

years to meet the housing needs of the current population, which 

has increased by over 6 percent over the last 2 years. 

Due to financial limitations, the San Carlos housing authority 

can only build 40 homes over the next 2 years. We are decades behind the surrounding areas in providing decent homes for our people. We are working very hard to address this serious problem. 

We believe the essential ingredient to increasing homeownership 

on the reservation is through a continuing commitment from the 

Federal Government and investors to this issue, coupled with more 

educational opportunities and economic development. 

Since Tuba City, we have recently become eligible for HUD Section 184 programs. The tribe has partnered with Wells Fargo Bank. 

10

The mortgage process for any first-time buyer is confusing and 

overwhelming. For a Native American from an isolated, poor area 

with cultural, language, and transportation barriers, it can be even 

more daunting. However, we are very appreciative that Wells 

Fargo has gone the extra mile to make this program work. They 

have met with folks on the reservation, and have also assisted with 

the paperwork and they continue to do so. 

Five families have been approved for Section 184 in the past 6 

months. Only a small number of Apache families, though, came in 

under Section 184, due to our staggering poverty and unemployment levels. Our unemployment rate is 76 percent, and our poverty 

rate is 77 percent. 

Testifying at the Tuba City hearing resulted, though, in a very 

positive development for us. Key Bank heard about our plight. In 

fact, there was a person at the Tuba City meeting who relayed the 

information about San Carlos, and afterwards they reached out to 

us. So I’m pleased to say that we are working together with Key 

Bank to see if we can enter into a partnership to create a comprehensive package so that families who are very low income and 

not eligible for Section 184 can own a home. Key Bank proposes to lend approximately $15 million for home 

mortgages over the next 2 years. This is a great start, but it only 

skims the surface in terms of meeting the overall housing needs on 

the reservation. 

There are still many barriers that must be removed before our 

housing problem is resolved. The lack of economic development is 

a barrier to homeownership. At San Carlos, there are roughly 1600 

jobs for over 13,000 people. We need more jobs so that our people 

can afford to own their own homes. 

Furthermore, we need more educational and training opportunities so our people are qualified for jobs and can perform them. We 

depend on NAHASDA for capital. We are making progress with 

Wells Fargo and Key Bank, but we still have a long road ahead of 

us. 

The difficulties with leasing are a barrier to homeownership. The 

tribe must obtain approval from Interior for its long-term lease 

agreement. There are inordinate delays and thence the administrative hurdles in this process make it difficult for us to attract lenders. We believe that this Federal process is unnecessary under today’s self-determination policies. We support legislation that would 

eliminate this approval process. Navajos and Tulalip are already 

exempt under the law. We should be exempt, also. I have attached 

proposed legislations for your consideration. 

Let me tell you a story. Last week one of our housing employees 

went to Albuquerque to expedite the signing of a document for a 

TSR, and before he went, he e-mailed the document so that they 

could review it and it could be processed quickly. 

Well, when he arrived in Albuquerque, he discovered that BIA 

lost the document, and so while he was there, it had to be e-mailed 

again. This is unacceptable practice. We know that some of our—

the tribes in the northwest, Colville and the Salish Kootenai, 638 

this entire process, and that’s what we would like to do, as well. 

The lack of infrastructure is a barrier to homeownership. My reservation, as you heard before, has 1.8 million acres, but only a 

11

small percentage can be used for residential building purposes due 

to the rugged terrain and lack of infrastructure. 

As I stated in Tuba City, the tribe’s utility infrastructure is inadequate. When you build homes, you need a way to provide electricity, water, plumbing and gas. We need funding to do all of this. 

In conclusion, we want to continue to work with you to develop 

more homeownership opportunities, not just for the San Carlos 

Apache tribe, but for all of Indian country in the Nation. Thank 

you, and I hope you find this information helpful. 

Mr. RENZI. Chairwoman, I want to thank you so very much. We 

appreciate your comments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kitcheyan can be found on page 

75 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. We’ll move now to the president of the Navajo Nation, 

Joe Shirley. 

STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, JR., PRESIDENT, THE NAVAJO 

NATION COUNCIL 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Thank you, my brother. The very honorable Mr. 

Rick Renzi and very honorable Chairman Ney, thank you very 

much for affording me the opportunity to share with you a few sentiments regarding homeownership on Navajo land, as well as 

throughout Native America. 

I want to express my appreciation on behalf of Navajo Nation, 

the Native America, for reaching out to us. Oftentimes, Native 

America comes to you in Washington to share with you some of the 

challenges facing us here, but in this case you are reaching out to 

us, and we just want you to know we appreciate that. 

So thanks for reaching out and, of course, you have my written 

testimony. I’ll just go ahead and very quickly summarize what is 

in it. I just have a couple of things to say, really, and then I have 

my younger brother, Mr. Chester Carl, who is our housing expert 

on Navajo land. If there are any questions that you might need to 

ask of me, he will help me answer those questions. 

Back on Navajo land, we still have a lot of red tape surrounding 

the title status report processing system, and that produces a hindrance to homeownership, trying to get at loans. You know, we 

want to get at building houses with roots, and that’s something 

that you can go along or tag along, you know, and so the red tape 

that is created in trying to get at the title to go for a loan is just 

unbearable, and I think some of my colleagues here have shared 

that with you, and so you asked me what are the barriers, you 

know, to get that homeownership. So that’s one, and, of course, we 

shared this with you at times past, and I want to share that with 

you again. 

What that means is it still takes time, anywhere from 2 to 3 

years, you know, to get this at this process to where we can talk 

loans with banking or the different financial institutions that can 

finance these homes. So when they can’t get answers right away, 

some of the people who are wanting to get a homeownership, what 

happens is they go off Navajo land to buy mobile homes, modular 

units, you know, and it zeroes in on the economy of Navajo land. 

We would like to see monies stay there on Navajo land, but when 

they go for homeownership, you know, a mobile home, a modular 

12

home, the monies go off Navajo land, and that’s not good. So—and 

then, also, one of the things is because they can’t get at the homeownership or a piece of ground to get a loan to build a house on 

Navajo land, some of our members are buying houses in the border 

towns, and that is also getting the monies off Navajo land, you 

know, and that’s not good, and they’re having to commute from the 

border towns where they have a house, into the heart of Navajo 

land, whether it’s Chinle or Window Rock, to get at their work. 

So in order to help us to get at homeownership, we need to get 

away from the red tape that is inherent in the title status report 

processing. I’m not exactly sure where the Bureau is with it. One 

of the things that I feel is that it is not a priority with them to 

really work this title status report processing, and we need to have 

them make that a priority, but that’s another time, I guess. 

But, otherwise, what I would like to offer here—you also asked 

me what are some of the new initiatives that you have to take on 

to get away from these stumbling blocks. There is where I want to 

have the Navajo Nation be afforded the opportunity, under 638 of 

title processing, to have the Navajo Nation establish its own title 

plant. 

We did that with our business site leasing recently to where the 

BIA is just totally out of picture, you know, and right now the Navajo Nation—the Navajo Government can approve all business site 

leasing, but we don’t stop there. 

If our Chapters out there are certified, according to the Navajo 

Nation law, then the certified Chapters that have the land use plan 

in place can approve business site leases at the local level, and I 

think this could expedite bringing economic development to Navajo 

land. 

That’s what I see with homeownership. If we can get away from 

the Bureau and the processes that comprise a lot of red tape and 

have the Navajo Nation establish its own title plant on Navajo 

land, that would be the way to do that, and I want to recommend 

that to you, the Honorable Mr. Renzi and the Honorable Mr. Ney, 

and I think that will cut out a lot of this time, and the more time 

we take out, the more expeditious we are in establishing housing 

with roots on Navajo land. 

That’s one of the things I want to share with you, and then also 

the last thing is, of course, we need monies to get at the houses. 

I appreciate the Administration going forward to propose the new 

land lease for the using the multi-race census data, basing it in 

2000, and if we can get away from there, I think that would mean 

more monies for the different tribes that are out there, especially 

in the Navajo Nation. So the more money we have, the more homes 

we can build for homeownership. 

So this is something that I wanted to share with you. I believe 

that we have put the legal infrastructure in place to get our own 

title plant. We are very diligent and we are using our own monies 

right now to do that, but it would be good if the Federal Government could infuse money to help us move forward in putting this 

title plant in place. I think that will go a long way in cutting out 

some of the red tape and some of the barriers in going for homeownership on Navajo land. Thank you very much, my brother, Mr. 

Ney. 

13

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shirley can be found on page 96 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Shirley. Thank you for your insight, 

and I appreciate Mr. Carl being with you today and we’re going to 

look forward to some of your answers as we get into the Q and A 

session. 

Mr. Marchand, thank you for coming. I’m grateful for your traveling this far. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MARCHAND, CHAIRMAN, COLVILLE 

BUSINESS COUNCIL 

Mr. MARCHAND. Good morning, Chairman Ney, and Congressman Renzi, and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Michael Marchand, and I am chairman of the Colville Business Council in Washington State. Most of my life and my background has 

been in economic and community development, with a masters degree in urban development and planning, and I concur with the 

panelists, and we submitted a written testimony, also, and I’ll 

speak mainly to our taking over of the land title records office 

issue. 

Also, I’m accompanied by Sharon Redthunder, who has had 

about 40 years of experience with our realty functions. If you have 

any technical questions, she’s here to answer that. 

Our tribe is located in Washington State, on about 2,100 square 

miles of land. In the early 1990’s, we discovered that our Northwest Regional Office had not updated records on most of the lands 

within our reservation for a period of over 8 years. 

The regional office would generate TSR’s by manually searching 

through piles of documents. It was a real slow process. A single report took 60 to 90 days, and we looked into that and felt that we 

could do better. 

In 1996, we started negotiating with the Office of Park Land to 

take over those functions. The BIA was not very helpful in this 

process and resisted our attempt to contract those functions, but it 

did get concluded by April of 1997. Today we operate our own functions and we can generate the TSR’s in one day. We believe that’s 

mainly because it’s our own people working in there, where we 

have more control over the process, and it’s more efficient locally. 

We can—an important part is we can acquire the tribal credit 

which does a lot of our housing—the housing loans for tribal members, and things are working pretty well in those areas. So I just 

want to impart that to you. I think the key is more local control 

and local decisionmaking, and I think that is the reason for the 

success on my reservation. 

We also have other problems as the other panelists mentioned, 

things like infrastructure and planning, and so forth, but that’s 

mainly what I wanted to report on. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Marchand. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marchand can be found on page 

92 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. We’re going to go ahead to the questions, and then 

we’ll move on to the second panel. 

Chairman Ney, would you like to start? 

14

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to mention that Congressman Greg Hall had talked to me, we were actually voting last week about 1:00 o’clock in the morning, as you 

know. He mentioned he was coming here from New Mexico and he 

had some flash floods, or something, and he couldn’t be here, and 

he looked forward to being here and sends his regrets. 

Mr. DuCharme, the question I had, I heard you say it takes 3 

to 10 days to produce a certified TSR, and I think you ought to be 

commended for being able to do that, but you said it may not be 

the solution for all of the tribes. Why is that? And anybody else 

that would want to comment, too, why it is or isn’t the solution. 

Mr. DUCHARME. Basically it’s the infrastructure; whether they 

have the manpower to do the job. On the Flathead Reservation, we 

had the BIA staff. When we compacted, that became our tribal staff 

and that is the staff who do the job. Do you have the knowledge 

base and the experience? I think that is the key. 

And another key is you’ve got to be aware that the funding is not 

going to be fully adequate. The Bureau is not going to provide 

every nickle and dime that you need. Our title plant is subsidized 

by the tribal funding. We aren’t fully funded, so— 

Chairman NEY. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt, but to follow through with what you’re saying, did the Federal Government 

fund anything for this? 

Mr. DUCHARME. Yes. They funded the initial start-up costs and 

they provide salary for 11⁄2 staff persons. 

Chairman NEY. So your total cost to do this—they did the startup, the staff. For your ongoing operational costs, are they 50–50, 

60–40, or what percent? 

Mr. DUCHARME. I would say it is roughly 60–40. 

Chairman NEY. So is that 60 percent Federal? 

Mr. DUCHARME. Right. 

Chairman NEY. Anybody else? Is that feasible for the rest of you, 

if the Federal paid— 

Mr. SHIRLEY. I think so. Of course, when we’re talking about 638 

and having the tribes do their own programs, the Federal programs, that has been a problem. So I think it behooves the subcommittee to really zero in on that when it comes to appropriation 

time. Some of the programs that have been taken over by tribes 

under 638, they are hurting out there; on Navajo land, the social 

services, health services, and public safety. So I don’t believe what 

they’re talking about is any different. 

So if we can go 638, not only this program, but other Federal 

programs that are taken over by the tribe, they need to be adequately funded. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Shirley, a quick question. I don’t want to 

take all the time for the questioning. I know we have other panels, 

too. I want to ask you in general—for example, farm service agencies are a big deal where I come from, and right now they’re consolidating those offices. 

So in rural areas, which I have 16 counties. Ohio is 88, so it’s 

a large area. Those consolidations are very difficult for our farmers, 

especially when you’re talking about travel, your ability to get 

there. We’re not—we don’t have a high rate of computers where I’m 

from. 

15

Having said that, I’m just thinking along the lines of the BIA out 

here, and has there been increase in staff or service of the BIA consolidation, decrease of staff? When you want to deal with the BIA, 

I think you had said, Ms. Kitcheyan, that you could travel and it 

would be done in 2 weeks, but if you were dependent upon them 

being able to come here— 

Any thoughts about the staffing levels, interaction, outreach? 

Mr. FULLMER. I would like to respond to that. Thank you very 

much, Chairman Ney. On behalf of Yavapai-Apache Nation, one of 

the things that we have is a—we’re served under Truxton Canyon 

Agency which falls under the Phoenix Area Agency, and what we 

see is that for us it’s been very difficult to get our current TSR’s 

in place, and so I think the difficult portion of that is also with respect to getting new TSR’s for the new developments that we were 

able to go up and look at this morning. 

I think that’s something that hinders us, as well, and I agree 

with the panel that if that could be localized to the tribe and the 

tribe could have control and authority over leasing on its own 

lands, then we could really create better master planning within 

our own communities because we would know the timeframe that 

it would take to get these leases in place so that they could be more 

effective. 

The question you originally asked is have we seen an increase in 

staff. Yavapai-Apache Nation, we have seen a decrease in staffing 

and a decrease in outreach and services to our Nation, and that’s—

with our development goals and plans and our ambitions, it goes 

completely against our ability to handle the current needs. 

Chairman NEY. What is the staffing level you deal with in your 

Nation? In other words, how many staff are—I wouldn’t say assigned to you—but to your region and how far away are they? 

Mr. FULLMER. I believe that Truxton Canyon has one where they 

used to have one and now has less than one staff. 

Chairman NEY. Truxton Canyon is what? 

Mr. FULLMER. Truxton Canyon is 31⁄2 hours, 3 hours, in Peach 

Springs, Arizona, and so that’s a hindrance in and of itself. 

Mr. RENZI. They have a part-time now. 

Chairman NEY. You have a part-time. 

Mr. FULLMER. I believe so. 

Ms. KITCHEYAN. I would also like to add my comments to the rest 

of the panel. Any time I experience on the San Carlos Apache Reservation—any time we have a 638 program, we see a decrease in 

funding, and it is across all programs. It is not just for the landuse part of it. 

But getting to the TSR’s and the story that I told, you know, the 

employee was hoping to expedite the process and get this important information back to San Carlos, you know, is only one, but 

there are many other times that this has happened, and we have 

to go to Albuquerque in order to get those documents signed and 

returned. 

Other—you know, the other stories that my staff told me is that 

it takes sometimes almost a year or 16 months to get those TSR’s 

signed, and if we have local control, which self-determination and 

sovereignty is all about, we can take that off the hands of the BIA 

and probably do a better job than them. 

16

Chairman NEY. Well, to sum up my questions, Mr. Chairman, I 

know, President Shirley last time we saw you and you testified, the 

same issue was out there about the length of time the title was 

taking, and like I said, if I had to wait that long, I wouldn’t have 

a house, and I don’t know how anybody can do that. You can’t hold 

rates. 

And the fear I have—and I will say that the hearing was a great 

thing to do and I think good things came of it. We have a BIA 

Chairman here today, because we had a follow-up hearing in Washington when I know the specific statements were made by the BIA, 

and that would have been 6 months, and if I remember, July 17th 

last year—not that I’m so smart, the staff is smart. They reminded 

me of that today on bipartisan basis. 

So on July 17th, within 6 months, we would have—due to computers, or whatever, this would be speeded up. So we’ll hear from 

them today, because I want to say in closing, the concern I have, 

we have gone—this is our 64th or 65th hearing as a subcommittee. 

We have passed 22 bills signed into law on a bipartisan basis working with Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank and Maxine Waters and Mr. 

Renzi and other great members. We have been able to really craft 

some things that are going to help people. 

Having said that, we have a GSE bill pending in the Senate, some $5 billion, close to, that is out there for housing or rental. 

What I fear, that the $5 billion sitting there, which a great thing 

to do if we reformed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the regulators. We have the American Dream Downpayment. We have all 

these programs that are never—they’re not going to get to you, all 

because of this one glitch. 

So this—I’m starting to worry about it. I fear that they’re out 

there, but you’re not going to be able to—because of this glitch, be 

able to access them, and I wouldn’t even call it a glitch. It’s a severe problem. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m grateful. 

I have a few questions, if you don’t mind. George, thank you so 

much for your thoughts. Your insight and experience is a great 

thing. You said two things. First of all, you said that the closer tie 

to the land gives your people the ability to work harder—first of 

all, you’re focusing just on your tribe, your people specifically. It 

makes a big difference. 

Mr. DUCHARME. It does. 

Mr. RENZI. Secondly, you’re fighting for your own people. You’re 

fighting for your own blood. An army fights harder when it is fighting on its own soil. I think that’s what you are doing. 

When you look at what the BIA has to do—first of all, they’re 

underfunded. I voted against this budget 3 times. We don’t give 

them enough money. They don’t have enough people. We have good 

people in place now. They are much better than what they had in 

the past. We have had a lot of show horses in the past, and not 

enough work horses. The guys we have in place are trying hard, 

but I still think they don’t have enough money. 

When you look at the eastern tribes, small hundred-acre reservations with a casino, with 200 members, and then you look at the 

western tribes, and they’re all operated under the same umbrella, 

same type of organizations, how do you think, with your experiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
17

ence, it would affect my tribes, particularly out west, who are much 

more land-based, land mass, much more of a rural frontier population spread out, where Mr. Fullmer was talking about how they 

have to go 3 hours, or Kathy’s people have to go all the way to Albuquerque. There is a detachment you feel in the west. 

I just think in the west it has to be—we have to look at putting 

the offices on the reservations in Indian country in the west because of the fact that we’re so much more spread out from a location standpoint. Can you see how it lends itself more in the west? 

I’m not trying to make an argument in my favor, but I am. What 

are your thoughts? 

Mr. DUCHARME. We are in the west. 

Mr. RENZI. Right. 

Mr. DUCHARME. And it made sense to us to have the function 

local. 

Mr. RENZI. My point is BIA will have plenty to do and it will stay 

in place with the title searches that they’re doing with the new 

computer system in Washington. They can do a great job servicing 

a majority of tribes, but in the west with the vast land mass and 

how spread out they are, it lends itself to this type of situation. 

Mr. DUCHARME. Yes, it does. 

Mr. RENZI. I answered my own question. When we went out together and we looked at the new land that you have, some of the 

old trust land you have, you have an issue where you asked BIA 

for a title report that is almost 4 years old. I want you to drill in 

on that issue. 

Mr. FULLMER. We had submitted for an Indian tax credit program funding, and as was brought up, we need these TSR’s in 

order for the lenders to be willing to fund on the developments, and 

we asked for an updated TSR on our existing old trust lands, and 

to this date, I don’t believe that we have those up-to-date TSR’s. 

This was asked for in 2002, and then again in 2003, and I believe 

that some of the difficulty in that is that the break-up of information is between—in our case between three different Bureau departments. One in Truxton Canyon in Peach Springs, Arizona, the 

other in Phoenix at the regional office—area office, and as was 

brought up earlier by Chairwoman Kitcheyan, the real estate information itself is held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

I think there’s a fundamental flaw with respect to the ability and 

availability of that information to be shared in a timely fashion. 

Now, with the current lands, we hope that—I know that the staff 

worked hard, but I agree with you that was brought up. They’re 

just understaffed to provide what we need, and I agree with the 

idea of localizing that within the tribe so that the tribe can take 

control and handle it, but it has been a 4-year process waiting for 

information that we assumed was already in the archives, and 

these are ancient trust lands. They’re not new lands. 

Mr. RENZI. I would request that my BIA friends who are here, 

before we leave the reservation, get with Jamie—get that one case 

history as it relates to a 4-year-old TSR that we’re waiting on the 

trust lands. If I could ask that, please. 

Kathy, thank you for your testimony. I can remember going out 

with you and being on San Carlos during the summer right before 

monsoon season and seeing the homes and seeing some of the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
18

ditions they were living in. I can remember those little children in 

the home, 12 to 15 people moving out into the hammocks during 

the summer season so it would be a better space in the home, and 

I’ve seen the conditions and the tough conditions that you are experiencing. 

You talked to me about building 145 or 150 homes per year for 

you to get caught up in 10 years. What specific program do you 

think would be the number one program of the Federal Government to help you get that done? Is it a lending program? Is it something with Fannie Mae that we can do? 

Ms. KITCHEYAN. Congressman Renzi, with all due respect, this is 

the way I’m going to answer it. Okay. Yes, we’re doing the Section 

184. We’re doing Key Bank. There is a representative in the audience. But why should we have to go to lending? 

The U.S. Government, when they put my people on reservations 

and confined them, and stripped away four more pieces of land, 

and when they said they would take care of the San Carlos Apache, 

why should they go to a lending program? If the U.S. Government 

can send billions of dollars to foreign countries, why should we talk 

about lending? 

But because of the way the economy is today in the United 

States, we are forced to go that route, and based on what took 

place 2 years ago, we have made some improvements, but those 

pictures that you see are still the way a lot of my people live. I 

hope I answered your question, sir. 

Mr. RENZI. Yeah, very powerful. Thank you. 

President Shirley, I’m grateful. Two weeks ago your people came 

back from Washington D.C., and BIA did a good job in signing the 

legislation. You flew back there. I think that allows for the first 

time business site leases to be approved on the Navajo Nation. 

Jamie and I were talking today. If I was a young Navajo and I 

wanted to open a Denny’s Restaurant in Window Rock, I could now 

go to you, I could go to the Navajo Nation, and that whole approval 

process for a business site leasing is contained locally by my elected 

leaders. So they’re responsible and they have to answer to the 

young Navajo entrepreneur. 

There is also in that language that was signed, a carve-out that 

also allows you to do that for residential. We haven’t gone down 

that path. 

Mr. Carl, I think you know the language I’m talking about. 

Not only when the Federal law was signed—the Federal law that 

says you had the ability to work with BIA while eventually establishing your own business site leasing and you controlling it, it says 

also for residential. The word ‘‘residential’’ was slipped in the language, and we just found it the other day, and I’m saying to myself, 

okay, what you did with business site leasing, you already have the 

authority now to do—a Presidential authority back under Bill Clinton to do for residential. 

I talked with one of your people—one of the ladies back in Washington a couple of weeks ago about this idea. What do we have to 

do, then, to take the authority that has already been given you, 

and then allow you all to have the authority to do your own approval process for residential? 

You know the language I’m talking about? 

19

Mr. CARL. Congressman, yes, I do, and Congressman Ney and 

Congressman Renzi, as far as the steps— 

Mr. RENZI. May I interrupt you. Could you repeat your name for 

the record, please. 

Mr. CARL. I’m Chester Carl, CEO of the Navajo Housing Authority. Thank you very much. I think the system we are discussing 

here allowed the authority to tribes to take the initiative under 

self-determination, self-governance. Consistent with all other programs, it is a long time coming. 

What we require now is to demonstrate that as the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribe has done, is take that to the next level, 

the title status report, do to title plant function, and one of the 

prime example, if I may, demonstrate and display is the network 

system, the software system. 

If the tribes can come out with the whole software system which 

is not able to—not only able to assemble all of the land data, but 

also all of the that information related to land-use plan, infrastructure, even down to economic development proposal, residential 

areas, and all of those—if that can be a network system which 

would be successful where you don’t have to go all the way to Albuquerque, but which you can do it from, for example, San Carlos or 

Tuba City Chapter, or whatever the case may be, which is GPS 

driven, I think that’s probably the system we need to direct our attention to. 

Mr. RENZI. Would it tie into the national system? 

Mr. CARL. The GPS system? 

Mr. RENZI. Yes, so you would have your own portable where you 

would tie in on Navajo and go back to Washington. 

Mr. CARL. It doesn’t necessarily have to tie in. If there is tribal 

control, it goes back to the Central Navajo Control Office. 

Mr. RENZI. Like you did down at— 

Mr. CARL. Right. Navajo. For smaller tribes, it would be a very 

similar system, and it could be tied— 

Mr. RENZI. You would put it in the Chapter Houses. 

Mr. CARL. Yes. It would be a network system. The TAAMS 

project is one that has been promised to create a lot of the flexibility, but it’s demonstrated that it’s not working real well. 

The other part of that is being—allowing similar access to 

records as the counties do, States do. Those are public records. In 

this case, the trust land records are restricted records. So why that 

is, we don’t know. 

Mr. RENZI. What do you mean—restricted from what? 

Mr. CARL. Restricted from access. The San Carlos was provided— 

Mr. RENZI. If a Navajo wants to see right now the title, he can’t 

see it. 

Mr. CARL. We have to go through BIA personnel, and if we go 

through the Albuquerque BIA title office, you have to go through 

security clearance even just to get to the office. So those are some 

of the scenarios we have to go through. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. Mr. Marchand, thank you for your testimony 

and for coming all this way. I was impressed when you stated that 

it takes one day to do a title search, one day, and you were able 

to set that up also like Mr. Ney was asking of George with a little 

bit of Federal assistance. 

20

Mr. MARCHAND. Yes. 

Mr. RENZI. And how many people run your operation now? 

Mr. MARCHAND. Let me defer to Sharon. 

Ms. REDTHUNDER. Good morning. My name is Sharon 

Redthunder, and I’ve been in the realty department for over 40 

years. I’ve been working since before there was a title plant, and 

so we were successful in contracting titles and records because we 

had staff on hand who knew how to achieve title. 

We knew that—what all the records were locally. We manually 

maintained our own records, so we were able to compact and we 

were able to issue a title status report immediately. We worked 

closely with our record—I mean, our Colville Tribal Credit. We also 

are working with Key Bank on 184 loans. 

We have two staff in the title and records department, and what 

we’ve done is when there is a document that is recorded, they issue 

updated title immediately. They don’t record the instrument and 

set it in a pile and later come back and do the updating. It is done 

immediately. 

So we’re—as soon as we record a mortgage, they update that title 

status immediately and come out with a new certified title status 

report. 

Mr. RENZI. Would you be willing to help train—if we get this 

worked out where some of our sovereign Nations take over their 

title searches, is their inter-tribal councils—do we do training on 

the inter-tribal council level for—we could take it up that way, and 

BIA would help train, but, also, if you have Native Americans 

training Native Americans, we could really share that knowledge. 

Have you trained any other tribes? George, have you worked 

with any other tribes? 

Mr. MARCHAND. No. We have not. 

Ms. REDTHUNDER. Not in the title plant. I have trained in other 

fields. 

Mr. RENZI. Such as what? 

Ms. REDTHUNDER. I have been working in the trust field for 

many years. I worked in California for a while. I’ve also been working with the Bureau of Land Management in training on land tenure in Indian country. So I have worked with various groups in 

training. 

Mr. RENZI. That would be great to cross-train. Our inter-tribal 

council is very strong. We could do that. Thank you. Is there anything else anyone on the panel or any of our friends or witnesses 

would like to add that didn’t get said? No? 

Then I want to thank this first panel for coming and for sharing 

your experience, and, hopefully, this will be the first step to 

change. Thank you so much. 

Our second panel consists of Orlando Cabrera, Assistant Secretary of Public Housing and Indian Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Edward Browning, Arizona Rural Development State Director, Rural Housing Service, Department of 

Agriculture; and Allen Anspach, Regional Director for the Western 

Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. 

Thank you so much. We’ll go ahead and get going here on the 

second panel, and I want to thank you all for coming this far. We 

had—I think that first panel was very enthralling. A lot of good 

21

stuff came out of it. I’m hopeful we can now, with some of our experts here, begin to move, and with that, Orlando, thank you for 

coming my friend, and also thank you for your hard work. You’ve 

been different. You’ve been different than any predecessor, in my 

opinion. I’m a man who doesn’t respect anyone until they’ve earned 

it, and I try to live the same way. So, sir, I’m grateful for you to 

come today. 

STATEMENT OF ORLANDO J. CABRERA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PUBLIC HOUSING AND INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you. That was nice. I appreciate it. Good 

afternoon, Chairman Renzi, which is unusual to say, and Chairman 

Ney. My name is Orlando J. Cabrera, and I am HUD’s Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. As always, it is a pleasure to appear before you again. I would like to acknowledge and 

thank all of the elected tribal leaders present today, and all of the 

Housing Authority leaders, as well. They are critical to the housing 

mission in Indian country. 

The purpose of this hearing is to explore barriers to Native 

American homeownership, but before I speak about our successes 

in confronting barriers to homeownership and the work that needs 

to continue, I would like to take a moment to explain our vision 

for homeownership in Indian country. 

Our goal is to utilize BIA’s Native American programs as catalysts for economic development and to contribute to sustainable 

economies within Native American communities. This is possible by 

union homeownership and development of affordable housing as a 

vehicle to attract other sources of capital. 

Today there are more ways to leverage Federal funds than ever 

before. We encourage wherever possible that tribes work beyond 

HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant and Title VI programs, and 

pursue opportunities such as the low-income housing tax credit and 

other Federal and State programs, as well as seek partnerships 

with the private sector. 

We believe HUD’s success with those 184 loan guarantee programs work with the BIA to streamline the title status report process and its initiatives in the area of land assignment law and tax 

exempt law, and tax exempt bond financing, will help build sustainable economies and makes this vision a reality. 

Homeownership and the ability to build equity in one’s home is 

an important component in developing strong tribal communities. 

HUD’s Section 184 program has made a significant contribution to 

the overall success of the Administration’s homeownership initiatives. The 184 program provides a Federal guarantee to lenders for 

100 percent of the principle and interest on market rate loans to 

Native American homebuyers. 

In fiscal year 2005, the number of loan guarantees increased to 

634 from 480 the prior year, representing $76.8 million in mortgage guarantees. So far in this fiscal year 2006, HUD has guaranteed 893 loans, and we expect this number to grow. 

But the system can be improved. We are still confronted with 

some barriers such as title recordation and streamlining the title 

process overall. We have been collaborating with the BIA to help 

22

make the TSR process a faster, more usable, and consistent product. 

In 2004, HUD entered into an MOU with BIA, and USDA Rural 

Development Board together with tribes in order to provide housing development related assistance to Indian country. In furtherance of the MOU objectives, the BIA released an interim TSR processing policy on September 29, 2005. However, this policy was not 

implemented universally by the BIA Regional Offices, and part of 

the policy solution, that is to use a title endorsement, fell short of 

generally-accepted standards of title review. 

Lenders continued to express concern about the length of time it 

takes to process a TSR using the current process and the cost implications to the borrower. 

I met recently with Interior Associate Deputy Secretary Jim 

Cason to determine if there was more that could be done with us 

working together. At that meeting he re-stated the BIA’s commitment to streamline the TSR process. He and I agreed to a plan that 

would resolve the current backlog of TSR requests. 

As an outcome of this meeting, HUD drafted and submitted to 

the BIA a new title endorsement document that addresses the deficiencies in the previous title endorsement. It was a mortgage new 

policy which I can go into further in a bit. 

In addition, HUD has offered to collaborate with the BIA in order 

to develop and facilitate a series of regional training sessions for 

BIA personnel, and that would be done also in conjunction with the 

Federal Reserve, stressing the importance of speed and consistency 

of process and review. 

The TSR process has room for improvement, and through our 

partnership with the BIA, it is also evolving well. We look forward 

to working with the Bureau to develop solutions to improve efficiency wherever we can. 

A major component of building sustainable communities is having a viable secondary market for real estate. HUD and the BIA 

are currently working collaboratively in another effort, the Land 

Assignment Law Initiative, which is designed to increase private 

sector involvement in the housing market on reservations. 

The tribe will be able to issue a land assignment to a tribal member that is not subject to the 50-year statutory limitation on encumbrance through the use of the land assignment process. The Office of Native American Programs and BIA have worked with the 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe to establish a model tribal land assignment law. The Interior Solicitor’s office has approved of the process 

and initiated an opinion that individual assignment governed by 

tribal land assignment law do not require BIA approval or recordation. 

NAP will issue program guidance on land assignments for the 

Section 184 program in the coming months, and we expect other 

tribes to take advantage of this innovative process. 

NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant Program continues to 

be the largest single source of housing capital in Indian country. 

BIA’s IHBG program which came online in the beginning of fiscal 

year 1998, has now distributed over $5.7 billion in funding to tribes 

for their TDHE’s, but relying on IHBG funding alone without 

leveraging those dollars, misses a significant opportunity. 

23

We continue to explore new ways to combine HUD resources 

with those of other Federal agencies, the States and the private 

sector. Additionally, HUD is exploring ways to use its technical resources to provide educational and capacity building opportunities 

to tribes interested in expanding their housing development programs. 

Finally, on behalf of Secretary Jackson, I want to thank you, 

Chairman Renzi, for your work on homeless issues and for introducing legislation that would consolidate HUD’s three primary 

homelessness grant programs. We are grateful for your leadership 

on this issue and your commitment to helping chronic homelessness. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, sir, very, very much. I appreciate your 

thoughts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera can be found on page 99 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Browning, it is good to have you today, and I appreciate your friendship and hard work. Mr. Browning. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD BROWNING, ARIZONA RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATE DIRECTOR, RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BROWNING. Thank you. Chairman Ney and Congressman 

Renzi, it is my pleasure to welcome you here to Camp Verde, Arizona, for this important discussion on removing barriers to homeownership for Native Americans. USDA Rural Development’s mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of 

life in rural communities. Rural Development plays a pivotal role 

in ensuring that rural Americans share in the economic vitality of 

this country, including the dream of homeownership. Nowhere is 

that dream more of a challenge than here on our Native American 

lands. 

Arizona has 21 recognized tribes, from tiny tribes with little or 

no tribal land, to the Navajo Nation, the biggest reservation in the 

country. The Navajo Nation spreads into three States and covers 

over 27,000 square miles of reservation land. 

The President’s Minority Homeownership Initiative has helped 

us focus on this issue. We have worked to create innovative ways 

to ensure that we keep the commitment to maximize our impact. 

Homeownership rates on the reservations is slightly more than 40 

percent, as compared to the national average of 68 percent. There 

are several barriers that contribute to this. 

One is the trust land issue, which has been well documented on 

our first panel. The second issue is the low-income levels with the 

per capita average income on our largest reservation of $7,300 a 

year, being able to make regular mortgage payments is a major 

stumbling block to homeownership. 

A third issue is the remoteness which makes it difficult to bring 

in services and materials and to reach the folks to tell them about 

our programs. Outreach efforts are further complicated because 

Native American clients often have to navigate through many Federal, State, and tribal programs. Rural Development has been taking some steps to overcome these barriers. 

24

For the past decade, we have targeted the Native American communities for housing and other community business services. Ten 

percent of Arizona’s rural development staff is Native American. 

Our office in St. Michaels on the Navajo Nation is staffed by Navajo personnel who are culturally aware and speak Navajo. 

In 2005, despite the vastness of the Navajo Nation, our staff 

made 61 outreach visits. That’s more than one a week. Louis Shirley, our rural development man in the St. Michaels office, averages 

40,000 miles a year in travel to do this outreach. It should be noted 

that for my staff to reach the Havasupai Tribe, we must either 

walk, ride a mule, or take a helicopter ride to the bottom of the 

Grand Canyon. 

Mr. Shirley not only made many of these outreach visits, he also 

saw a need for a coordinated approach to serving the Navajo Nation. He was the driving force behind the formation of a partnership of funding entities in the community called, ‘‘Saw Mill.’’ The 

partnership was successful in combining funds from Federal, State, 

local, and tribal governments and the individual with the goal of 

reducing the cost of housing to the prospective homeowner. 

By combining funding from a variety of sources, Mr. Shirley was 

both able to reduce the risk for any one agency and the amount of 

the loan, thereby making the payments affordable and breaking 

down the credit barrier. The plan is to replicate this model for 

other potential homeowners. 

Rural development has also taken care to help create community 

facilities, infrastructure, and economic opportunities for the Native 

American community. The real test of our commitment to removing 

these barriers is how well have we been able to do our job. In other 

words, have we created clean, safe, affordable housing for Native 

Americans here in Arizona? 

Our record shows that we have, with over $14 million in housing assistance for Arizona Native Americans, which includes $2 million 

in single-family housing loans and repair grants, $7,500 per family, 

$6.8 million to provide over 250 units of affordable multiple-family 

housing. 

Additionally, we have spent over $47 million in building schools, 

hospitals, community centers, telecommunication, broadband, and 

business development projects. In total, rural development has provided over $62 million for Native American projects in Arizona 

from 2001 through 2005. 

Removing barriers for homeownership in Native American communities presents unique challenges. Rural development has 

partnered with other agencies and tribes to provide housing and 

services. As a result, rural development has provided hundreds of 

Native American families with clean, safe, affordable housing. 

One of the strengths of rural development is the power to create 

individual strategies for success within the general structure of the 

national agency. Abraham Lincoln called the Department of Agriculture the ‘‘People’s Department.’’ Rural development is working 

hard to ensure that reaches even the most remote pockets of our 

Native American populations. 

I, too, will be glad to answer questions at the appropriate moment. I would like to introduce the staff who are with me, and acknowledge them in the hearing record. Lewis Shirley is the man 

25

making all these travels. He is here with me today. I also have my 

Native American coordinator, Don Irby, and my Housing Program 

Director, Ernie Wetherbee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Browning can be found on page 

106 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you all for coming. Mr. Browning, I want to 

thank you for your work, more so for the outreach that you’ve 

shown in going out on Indian country. I’m grateful. 

Mr. Anspach, it’s good to have you with us today and I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN ANSPACH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR 

THE WESTERN REGION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ANSPACH. Chairman Ney and Congressman Renzi, thank you 

for the opportunity to represent the Bureau. My name is Allen 

Anspach, and I am the Western Regional Director from the Bureau’s Phoenix office. I’ve held that position since May of this year, 

and Bureau Director Risedale asked me to come forth and represent the Bureau today. 

I do have with me Arch Wells, who is our Acting Director of 

Trust in Washington D.C. I believe the committee has made his acquaintance previously. He has the overall national direction of our 

program. I also have with me Stan Webb, who is our realty officer 

at the Western Regional Office. Stan knows a lot about the leasing 

processes, and I have Donna Paigler with me who runs the Land 

Title and Records Office out of our Albuquerque office. She has 

working knowledge on what we’re trying to accomplish. So I may 

ask them, depending on the nature of the questions that come up, 

for some technical assistance. 

It is a pleasure to be here. I thank Jamie Fullmer, the chairman, 

for his hospitality, and it’s great to see all the other elected officials 

from throughout our region and from other regions. It shows the 

depth of the interest and concern on the issues that we’re faced 

with. 

As far as background information, in general the Bureau of Indian Affairs does play a critical role in removing obstacles to building homes on the reservations. We have as a result been working 

closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

and the USDA Rural Development folks to streamline and expedite 

production of our title status reports. 

I’ll begin by providing some background information on the current process and procedures that we use for doing title status reports, and then comment on the process. As you probably know, the 

Bureau has land title and record offices located within eight of its 

regions. That’s in Anchorage, Alaska; Muskogee, Oklahoma; Aberdeen, South Dakota; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Billings, Montana; Anadarko, Oklahoma; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Each of these offices is responsible for recording all title and encumbrance documents for Indian lands within their respective regions and issuing the TSR’s to provide records of ownership. 

The title status report is a compilation of the current ownership, 

legal description and recorded liens and encumbrances on the desVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
26

ignated parcel of land. The production of TSR’s for mortgages is our 

LTRO office’s top priority. We do strongly support these programs 

to help housing on Indian lands. 

Now, the current procedure requires that all requests for TSR’s 

for mortgages first go to the agency superintendent at the relevant 

BIA office, or through the regional director on behalf of tribal members where allotted land is involved. The certified title report is required by the lending institution to verify that the loan applicant 

has acquired a leasehold interest since they can’t have full ownership unless it is allotted land. 

There are very few differences in the TSR process from location 

to location. When there are, often these differences are dictated by 

the particular lending institution or the Federal agency providing 

the loan. 

Over the years, we have found that some offices have provided 

an uncertified title status report showing the mortgage as an encumbrance to the property in lieu of the certified report. On April 

13, 2005, the BIA issued a directive requiring that all land title 

and record offices provide certified title status reports when requested by the agency superintendent or a regional director. 

BIA has qualified and dedicated personnel at our land title and 

record offices that do examine the certified land titles and produce 

TSR’s. However, we are the sole source for Indian trust land 

records. Because trust land records are to a degree confidential, 

lending institutions and other Federal lenders are completely dependent upon the Bureau for all certified TSR’s, thus creating a 

significant and important workload. 

Since the inception of the Federal loan programs, the mortgage 

request for certified titles have been a high priority for the LTRO’s. 

We have made significant changes in our title program over the 

past 3 years aimed at improving our ability to deliver accurate and 

timely title status reports. 

One of the improvements to the BIA title system is a recentlycompleted conversion to the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System, affectionately called ‘‘TAAMS,’’ for processing titles 

at all LTRO program offices. The system has greatly improved our 

ability to provide title information to tribes and Indian people. The 

quality of the data has been significantly improving. 

We’re still doing comprehensive data clean-up which has been coordinated with the deployment schedule for the TAAMS leasing 

module. The leasing module is planned to be completed by November of 2007. 

The BIA process for providing title status reports upon request 

within a 30-day timeframe for the regions has been reasonably effective and efficient in the past, but will improve substantially in 

the future. In August of 2006, the BIA will begin implementation 

of the new TAAMS functional component, the TAAMS Image Repository. 

The objective of the repository is to store all documents affecting 

and concerning titles to Indian trust and restricted lands. In addition to deeds, probate orders, leases, easements, and other title documents, the repository will also store TSR’s and will be the primary mechanism for delivery of TSR’s. The repository will also be 

27

the primary mechanism for submission of title documents for recording at the LTRO. 

With the completion of this clean-up and title data maintained 

in an up-to-date status, TSR’s will be processed upon request and 

deliver electronically to the requesting office immediately upon 

completion and certification. This modernized process will reduce 

the time from TSR request to TSR delivery from weeks and days, 

to hours and minutes. A substantial improvement. 

On September 29, 2005, the Director of the BIA issued an interim policy on the certified TSR’s. The policy requires TSR’s to be 

issued for each pending realty transaction that is requested by the 

superintendent or regional director who has jurisdiction over the 

lands within 30 days. 

Mr. RENZI. Wrap it up, please. 

Mr. Anspach. Okay. In summary, there are several steps that we 

are taking to address the issues. They are not all resolved at this 

time, but we look forward to assisting the committee in reaching 

a resolution. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anspach can be found on page 

116 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony, the whole 

panel. I appreciate you being here. Mr. Chairman, we open it up 

to you for questions. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make an 

observation to HUD, and we appreciate your working with Secretary Jackson and HUD on a lot of these issues, and we’ve worked 

also with HUD on—and FEMA in cross reference between the two 

on Katrina, and we actually—our subcommittee was the first to 

have a hearing in New Orleans and also Gulf Port, Mississippi. 

One thing you might want to take a look at, and I’m not saying 

you can comment on this today or solve it, but manufactured housing—and I mentioned this because, yes, I know in the disasters, 

FEMA controls manufactured housing. I’m fully aware they make 

the orders, etc., but we’ve been finding, too, when there was no certain amount of requests for manufactured housing, we have manufactured housing sitting in Arkansas—9,900 units are sitting there. 

Now the U.S. Government is going to have to spend $7 million 

dollars on gravel because they’re going to sink, and so we’ve got 

them behind a fence. We recently have had a situation where new 

manufactured housing which we were told at first there was no 

new manufactured housing was going to go on sale in Selma, Alabama, and it would have went probably for a song on a public market. 

We found out there was new manufactured housing, so they 

stopped that part of it. I also understand that manufactured housing, sometimes when it’s been used, but there’s maybe a need for 

$2,000 worth of repair to it, it’s then deemed to be used manufacturing housing when it’s relatively new. 

Having said this, I just throw this out as food for thought and 

I’ve talked to HUD about this. As we know, in different parts of 

the United States, that this—these manufactured housing units are 

sitting there, and if the manufacturers produce these, which right 

now we’re going to get an answer out of FEMA of how much these 

go on sale for once they’re new—in other words, they could be purVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
28

chased for $50,000 by the Government, and then turned around 

and sold quite cheaper, and that’s the price we’re trying to determine what they’re sold for. So they’re bought normally for $50,000. 

The U.S. Government buys them in bulk for $23,000, and maybe 

sometimes they are sold for $9- or $10,000. 

Having said all that, the point of what I’m trying to get to is I 

think it behooves HUD and the Congress working with FEMA to 

work down the road about some of these units that aren’t used and 

why couldn’t they be used for housing in the Indian Nation, and 

it could be such a reduced discount price for a manufactured housing units. 

I’m not talking about travel trailers. I’m talking about—right 

down below my house we have 75 manufactured housing units in 

a manufactured housing park. We used to call them trailer courts, 

but these are—and I have nothing against trailer courts. Where I 

come from, we have trailer courts and they’re accepted. But these 

are manufactured housing units. These are pretty decent units. 

Some are two stories tall. 

I was just wondering if you—has there ever been exploration as 

to how we could acquire some of those units, buy them in bulk, and 

offer them to Native Americans? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, as it happens, the answer—I can 

give you the answer now. 

Chairman NEY. We didn’t plan this. 

Mr. CABRERA. No. This is pretty funny. We are thinking very 

similarly. I spoke to Director Paulson a week-and-a-half ago about 

this issue. He went back and found out whether there would be 

willingness of FEMA to do this, and the answer is yes. That is the 

initial issue. 

There are issues with doing it that have nothing to do with the 

actual availability of the units, which I’ll discuss with you and your 

staff later on, but I didn’t know about the units in Selma until you 

just mentioned them, and the issue with the used housing, as far 

as FEMA is concerned, has been up to now that they’ve taken the 

housing and tried to reapportion breaking up bulk. 

Units that were in Florida after the storms in 2004, to Katrina 

victims. So the real focus of our question was the units that are 

in Hope, Arkansas, at the airport and trying to figure out if we 

could—if those would be available stock for those who might want 

them. 

So my short answer is yes, we actually have plans to acquire 

some of those. 

Chairman NEY. Also, for beyond—with the Hope, Arkansas, my 

frustration is that those units are sitting there. They could be 

taken down to New Orleans. Because Gulf Port, Mississippi, received 20,000 of the travel trailers, just got hooked up. People were 

repairing their property. New Orleans only had 2,000-some, which 

is not your problem. This was a FEMA thing. 

So I’m not saying we take the Hope, Arkansas units away if people want them in New Orleans. New Orleans is a whole different 

world of problems why we in part can’t get those down there, because there’s been 50 million tons removed in debris. There are 63 

million more. There is a question of where it could be put, toxic 

problems with the land, a whole set of different issues. 

29

But moving down the road past Katrina, because we want to 

help those victims, obviously, first, if they want housing, but down 

the road, if the U.S. Government can buy these and then store 

them, walking past Katrina and any other disasters in Florida or 

Mississippi, it does behoove us—and I’m glad you’re looking into 

exploring about the buying in bulk and the ability to help people 

across the country, but in particular, the Indian Nation. 

Is there any way—I think we could continue to work on together 

on that, and the price could be—buying in bulk by the Government 

could be so reduced, to offer something that, you know, maybe even 

a half of the original cost. 

Mr. CABRERA. Well, all I know is there is a technical issue that 

I would love to discuss with you later, but the other issue is we 

want to make sure there is demand for this. Some folks don’t want 

to live in manufactured housing, and it’s an issue, and others do, 

and we want to make sure we have an idea of what the demands 

would be. 

Chairman NEY. I understand. I saw the traditional hogan, the 

traditional Navajo housing that they had, and to some people, you 

know, across the United States, manufactured housing has been 

debatable, but for those who would want it, and it would not have 

to be forced upon them, I think it’s worth exploring. 

Mr. Chairman, the second question I had was for Mr. Browning, 

just a brief answer. How can a mortgage lender determine whether 

its mortgage lien will be valid and enforceable under existing tribal 

law? 

Mr. BROWNING. I’m going to defer to my Native American housing coordinator. 

Chairman NEY. First of all, state your name for the record. 

Mr. IRBY. I’m Don Irby. Chairman Ney, Chairman Renzi, the situation under—would be based on any of the reservations. We have 

to first get the legal documents, the leases, and have them reviewed by our general counsel to see if it is something that we can 

take a lien on, that it can be enforced. 

One of the issues that we have run into on generally all of the 

reservations, is that they want us to foreclose through tribal court, 

and that has been an issue with our legal counsel in regards to 

that, but they generally want us to either foreclose through Federal 

court or have a Federal judge foreclose through tribal court, and 

those are the primary issues that we have had to deal with in regard to the trust land. 

Chairman NEY. Where would—has it been decided where the 

legal jurisdiction would be; tribal court, Federal court, or is that 

the issue? 

Mr. IRBY. That’s the issue. 

Chairman NEY. Have there been any court cases on that to clarify, or do you know? 

Mr. IRBY. At the present time we’re trying to—our counsel for 

the Navajo Nation has advised us to try to solicit for an attorney 

that will foreclose through Navajo Nation courts. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge 

me and thank you for your patience. My last question is for Mr. 

Anspach. In the memorandum of understanding among the Departments of Agriculture and HUD, and the BIA, dating from SepVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
30

tember of 2004, the BIA committed to use its best efforts to prepare 

a title status report within 30 days, and on July 17th, which I mentioned earlier, 2004, Arizona field hearing and at least last years 

Washington, D.C., hearing in July, the BIA committed to having 

the automated system that BIA pulled in use by 2006. 

And, of course, it’s 2006, and so I’m going to assume that the system is up and running to meet the goals of preparing faster TSR’s, 

or did something happen? 

Mr. ANSPACH. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’m going to ask Arch 

Wells, our technical person, to respond to that. 

Mr. WELLS. I won’t say I’m technical, but, yes, the TAAMS system, the one that Allen Anspach noted earlier, is in place and it 

has made getting TSR’s easier. The companion system to it, which 

will make things even easier, is the repository, that is hooked to 

that, and that is when you populate all the LTRO’s, and that 

should be in place the end of this year. We just got the security 

clearances on it 21⁄2 years ago, I believe. 

So that would give you actual documentation on not just static 

data. It would actually allow you to view the documents on hand 

just like in a county records system. 

So if an individual owned property in Mississippi, and they 

owned property in Arizona, you would be able to pull it up electronically and see those things, rather than trying to centralize the 

LTRO in Phoenix, for instance, because it’s an electronic system. 

Chairman NEY. Did the reorganization have anything to do with 

this, because there was the reorganization. There was BIA, OST 

and HUD. HUD was involved with activities under the housing. 

HUD, USDA, and BIA partnered. Wasn’t there a reorganization 

also that was taking place, and maybe it was internal. 

Mr. WELLS. There was an internal reorganization of the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs where we took the administrative portion out of 

the functional portion on the ground portion, but, no, that doesn’t 

have anything to do with this. 

Chairman NEY. Okay. 

Mr. WELLS. Quite frankly, one of the things that spurred along 

the repository was last years testimony, so I appreciate that. 

Chairman NEY. Again, just to kind of get to the point, you know, 

when we had the—and I appreciate the efforts, and I think things 

just coasted for a lot of years, and Congressman Renzi’s referred 

to that earlier, and I think it coasted a lot of years, and a lot of 

these problems were discovered and had been out there and just 

had not been addressed, and Congressman Renzi brought it to our 

attention, so I felt good in Washington in July of last year and it 

was to take 6 months. 

I think you might have indicated to the Congress that it was 

going to take a little longer, but you say it’s now complete or you’re 

in the final—I’m trying to narrow it down again in a public hearing. When is this dog to going hunt, is what I’m saying? 

Mr. WELLS. You’re speaking my language. 

Chairman NEY. And can catch the bird. 

Mr. WELLS. Catching the bird is the difficult part. The dog is 

hunting right now. It is making it so that the customer and an individual who comes into the LTRO, can see the documentation, get 

31

the TSR, just like you could in a county scenario or State scenario, 

and that’s what we’re attempting to get done. 

In that effort, to that end, we have now restricted TSR’s to just 

mortgages or land sales where there’s more than two owners. We’re 

not doing TSR’s for grazing permits, timber sales, or a plethora of 

other things that we used to do TSR’s for, so we’ve shortened that 

down where TSR’s are only done where there’s more than two owners. 

We also have the endorsement in place, and recently we’ve 

kicked out the new endorsement that was spoken about in the testimony from Allen, and that’s the one where we coordinated with 

HUD and BIA, and it should facilitate the needs of both HUD and 

BIA. So that one is out actually as of last week, so—let’s see. What 

else. 

The other improvement was that we’re now accepting all of the 

environmental documentation of HUD. No longer do you have to go 

back through this bureaucratic red tape of getting another environmental document. We’re now accepting each other’s environmental 

documentation. 

Chairman NEY. So any projections in 3 months from now, or in 

4 months from now, how quickly will a person be able to go in and 

get all the information they need to be able to pursue their dream 

of a home? 

Mr. WELLS. A projection, prediction, right now we’re running on 

the standard case of 8 to 12 hours, and unless it’s a very complicated issue, I’m hoping that we can get all of them to a 6- to 12-

hour timeframe. That is getting all of the—that’s pending getting 

all of the data cleaned-up, all of the documentation that we previously did not put into the LTRO that we’re now required to put 

in the LTRO’s for leasing purposes, getting that in, so that is the 

capital. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. Tim, why don’t you keep the microphone. 

This is what I want. I—this is what I feel and this is what I’m saying. First of all, you’re a good man and a hard worker. 

Mr. ANSPACH. I appreciate your testimony. Okay. You’re underfunded. You’re under-staffed. Congress hasn’t given you the money 

to do it, hasn’t given you the ability to do your job. You have a new 

system that you have invested how many millions—straight up, 

how many millions of dollars? 

Mr. WELLS. I honestly don’t have an accounting off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. RENZI. Between two Americans, how much? 

Mr. WELLS. Probably about $10 million. 

Mr. RENZI. You have how many years invested in it? 

Mr. WELLS. The TAAMS, 12 or 15 years. 

Mr. RENZI. I believe, and it was stated today—Mr. Anspach, you 

said that you have a significant workload. I believe even though 

you streamlined what now doesn’t go in to the TAAMS system, you 

still have a significant workload. I believe that the western tribes 

have a unique situation in having the ability to have their title 

searches done. They’re all spread out. 

I don’t want my tribes, when they come to you to go 638, to have 

to run up against any kind of impediments that stop them from 

32

being able to negotiate the 638 contracts. I want them out of the 

system. 

I think it’s better that I get my tribes out so you can have less 

of a workload because we’re not giving you enough money to do a 

good job of getting it done. So when Jamie Fullmer comes to Washington, D.C., to negotiate 638, I want it to be streamlined. I want 

him—one of the best young leaders in the valley who understands 

housing, who just got 1,600 acres into trust—roughly 1,600 acres, 

I want him to be able to get it. Okay? It will help receive the system. It will. 

Now, we know the system is going to move along and is getting 

better and we have people who are working on it. When we look 

at setting up and going through negotiations, who do they negotiate the 638 with? Will it be you, Arch, or who? 

Mr. ANSPACH. Mr. Chairman, they will start at the local agency 

level down in Phoenix, and work up to the region. Since this is a 

title office issue, we don’t have a title office in the western region. 

It’s under the Albuquerque BIA office, so they would have to contact them. 

The problem—one of the issues is going to be that Mr. Fullmer, 

using him as an example, will have some of the same issues that 

you just brought up as far as the funding available. If the BIA program is already struggling with staff and funding issues, as we 

fractionate and divide amongst our tribes, that’s just going to be 

exacerbated unless more funding can somehow be brought in. 

Mr. RENZI. I want to come up with the funding for them. I want 

to be careful here. You’re still going to have a core group. You’re 

going to have plenty of work, but as far as the Navajo, YavapaiApache, and San Carlos Apache goes, I have to come through with 

the money and start-up costs to get it up and running. You guys 

have to come through with helping me on how we best train, 

whether it’s inter-tribal council or BIA personnel. It lends itself out 

west. 

Now, how we work back east and how the other tribes have to 

do it, it’s on their own, but we can’t do it anymore. You can’t—look, 

you can’t be a young Navajo or an Apache, wanting—getting married and wanting your own home, and wait 2 years. You can’t do 

it. You can’t do it. It kills you. 

We’re getting the reports out of Apache Dawn, which we’re going 

to hear some testimony on, about what’s coming out of that community. These young Apaches are going in to have their own private homeownership. Their math scores are going up. Their 

English scores are going up. We’re seeing a reduction in battered 

and abused women because they own their own home. A sense of 

community. 

So we’ve got to move, and we’ve got to get it done, and we’ve got 

the ability now for the Federal Government not to act as the sole 

arbitrator over entrepreneurship and prosperity and homeownership in the community. That’s one more way to say to tribes, 

‘‘You’ve got it. Here’s how we do it. Here is a system that works. 

We’re here for you, but you guys have to do it.’’ 

It needs to be in many other areas, too, but this is how I want 

it. I know, Arch, we talked. We have to go this way. Okay. 

33

Go ahead, sir. You feel like you want to say something. You want 

to finish my speech. Go ahead. 

Mr. ANSPACH. Not at all, Congressman. You’re doing quite well. 

I don’t think you would hear any argument from the Bureau. We 

want it to succeed. We want the tribes to succeed, but our job is 

to give them the tools so that they can. 

Mr. RENZI. Well, those tools include—those tools, in my opinion, 

right now, and I know these leaders that were in front of you want 

638. We’re going to go there. You continue to go on TAAMS. I’m 

not go to rip you on it. I know what you have invested in it. I do 

not want the Washington bureaucrats under you, Arch. I want 

them to be able to get 638. 

Orlando, when you look at the amount of money that we have 

that relates to loan guarantees under our Section 184, if a Native 

American is living off of the reservation in Minneapolis, or in Hollywood, Florida, you know the scenario, they go into the program 

and they gain—they can take those funds if you can guarantee 

their houses off of the reservation. Right? 

Mr. CABRERA. Absolutely. 

Mr. RENZI. But that house collateralized and that house has the 

underlying land which has the appreciated value. Why is it that 

you’re having to use 184 houses off the reservation? Doesn’t it draw 

down from the pot that I have to use on the reservation? 

Mr. CABRERA. No. Section 184 is a tool to improve the liquidity 

of the mortgages. If you can think about—the issue in real estate 

lending and the lenders who will come after this panel will, I hope, 

reflect what I’m about to say, that the whole market is driven by 

the concept of liquidity, the ability to sell a mortgage in the market 

such that the buyer and the seller are comfortable with what’s 

known about that mortgage, either in terms of the credit worthiness of the person who is borrowing, the nature of the real estate, 

any number of factors. 

One of those factors is the ability to guarantee that the title that 

is securing the mortgage, is capturable by the bank in the event 

that something goes sideways. 

Mr. RENZI. Right. 

Mr. CABRERA. 184 says, ‘‘Bank, you don’t need to worry about 

that because we’re offering a 100-percent guarantee of that mortgage such that you don’t have a liquidity concern. You can take 

this risk and not be concerned that if this goes sideways you’re 

going to be out of the money.’’ 

Mr. RENZI. I’m with you on that, but if I’m off the reservation, 

aren’t there other instruments that would be better used because 

the 184 really was meant to be on the reservation for the absolute 

guarantee. See, I’m on the reservation and that land is held in 

trust, so, therefore, there’s no—I have no interest in the land. I 

only have it in the actual building, itself, which depreciates, actually. 

So what I’m saying is, by using the Section 184 off the reservation, I have less funds available for on the reservation. 

Mr. CABRERA. No, because Section 184 doesn’t attach to the issue 

of the dirt. That would assume that the dirt is somehow what 

you’re trying to protect. You’re not. You’re trying to protect the fiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
34

nancial instrument of the note and the mortgage that are together. 

So it has nothing to do with where the dirt is. 

If you were to restrict that program to only tribal lands, as it 

was at one point, what you will do is limit the ability to use it and 

put fewer homeowners in homes. 

Mr. RENZI. I want to look at that. Am I drawing down on the 

possibility of it? 

Mr. CABRERA. No, because the way that Congress or that you 

have appropriated this, is the amount of money that guarantees 

the maximum amount of credit. So, therefore, what you are doing 

is you are insuring—you’re insuring within a bandwidth that the 

credit market is comfortable with, a default rate, and so you’re saying here is what we’re doing and you can now leverage that money. 

Actually, assuming that the President’s proposal were taken, you would be able to leverage it to $250 million, and so what you’re 

saying is we’re good with issuing mortgages up to that amount. 

Mr. RENZI. Right. That was a good point. You remember we 

weren’t using that whole pot of money. Do you remember rescinding about $40 million? 

Mr. CABRERA. Not under 184. I don’t believe that you’ve had a 

rescission in that. 

Mr. RENZI. We had this discussion. 

Mr. CABRERA. It was a combination of 184 and Title VI that you rescinded, and I think a few years back you rescinded about $80 

million, but that was because at that point in time there was no—

and if you could forgive the term—quantum mass in the program. 

Back then you had far fewer loans being underwritten than you do 

right now. 

Currently, what we’ve got are 835 loans being underwritten in 

this fiscal year. The volume has skyrocketed. 

Mr. RENZI. So there will be no more—Congress allocated money. 

The money wasn’t used, but you’ve been able to change that under 

your watch, and I appreciate it. There’s such an increase now in 

applications, increase in counseling, in going out and showing our 

Native Americans how to access the program, and that’s why we 

don’t turn back money? 

Mr. CABRERA. Well, I think there are several reasons. Those are 

two, and to add, I think part of it is marketing, and what I truly 

think is if you have a lending community that is more comfortable 

knowing that you have title that they can rely upon, they’re much 

more willing to lend to the markets. 

Whereas if you have a lending community that is uncertain of 

the titles or that title is stagnant or that title is questionable, 

they’re not going to be very willing to lend at all. 

Mr. RENZI. How do I reach the same level of comfort when I deal 

with financing in infrastructure? 

Mr. CABRERA. Because in infrastructure you’re applying— 

Mr. RENZI. How do I? 

Mr. CABRERA. I know. I’m sorry. An infrastructure is a very different world. You’re not dealing with liquidity issues. You’re dealing with basically the underwriting of a particular project. If you 

can think about it in another way, it’s what is the economic viability of whatever it is I’m going to be doing, be it water and sewer 

capacity, be it roads, whatever, and so when you look at something 

35

like infrastructure, that is typically a larger ticket in the marketplace, and that gets underwritten much more strictly, and much 

more intensely than homes do. 

Homes at this point are for all intents and purposes the biggest 

investment in the United States, not in terms of people buying 

them; in terms of everybody investing in the mortgage markets and 

the mortgage-backed security market. So it’s a different equation. 

How do you do it? It’s very hard to do. A lot of that is basically 

faith in the financial markets, that whatever the deal that you’re 

doing makes sense. That means getting investment bankers to 

agree with you. 

Mr. RENZI. So I get the lending community to come in and believe in a project. Jamie is getting ready to build 50 homes. He has 

to extend the electricity, the sewer, the water, and the gas. They 

lend based on the fact that the tribe has to stand up and provide 

the collateral, maybe non-traditional collateral. 

Do you, Jamie, have to put up a financial bond? Jamie, how did 

you get your guys to lend not to infrastructure? 

Mr. FULLMER. The infrastructure that the Yavapai-Apache Nation has done, we’ve done with direct loans to the bank, but that’s 

based on our good standing credit. 

Mr. RENZI. So you have to go to the lender and you secure your 

own revenues—or the Nation has to stand as the collateral versus 

the project. 

Mr. FULLMER. That’s correct. 

Mr. RENZI. So if I have a tribe that doesn’t have liquidity or isn’t 

in a position that you guys are in now, they’re at a total disadvantage. 

Mr. CABRERA. Could I answer your question another way? 

Mr. RENZI. Go ahead. 

Mr. CABRERA. The Title VI—I’m going to rephrase your question. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. 

Mr. CABRERA. How do you sell the Title VI program in a better 

way; is that a fair rephrasing? 

Mr. RENZI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CABRERA. The way that we typically do it when we speak to 

the stakeholder community is to say the following: You have a 95-

percent guarantee in terms of the debt that you underwrite, and 

so, therefore, your risk is very small. It is more worthwhile for you 

to undertake the program and do whatever you’re going to do, because you have—you have a guarantee of the Federal Government 

behind your risk that is going to decrease the amount—the cost of 

the money that you will have to borrow, and so, therefore, please, 

please, please, please, please, please, please, please go do it. 

Mr. RENZI. So that is what is said to the lender, the Federal Government would stand in and be your guarantor up to 95 percent. 

Mr. CABRERA. Right. 

Mr. RENZI. And those funds are also being accessed and we’re 

not—do you try to back those funds? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yeah. It’s being utilized, and I can’t—right now 

I’m having a brain block, and I can’t remember the exact figures, 

but it’s truly come a long way from where it was. 

Mr. RENZI. What is the impediment to the Title VI money? 

36

Mr. CABRERA. The biggest impediment to the Title VI money is 

faith within the stakeholder community in terms of using it. The 

actual ability to get the money out there is not a problem, but people don’t like debt as a general rule, and when they see that, they 

get worried about repaying that debt. 

So what we’ve tried to do is promote the idea that this is guaranteed money that accomplishes—it is essentially two things—three 

things. It gets you the money you need for infrastructure; it puts 

minimum risk in your pocket; and, finally, and most importantly, 

it is the least cost money. It is the cheapest money because the 

Federal Government is backing it. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. I’m grateful. We’ll get there. 

Ed, thank you for coming out. You guys do a great job out there. 

Jamie talked about the fact that the services had been reduced on 

many of the reservation lands, talking about the fact that there 

was a part-time office, not your office, but some of the other offices. 

You have been able to maintain staff and you have been able to 

grow through outreach. Your model, I think, acts as a model for 

counseling, and for technical assistance, and has been phenomenal.

Not all the same—not all of your peer agencies have been able 

to keep that up. How have you been able to do it? Is the funding 

in place to do it for you, or are you using it out of your hide, or 

where is it coming from? 

Mr. BROWNING. Well, thank you for the compliment. Our funding 

has been fairly stable for the salaries and our S and E budgets and 

expenses. We just fought long and hard. There is a lot of need out 

here and we within rural development we have done a little bit of 

negotiating with our counterparts across the country. There are 

some States, we think, who had more FTE’s than other States, and 

so we quite frankly went in and had our blood bath and determined 

whether there was a methodology that redistributes some of the 

distributed FTE’s. We started down that path, which got me a few 

more FTP’s. So we’ve been fortunate that way. 

Our big slices and dices came actually before I got here in 1993 

when they split up the agencies, and there’s been—this is my opinion, is that it used to be—you know, I hear the stories of the old 

timers talking about the work that was being done, that they had 

eight or nine people to do this work. 

Well, in my opinion, from the private sector at that time looking 

at it, I probably thought that was way too many. Well, the pendulum kind of swung back the other way where all of a sudden 

we’ve got three or four people trying to do the work that eight or 

nine people used to do; that’s really not enough. 

So we’re trying to get that pendulum—we’re trying to get somewhere in the middle, and that would allow us to move forward. 

There has been a lot of talk here today, and I want to add this 

to it. As we listen to our tribal reps talk this morning, they talked 

about two really major issues, and they talked about the trust land 

and we’ve talked about that a lot today. The other thing they 

talked about was the income and economic development, and I just 

think if we’re going to talk about housing, we’re going to talk about 

infrastructure, we have got to find methodologies to help raise the 

income of the tribal people on all the reservations. 

37

The Yavapai-Apache Tribe has done a wonderful job. What a 

great tour we had this morning. If you look at some of the things 

that went on there, their tribal members have had pretty decent 

jobs over the years. That’s not to say there is not some poverty 

here. I don’t know the tribe quite well enough to say that, but 

when you’re looking at other tribes where you’re talking about 

$7,300 a year, we have to find a way to bring that level up. 

I want to share one story with you. On the Navajo Nation, a couple of years ago, we got a request for a grant to do a feasibility 

study for a ram exchange. I thought, what is a ram exchange? 

Well, we’re talking about sheep and upgrading their sheep facilities, and so over some time, we upgraded the rams, and helped 

them build a facility, and when I went for the grand opening of the 

facility and the pickups started rolling in and people had their wool 

in the back, and as they told the stories, they said that they used 

to take their wool to the trading post, and when they did that, they 

got 8 cents a pound. 

Because now they’re working together and they have sort of a 

mini co-op, and the Navajo Nation brought a semi and they loaded 

all of the wool together with like 100 different growers and shipped 

it to, I believe, Roswell, New Mexico, where they got 85 cents. I 

thought my goodness, what a difference. 

Those are the kinds of stories that we want to continue to work 

with, and I really believe that entrepreneurship is something that 

our agency has a chance to help with, and so down the road when 

you’re looking at bills, there will be an opportunity to say that we 

need to support some of this business development stuff that some 

of the different agencies are doing. To me, that is a huge key to 

success. 

If we solved all of the trust land issues tomorrow, and we could 

do titles just like that, how many more houses would be built? I 

don’t know. They would jump for a little while, but if credit and 

low income is a real issue, we have to solve that problem at the 

same time. 

Mr. RENZI. That is the exact argument I had, is if you look at 

how you absolutely have to build equity, how do Native Americans 

become millionaires on their own reservation? The first thing is, if 

we can get them from not leaving so they’re spending their own 

money on the reservation, rather than it being in a sink hole and 

having to leave. 

Right now, if you’re Apache, you want to go down in Cottonwood 

and build a house, own equity, and borrow against the equity, and 

then you want to come on the reservation and build your own business, because that’s the only way right now to have any kind of equity and have any kind of real true income, would be to own your 

own business. 

So business site leasing, along with the residential site leasing, 

and providing and letting the tribe have that authority themselves, 

is a way to unlock that entrepreneurial spirit and unlock equity. 

Mr. BROWNING. I think the program and the processes they’re 

starting to do with certified Chapters and being able to go back to 

local control, I think that opens some doors that we’ve never seen 

for a long time, just to allow that. I think you used the example, 

if somebody wants to put in a Denny’s, it’s been very difficult in 

38

the past. That will allow entrepreneurship to development and to 

grow. 

And I think, you know, which comes first, the chicken or the egg. 

Well, we’ve got a start, and that is a great start, and I applaud the 

Nation for being able to move forward on that. I think it opens 

some opportunities for us at rural development. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, very much. I thank this panel very, very 

much. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Indulge me just for a second. An issue got raised. 

I just wanted to ask Mr. Cabrera. Be candid. The 184 program; 

aren’t the numbers successful because the money is being lent to 

people off the reservation and that makes the program more successful? I mean, Congressman Renzi asked the question a couple 

of times. Did it take away—and I understand the point of his question. Doesn’t it take away from the money if you’re lending to people off the reservation, and you said no, it doesn’t hurt the overall 

money, but the numbers will look better for the—for that program 

if it is being lent off the reservation because it’s easier to lend it 

off the reservation. 

Doesn’t that make the numbers look better when it comes to the 

money being lent on the reservation where the numbers may not 

be as healthy? 

Mr. CABRERA. I think it depends on where we are, because I 

think in Arizona, most of the money is being lent on reservation 

lands or on allotted lands, but in other places, I know for a fact—

in south Florida is a great example. Most of that is in the Hollywood area, and that’s because the Miccosukee. They have their 

lands smack dab in the middle of Broward County’s developed 

area. 

My short answer is that I don’t know, but my sense—my instinct 

is to say probably not. I think it’s a matter of policy. It’s a better 

thing to have more homeowners who are Native American, than 

not, and I worry much less about where the land is, and I worry 

much more about Native Americans having their own homes, and 

so that’s really where our focus is. 

And, by the way, if I may be indulged, I was terribly remiss and 

I didn’t introduce my Deputy Secretary, Roger Boyd, who is behind 

me, and has also helped out. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. My final—if I could, we were with the chairman 

today. I believe that this tribe has taken a balanced approach. We 

saw an ingenious—the water treatment plant is portable. It can be 

moved, if they have to, as they’re building more and more housing. 

I see a balanced approach. They’re cleaning off some land, according to the chairman, for housing, and also putting in the progressive look, the idea of the business part of it. I can’t remember what 

you called that, chairman, but the—it was a strip— that is going 

to be a retail strip, which it was the way to think, because you’re 

approaching it at two angles, but what I gathered from the chairman today, and I believe also from Congressman Renzi, it is also 

the importance of housing component. 

And, Mr. Browning, I think you hit to the point of it, because it 

is kind of a Catch-22. Developing the business side of this is important for the jobs. For example, down in New Orleans when we went 

39

down there, Congresswoman Maxine Waters and I stopped at a 

restaurant and we asked them how things were going, and they 

said, ‘‘We could hire 175 more people right now; we need them to 

open the remaining three restaurants,’’ and we said, ‘‘Why don’t 

you do it,’’ and they said, ‘‘Because there’s no place for them to 

live.’’ 

So when you look at the situation, yes, developing that business 

site is important so people can go up the economic ladder. The only 

problem is—and this is why I see it as a Catch-22. If we don’t develop the housing side, one of the problems out here is—in Ohio, 

for example, in certain parts of Ohio you can get a 4,600 square 

foot home for $279,000 on an acre of ground. I’m using real examples. A 1958 home on an acre of ground, three bedrooms, for 

$61,000. 

Now, we’ve lost manufacturing jobs, steel jobs. China is just taking us apart. Our jobs are lost and our people are hurting, and I’m 

not saying they aren’t, but part of the problem I think you have 

out here is the price. I mean, you’ve got poor people, but the prices 

are—I mean, who could live in certain areas here because of the 

price. 

So the economic side, yes, it is important, but if we don’t move 

aggressively, which is what the chairman wants to do, and I know 

President Shirley and others want to do, if we don’t move aggressively to take away the barriers to get these titles, then the economic side may come fourth, and that’s great to be able to provide 

those jobs, but people in the Indian Nation aren’t going to be able 

to afford—they will have to live 40 miles away to drive here, and 

that barrier is still a huge chicken-egg Catch-22. 

So I agree with the twofold approach, but, boy, if we don’t get 

aggressive, which we—the Congressman has and others, to get that 

barrier away from this title situation, then I’m afraid that the affordable housing end of it will be something beyond their reach. 

Mr. RENZI. I want to thank this panel— 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to answer for 

Chairman Ney. Roger has just provided it. If we were to take out 

Oklahoma and we were to take out Alaska, Oklahoma because it’s 

Indian land that is in trust, Alaska because it’s corporation lands, 

so those numbers would actually inflate the number I will give you. 

Fifty-two percent of lower 48 on trust lands—sorry—the 184 program is insuring mortgages. Fifty-two percent of the mortgages insured are on trust land in the lower 48. So, again, assuming that 

you were to include Oklahoma and include the Alaskan incorporation, that number would necessarily go up. 

So my answer is, I think, that they’re pretty solid numbers either 

way. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. I want to thank this panel for your expertise and for traveling. I do want to say to you that I will be requesting in about 6 to 7 months another hearing on this issue and 

on other issues that are acting as impediments to homeownership. 

I will be asking for it in Washington. After that, 6 or 7 months, 

I will be asking Chairwoman Kitcheyan to host the next one down 

in San Carlos. After that, I will be asking for another hearing in 

Washington, D.C., a true pain, I know, but I look forward to drilling in on this issue. Thank you so much for coming. 

40

We will go to our third panel. We’ll take a 5-minute break and 

come back with the third panel. 

[Recess] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you so much for staying here with us. We 

move into our final round and I’m grateful. Panel three consists of 

Steven Barbier, with Consultant III, Neighborhood Reinvestment 

Corporation doing business as Neighborworks America; Chester 

Carl, CEO, Navajo Housing Authority; Pattye Green, senior business manager, Federal National Mortgage Association; Edward D. 

Hellewell, senior vice president and senior underwriting counsel, 

Stewart Title Guaranty Company; Marty Shuravloff, chairman, National American Indian Housing Council; and Tim Simons, assistant vice president, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and 

my friend, Larry Parks, is also here, and he is also with the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. They’ve done wonderful 

stuff in Indian country which I look forward to hearing about 

today. 

This is the part of the panel that has to do with industry. We’ve 

heard from our Native leaders. We’ve heard from the people in 

Washington and the people who deal with it with the Federal agencies. Now we are going to hear from industry who really plays a 

vital role in making sure the funding and breaking through all the 

bureaucracy. 

So I look forward to that and, Steven, we’ll start with you. Go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN BARBIER, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT III, NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION 

DOING BUSINESS AS NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA 

Mr. BARBIER. Good afternoon, Congressman Renzi, and Chairman Ney. My thanks to the Yavapai-Apache Nation for hosting this 

hearing. My name is Steve Barbier, and I am a management consultant with Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation which is 

doing business as NeighborWorks America. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of NeighborWorks America 

with respect to our work on Native American issues. I will also discuss the strategies Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation deploys to tackle homeownership barriers in Native American communities, including our role in launching a tribal land title and recordation office study. 

NeighborWorks America evolved from a 1972 effort by the Federal Home Loan Bank to increase thrift-industry lending in declining neighborhoods. NeighborWorks America, a public non-profit 

corporation, was chartered by Congress in the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978. NeighborWorks America’s involvement with local housing and community development 

organizations, supports residents, businesses, and local governments in their efforts to revitalize their communities. 

For nearly 30 years, the NeighborWorks System, which includes 

240 community-based non-profit organizations active in more than 

4,400 communities, has proven to be an increasingly effective and 

efficient vehicle for leveraging significant private-sector resources 

in support of community revitalization and affordable-housing efforts. 

41

I’d like to thank the committee for its support of NeighborWorks 

America. For more information on NeighborWorks America, please 

refer to the written testimony. 

I would like to now speak about our efforts with Native Americans. By December 2008, 500 Native American community development practitioners will have attended the Wells Fargo Native Community Development Training Program at the NeighborWorks 

Training Institution, taking classes developed specifically for Native communities, with subject areas of homebuyer education, financial fitness, organizational development, leveraging resources, 

and affordable housing development. 

We currently have a number of NeighborWorks organizations 

that have developed partnerships with tribes to promote homeownership. We began in 1995, when the reinvestment corporation 

was invited by the Navajo Nation to assist in the creation of a nonprofit organization that could focus on mortgage-based homeownership opportunities to Navajo families. 

With the assistance and support of their many partners, including the Navajo Housing Authority, the Navajo Partnership for 

Housing has assisted 225 Navajo families into homeownership for 

a total investment of $20.6 million. The unfortunate news is that 

it should have been many more. 

According to NPH, the average time from the day a Navajo family walks in the door and applies for homeownership assistance, to 

the date of loan closing, is still about 24 months. In addition to 

that timeframe, it takes an additional 6 to 8 months to receive the 

final TSR showing recording of the lien with the BIA. 

NPH reports that there have been some improvements at the 

title plant level and that the large part of those delays rest at the 

agency level. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and the subcommittee for focusing on the important issue of expediting TSR’s 

for Indian land. As you know, the ability to obtain clear title to secure financing for homeownership and economic development 

projects is essential in today’s financial marketplace. 

NeighborWorks America and many other entities including tribal 

governments, lenders, Federal and State agencies, and other local 

and national intermediaries have been committed for many years, 

along with the members of this committee, to improving homeownership and economic development opportunities in Native communities. We have dedicated time and resources to improving 

homebuyer readiness, designing innovative mortgage loan products, 

identifying sources of down-payment and closing cost assistance, 

and developing affordable housing stock. 

Mr. Chairman, based on our experience working with Native 

communities, NeighborWorks America and many of our partners 

have identified the need to expedite the TSR process as a priority 

issue. Accordingly, we have set aside seed money to initiate a more 

comprehensive analysis of the options and considerations for tribes 

that wish to assume their own title functions, rather than rely exclusively on the BIA. Last month, we convened a group comprised 

of Indian land and financing experts at the Pueblo of Santa Ana, 

just north of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to determine how we can 

assist in this area. 

42

During the 2-day meeting, we consulted with representatives 

from tribal government who have already undertaken some of 

these steps, and we discussed what information might be helpful 

to compile and disseminate more broadly to tribal governments. 

One of the outcomes of this meeting was to launch a tribal land 

title and recordation office study. We are pleased that the National 

Congress of American Indians and First Nations Development Institute have agreed to co-direct the study, and they are in the process of developing their research strategy now. The purpose of the 

study is to provide tribes with a range of options to expedite land 

title processing that would strengthen sovereignty and promote 

economic development. It will examine the economics of managing 

LTRO functions and address operational issues such as cost feasibility, necessary administrative and staffing capacity, and technology requirements. 

We are anticipating that the preliminary results will be available 

over the next 6 to 12 months, and we would be happy to share our 

findings along the way in order to contribute to the legislative process where appropriate. 

The efforts underway with the memo of understanding between 

the BIA, HUD, and USDA to streamline the mortgage lending process on Indian trust land is commendable. However, this is only 

part of the solution. NeighborWorks America and our partners on 

the LTRO study committee urge Congress to enhance tribal governments’ authority to manage all or a portion of their own tribal land 

title functions and to provide adequate resources for tribes to be 

able to assume these functions from the BIA. 

Mr. Chairman, this committee has aggressively pursued actions 

to improve affordable housing opportunities for all Americans. We 

hope that you will continue to tackle this issue of improving the 

TSR process on Indian trust land which will go a long way to furthering homeownership and other economic development opportunities for Native Americans. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify in this important topic, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Barbier. Great job. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barbier can be found on page 

119 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chester Carl. 

STATEMENT OF CHESTER CARL, CEO, NAVAJO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY 

Mr. CARL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before this committee. You have assembled a 

distinguished group of witnesses, and they have done well. I would 

personally like to thank you, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member 

Frank, as well as my good friend, Congressman Renzi, not only for 

this hearing, but also for your continuing efforts to behalf of Native 

families. 

The elaborate, complicated and confusing system under which we 

operate on trust land is the result of centuries of different policies, 

some well-intentioned, some designed to ‘‘integrate’’ Indian people 

and others that were meant to destroy our way of life. 

43

The fact that this committee continues to hold hearings, that you 

and your staff continue to ask questions, and more importantly demand answers, is a testament to your desire to make real changes, 

and I both applaud and thank you for that. 

This also is a true motivation; I believe it’s working very well. 

In the last two hearings we talked about the challenges we faced. 

Today we have heard further testimony about the barriers to homeownership. Some of these barriers are real and they’re not the first 

barriers we have to overcome. 

For years we were told that private lending on our reservation 

land was impossible because of the trust status of the land, that 

it cannot be alienated and, therefore, it has no value. But I believe 

the original Native American Housing Assistance Self-determination Act, which changed the length of lease on trust land from 25 

to 50 years, made that important step. 

It was also argued at the time that at a 50-year lease would be 

make Indian country more appealing to lenders because the leasehold interest would have value even at the very end of the 30-year 

mortgage, but like so many other improvements and changes in 

law, this change did not cause a stampede of lenders to Indian 

country. The fact is that we at the Navajo Housing Authority are 

still now forced to carry a lot of the mortgage to make this reality 

come true. 

I think we also provided information here at this hearing that 

the community land use plan, because that authority invested 

about $5 million in NAHASDA funds, is now starting to work with 

local empowerment, and also some of the information that I believe 

Chairman Fullmer provided was a testament to some of the 

progress we’ve made with NAHASDA, and those opportunities, I 

believe, are working, not only locally here with the State of Arizona, but one of those opportunities is with the tribal CFI funds 

that we now start to implement which will provide infrastructure 

lending to the Native community, as well. 

This is one of the important advancements that we’ve made, 

starting with NAHASDA which continues to move forward. 

NAHASDA itself was meant to be a boon for homeownership in Indian country. Finally tribes could make homeownership a priority. 

Tribes could create and operate their own homeownership program; 

and training and credit counseling programs could create innovative new down-payment assistance programs and tailor programs 

to fit their communities, but that did not happen. Even after subsequent amendments that created economic development demonstration authority, the promise of NAHASDA in the area of homeownership has not been fulfilled. 

In fact, in my Housing Authority, we believe that there are two 

other authorities that provide eligible activities, but we’re restricted to activities found under 202, which basically restricts us 

to do programs for families under 80 percent median income. 

With your amendment, Congressman Renzi, we were able to get 

program income which allowed other housing-related activity, and 

we failed to recognize that. We also have another amendment that 

is the fine in definition, and if you look at the report language, 

which also tailors economic development as part of that process, 

and HUD has failed to recognize that, as well. 

44

So with that, despite the NAHASDA claims to provide similar 

authority be given to tribes in Public Law 93–638, the Act is not 

specific as to what that authority there should be, and, therefore, 

leaves a lot of interpretation up to staff at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

The staff at HUD, like so many government employees, must 

walk a thin line between providing authority and flexibility to 

tribes, and operating a program that will not be criticized by 

watchdogs such as the Inspector General. Sometime this creates a 

degree of caution on the part of HUD, and this caution is the 

enemy of creativity, which was the underlying principle behind the 

creation of NAHASDA. 

Your committee can address that problem when it reauthorizes 

NAHASDA next year by giving specific authority to the tribes so 

that HUD employees are not left to interpret what flexibility the 

Congress really meant to grant recipients of NAHASDA funds. 

Even as we address the problems at HUD, we remain stymied 

by the system at the BIA, and we have heard of issues of the title 

status report. We have heard countless promises, reforms that have 

not been realized. So what I’d like to do at this time, Mr. Chairman, is basically provide an opportunity to make a recommendation and a proposal, and that is basically grants of $50,000 or 

$500,000 should be made to Indian tribes and Indian tribal organizations to develop a system that administers title recordation functions. 

The purpose of the grants would include tribal legal and regulatory code development, developing facilities to maintain the 

records themselves, and the development of tribal judicial systems, 

but there are other ways in which Congress can change the very 

nature of the trust land that can be very beneficial. I know that 

any mention of changes in the status of trust law causes consternation for many tribes. 

We all remember how the termination policies of the past decimated our communities, how land was lost and reservations were 

checkerboarded with much of the prime land being alienated from 

the tribes by swindlers and land agents. This must never happen 

again. 

Nevertheless, we should try to find ways for the land BIA controls, for the land which we are part of, to have value because the 

value of this land can be a stepping stone not just to prosperity, 

but to the independence for our people. Attempts to replicate mortgage market on reservation land, for instance, have largely failed 

because the resale market, or more properly the re-lease market of 

the land is limited. 

While the concept of land is different for Indian people, to succeed in an economic reality of land-based wealth, we must consider 

changing the way we look at trust land, although always with the 

goal of protecting the trust status. I propose we create a new kind 

of trust land called economic development trust land. 

The use of land as collateral is fundamental to the development 

of both private businesses and mortgage lending. The purpose of 

economic development trust land is to allow land to be used for 

housing and economic development purposes as collateral and to 

45

make the land transferable within a larger market without placing 

the land at risk of alienation. 

The economic development of the trust land would never be 

alienated from Indian ownership, while the land leases could be 

controlled by individual tribes and leases themselves could change 

hands without the approval of BIA. The land would never leave the 

trust status. The only eligible leases would be to tribes themselves, 

tribal enterprises, or tribal members. 

If the land is eligible for placement to economic development 

trust, these would be held in trust for individual and families, if 

they so choose, and the leases for economic development trust could 

be transferred by the controlling tribe without BIA approval, so 

long as the new lessee is a recognized tribe, tribal entity, or individual member of such recognized tribes. 

The land would be under the authority of an Indian tribe for 

lease recordation, environmental assessment and approval, archaeological and historical preservation and protection, or for other general land restrictions. 

I realize this is a bold concept and one that requires much study 

and consideration, but I believe that to make a real difference to 

in the lives of Indian people, we must take bold steps. We should 

not let another generation of young Indian families come of age in 

an environment and be devoid of the kinds of opportunities available elsewhere in this country without the opportunity for homeownership and all of the benefits that brings. 

Again, I thank you for your ongoing commitment to these issues, 

and I look forward to working with this subcommittee, and will assist your efforts in any way I can. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you very much. That’s creative. I look forward 

to exploring that with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carl can be found on page 126 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Pattye, thank you for coming. It’s always a pleasure. 

I appreciate you coming back. I think you’ve done this at least once 

before. 

STATEMENT OF PATTYE GREEN, SENIOR BUSINESS MANAGER, 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. GREEN. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Ney, and Chairman 

Renzi. My name is Pattye Green, and I am a senior business manager for Rural and Native American Initiatives with Fannie Mae. 

I have over 28 years of mortgage lending experience. Prior to coming to Fannie Mae, I was the director of the Homeless Finance Department for the Housing Authority of the Choctaw Nation, and I 

am a Choctaw tribal member myself. 

I was honored to appear before the subcommittee in Tuba City 

and I am pleased to be here again today to discuss the issues affecting homeownership on tribal lands and to share with you the 

steps that Fannie Mae is taking to overcome the barriers. I have 

submitted a lengthy written statement, but today I will focus my 

oral remarks on the progress Fannie Mae has made since my last 

report to the subcommittee 2 years ago. 

Fannie Mae’s congressionally-granted mission to create affordable housing opportunities for Native American families living on 

46

tribal lands is one of the toughest challenges we face. You already 

know the facts. Almost half of Indian households pay more than 30 

percent of their income for housing expenses, compared to 23 percent of all households in the United States, and as a result, the 

homeownership rate on reservations is 41 percent, well below the 

national average of approximately 68 percent. 

Let me tell you about what my company has done to put more 

Indian families in their own homes. There is some good news. Because of the Mashantucket Pequot Land Assignment Law we 

helped enact, we can now address the legal issues of tribal sovereignty in tribal court jurisdictions. The intent of the law is to 

give tribal members greater rights in tribal lands than afforded by 

traditional land leases, and at the same time be more efficient and 

less bureaucratic. 

An assignment of tribal land gives the tribal member the right 

to use, occupy, develop, and exercise control over the specified parcel of land subject to certain limitations established by the tribe. 

The assignment is perpetual in nature, unlike a land lease which 

has a maximum 50-year term. An assignment can be mortgaged. 

Furthermore, the assignment process is more streamlined in language. The assignment process does not require BIA approval for 

each individual assignment. Once the BIA approves the entire assignment area, which it did for a section of the Pequot Reservation, 

the tribe can make assignments for individual parcels from the assignment area without further Government review. 

In addition, the BIA does not have to approve each assignment 

mortgage as it would each lease mortgage. Under the law, the BIA 

can now approve the entire assignment area for home development. 

Fannie Mae can now create opportunities for tribal members to 

own their homes without needing BIA approval for every mortgage 

on an individual basis. 

I would like to briefly describe Fannie Mae’s three-prong approach to expanding affordable housing on tribal lands. First, with 

the new law we rolled up our sleeves and worked to make homeownership happen on the Pequot Reservation. We worked with 

tribal leaders to bring in developers, lenders, counselors, title and 

mortgage insurers, and the other stakeholders necessary to make 

homeownership possible. 

The current phase of new construction on the Pequot Reservation 

has meant that almost 100 Pequot families are in the process of 

purchasing their own newly-constructed home. 

Secondly, we want to reproduce our success with the Pequot. 

We’re standardizing the model for use by other tribes. We have just 

finished an extensive amount of legal work to produce the procedures, forms and other materials necessary to make homeownership happen for tribes throughout the country. 

Third, and most importantly, Fannie Mae is not going to just sit 

back; we want to get on the road and bring our expertise wherever 

it is needed. Members of the Pequot Tribe are ready to join me and 

my Fannie Mae colleagues to share our success with any tribe looking to expand homeownership for its members throughout the 

country across the west as far as we need to go. 

There are other also great successes with issues returning to the 

treatment of tribal and land tribal records being experienced on the 

47

Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana and the Saginaw Chippewa 

Tribe in Michigan. In fact, I’m leaving here today to travel to 

Michigan to meet with representatives of the Saginaw Chippewa 

Tribe and a harbor project to discuss the outstanding work the 

tribe has done with their land title and records office. 

Helping other tribes across the country learn from these efforts 

will be a Fannie Mae priority in the years ahead. Fannie Mae is 

currently partnering, as Steve stated a while ago, with 

NeighborWorks America, leaders from our Native American tribes, 

including the Navajo Nation, representatives from HUD, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Congress of American Indians, 

the National American Indian Housing Council, and other leaders 

of non-profits, title insurance leaders and other lender communities 

to develop a model strategy to help more Native Americans address 

critical land title and recordation issues. 

To institutionalize Fannie Mae’s commitment to Indian housing, 

in January we established a new business unit dedicated to providing affordable housing in the most distressed tribal and rural 

areas of the country. We’ve seen some results. We currently have 

relationships with more than 112 lenders who make loans to Native Americans on tribal lands. 

Since 2001, Fannie Mae has helped our lender partners serve over 8,535 Native American families to provide more than $839 

million in affordable mortgages, financing on tribal lands. Nationwide, Fannie Mae has invested over $160 million in low-income 

housing tax credits, over $51 million in HUD Title VI loans, and 

over $11⁄2 million in additional financing to support the construction and rehabilitation of units on tribal lands since 2001, but 

there’s still much more for us to do. 

I hope that with these comments and our experience with the 

Pequot, Fannie Mae has begun to make progress expanding homeownership for Native Americans. We will continue to listen closely 

to Indian country leaders and to build long-term partnerships and 

work diligently to address the tough housing and economic challenges facing Native American communities today. 

Thank you, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Green can be found on page 131 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you for coming. Mr. Hellewell. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD D. HELLEWELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR UNDERWRITING COUNSEL, STEWART 

TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, STEWART LEGAL SERVICES 

Mr. HELLEWELL. Thank you. Chairman Ney, Congressman Renzi, 

thank you for inviting the American Land Title Association to testify today on removing barriers to homeownership for Native Americans. My name is Ed Hellewell, and I am a senior vice-president 

and senior underwriting counsel for Stewart. I have 30 years experience in real estate and the title insurance industry. My involvement in Indian country began in late 1994, into early 1995 and 

continues today. I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the 

American Land Title Association. 

The American Land Title Association, founded in 1907, is a national trade association representing more than 3000 title insurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
48

ance companies, title agents, independent abstracters, title searchers, and attorneys. 

With more than 8,000 offices throughout the United States, 

ALTA members provide services including title searches, examinations, and insurance protecting real property owners and mortgage 

lenders against losses from defects in titles. ALTA members employ 

well over 100,000 individuals and operate in every county and parish in the country. 

The core of the business of ALTA members is search and examination of title to land and interests in land to determine insurability and conditions of insurability in closing transactions. It is 

that perspective as a small cog in a larger Native American homeownership process that I hope to bring to the table today. 

The title insurance industry is currently helping to provide housing opportunities for Native Americans. My company several years 

ago with Fannie Mae developed modified American Land Title Association policies that have specific application to trust land as well 

as a separate model for allotment land that we use today and have 

used as a template for all of the Indian country transactions. 

But like others here today, while appreciating the progress made 

to date, we are hopeful that improvements can be made to increase 

these opportunities. 

Today, title insurance availability supports the option of conventional mortgage for homesite purchases in purchases in Indian 

country. For example, Fannie Mae’s Native American Conventional 

Loan Initiative requires a title insurance policy; title insurance is 

required by some USDA rural development guaranteed loans; and 

title insurance is required by HUD for the Section 184 guaranteed 

loan program—encumbering assignment interests. 

In addition, ALTA member title and abstractor agents also close 

loans, acting as escrow agents only for government guaranteed 

loans. And 184 loans outside of Indian lands are typically closed by 

ALTA members and title policies are utilized in that situation. 

But the common thread that runs through the process of both 

Government guaranteed loans and conventional market loans, is 

the requirement for title information about the land and the interest in the land held by the borrower. That thread takes interested 

parties, except in the case of assignment interests, to the LTRO’s 

and the production of title status reports. 

Subsequent to the July 2005 hearing that included testimony 

about the production of TSR’s, we had an opportunity to discuss 

and consult with representatives of HUD, USDA, and on one occasion with BIA, possible solutions to these issues. As we understand 

it, certified title status reports require a search and examination of 

the records beginning with the establishment of the specific Indian 

land or reservation and then brought forward to the current date. 

Several certified TSR’s might be requested during a transaction 

process. 

The problem is that each search goes clear back to the beginning 

of the reservation. Therefore, a solution that was suggested during 

those discussions was to use the standard practice followed outside 

of Indian country, as well as by some BIA LTRO’s, and the Colville 

and I believe the Salish Kootenai. And that practice is to downVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
49

date the title from the date of the last certified TSR or the last TSR 

or title report in your file. It simply makes sense. 

Ultimately, the September 29, 2005, memorandum announced an 

interim policy which adopted a form endorsement to the certified 

TSR, and adopted that practice. As I understood the interim policy, 

it was intended to reduce the workload and backlog at the LTRO. 

It was thought that would result in quicker production of title information needed by lenders, Federal agencies, and title insurers. 

By reducing the time required for title search and examination by 

BIA, the timely production of title information would increase 

homeownership opportunities and options, as well as increase the 

number of tribe members who benefit. Obviously a desirable goal. 

However, this interim policy and accompanying endorsement form 

did not appear to have been implemented uniformly. 

The recently revised draft form that has been developed by HUD 

and BIA after additional discussion appears to improve the form 

and the process and supports the intent of the original September 

29, 2005, memo. We were pleased to contribute to this effort and 

anticipate assisting with the planned educational efforts designed 

to increase understanding and aid in implementation of the revised 

endorsement form and the interim policy. 

There are success stories in Indian country. Several of them have 

been discussed today. One is the Colville Reservation process. Another is the Salish Kootenai. Another is taking place with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in Michigan. That tribe built a title plant to 

serve the tribe’s land title needs with the ultimate goal of compacting with BIA for the LTRO title functions. Hundreds of conventional loans have been made and insured to date with conditional 

reliance upon that plant. 

Another promising project was undertaken by the Winnebago 

Tribe of Nebraska that resulted in financing for a planned community subdivision utilizing a conventional loan, bonds, and title insurance. 

Steve earlier mentioned the initiative to support a tribal land 

title and recordation study. I think the value of that study will be 

to include funding and personnel issues that would be needed to be 

committed for such a project, and we’re pleased to be a part of that 

study. 

Another option that has also been discussed is the use of land 

assignments. This involves a creation of a tribal office to record 

land assignments and the issuance of title insurance. Such a program utilizing procedures and processes similar to a county recorder’s office will be acceptable to most title insurers and will accelerate the development of most homeownership. 

As another suggestion for improving the title information process, Chester Carl mentioned this also, and it may require passing 

Federal legislation, would be to allow private industry title examiners to examine Indian titles as is done outside of Indian country. 

A manpower savings would result to the BIA and might expedite 

the production of title information and homesite mortgages. Currently, as I understand it, as Federal documents the Indian land 

title records are not available to the public, as they are in the case 

of county or parish land records. 

50

Another measure for improving the TSR process or eliminating 

barriers is the proposed operating guidelines or standards that BIA 

has indicated would be completed after the proposed leasing regulations are finished. But, the key to having standards and guidelines is for the actual implementation and application of those principles. 

Mr. RENZI. Close for me. 

Mr. HELLEWELL. Okay. I would note that we have had some excellent experiences with BIA. Most of them are capable, competent, 

and courteous. Obviously, they don’t have complete control over 

their staffing and task assignments. But, lastly, I would note that 

homeownership is a step, and that has been noted as a step ultimately for the accumulation of wealth and value. Recently we undertook to insure a development of a shopping center in Tuba City, 

which I think is some indication of such a step. It’s a small start. 

In conclusion, the ALTA and its members are committed to assist 

in removing barriers. We will continue to work with interested Indian country parties and government agencies to develop solutions 

and options. Thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you so very much. I’m grateful. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hellewell can be found on page 

137 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Marty, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you for coming all the way. I appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF MARTY SHURAVLOFF, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney, Congressman 

Renzi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the obstacles 

to homeownership and ways that we can work together to eliminate them. My name is Marty Shuravloff, and I’m the recentlyelected chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council, the oldest and largest Indian housing organization in the Nation, representing the housing programs of more than 460 tribes. 

I’m an enrolled member of the Leisnoi Village in Alaska and serve 

as executive director of the Kodiak Island Housing Authority. 

I want to first thank you, Congressman Renzi, for the many 

years of active support to the Native American people. The NAIHC 

appreciates the subcommittee convening this hearing and its focus 

on homeownership, which, of course, is a big priority for us. A 

study conducted in 2000 by the First Nations Development Institute estimated that there were 38,000 qualified potential homebuyers on the reservation. While the study is now 6 years old, I am 

confident that the bulk of the 38,000 tribal members and the additional qualified potential homebuyers since that estimate was made 

have not succeeded in realizing the American Dream. 

In 1993, Congress approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act which included both an Indian wage and health care credit and 

an accelerated depreciation provision for property and physical infrastructure placed in service on Indian lands. These twin tax provisions seek to raise investment on Indian lands and encourage 

Federal taxpayers to hire and retain Indian employees. The incenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
51

tives expired on December 31, 2005, and we hope Congress will reauthorize these. 

One of the biggest obstacles to homeownership on Indian lands 

is that tribal lands are held by the United States in trust for the 

tribes, and are not available for use as collateral or to securitize 

a home loan. Some tribes are developing creative solutions to this 

problem such as the use of leases with terms of 99 years or longer 

and use of assignment law which authorizes tribes to assign the 

land to a potential homebuyer. 

Under this model, trust land is divided into parcels by the tribe 

and assigned to tribal members, thus putting the tribe in control 

of the land title process. 

It is clear that the BIA cannot on a consistent basis, and across 

the 13 BIA regions, provide the kind of timely and effective responses to requests for TSR’s that are vitally important to home financing and, therefore, to Native homeownership. This problem is 

structural and stymies the delivery of mortgage loan products to 

Indian lands, preventing homeownership from taking place where 

it is needed most. 

I do not have to tell the subcommittee that this kind of non-feasance by the BIA will not be tolerated by private lenders who 

frankly, can and do walk away from lending opportunities on Indian lands. In fact, we have just heard that a major national lender 

and another bank serving tribes have both discontinued their 184 

lending programs. 

NAIHC applauds the subcommittee for its multi-year focus on 

the TSR problem. We are also heartened to know that Congressman Renzi and others are developing proposals to remedy the TSR 

problem. 

If Congress were to authorize and encourage Indian tribes to contract and manage the TSR function, I believe that many tribes 

would take advantage of the opportunity. 

Another option was put forth by one of the private banks serving 

Indian communities. It suggested the BIA return to its previous 

practice of offering informational TSR’s which, while not certified, 

would allow lenders to move ahead with processing the mortgage 

without undue delay. This procedure has been adopted and is now 

accepted for loans made under Section 184. 

A major focus of NAIHC training and technical assistance is in 

helping tribes promote homeownership among their members, especially those living on reservations. The NAIHC’s homebuyer education program, called Pathways Home, trains hundreds of tribal 

staff each year who, in turn, counsel tribal members on the reservation on the homebuying process. Since 1998, the NAIHC has 

also provided training to tribes on the home mortgage process. 

NAIHC has developed another new seminar in the homebuyer 

arena to assist the tribal members for an individual development 

accounts as one way to save their scarce dollars for the down-payment on a home or closing cost. This October, NAIHC will hold it’s 

first full conference on IDA in Denver. 

Also, since 1998, NAIHC has worked with private lending institutions to break down structural barriers to homeownership 

through our new mortgage partnership committee. The committee 

52

is focused on anti-predatory lending, mortgage training and overcoming barriers to lending on Native lands. 

And, finally, next month NAIHC will launch an exciting new initiative, a Web site designed for Native people seeking more information and guidance on the homebuying and homeownership process. I hope you will visit our Web site and give us feedback. 

I want to assure the subcommittee and you, Mr. Chairman and 

Congressman Renzi, that NAIHC remains dedicated to making 

homeownership the rule and not the exception in Native communities and pledges our commitment to work with you to help make 

that happen. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuravloff can be found on page 

142 of the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Great. Thank you for that testimony, and thank you 

so much for coming all the way from Alaska to be with us. We appreciate your leadership. 

Tim, we move to you. Thank you for coming from California, and 

also for the work you guys have already done in my district. I look 

forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. SIMONS, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Mr. SIMONS. Thank you, Chairman Ney, and Congressman 

Renzi. My name is Tim Simons, and I am an assistant vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs of the Federal Home 

Loan Bank of San Francisco. I am here today on behalf of the San 

Francisco Bank to discuss the Bank’s role in supporting housing 

opportunities for Native Americans, especially through the Bank’s 

Affordable Support Housing Program. 

The Board and management of the Bank strongly believe the Affordable Housing Program is an important tool that, combined with 

the expertise and resources of its member institutions, provides expanded housing opportunities in a cost-efficient manner. 

Since the subcommittee’s hearing in Tuba City 2 years ago, 

progress has been made in providing more resources for decent, 

safe, and affordable housing on Native American lands. It should 

be noted that Federal involvement has been enhanced by the passage of Congressman Renzi’s bill, the Native American Housing 

Enhancement Act of 2005. 

This Act provides tribes with greater access to new funds and 

more flexibility when developing housing improvement projects. 

This and other public and private efforts needs to be expanded in 

order to provide housing and vibrant communities for Native Americans. 

The Federal Home Loan Bank System plays a key role in providing funds for housing finance. The U.S. Congress created the cooperatively-owned Federal Home Loan Banks System in 1932, providing liquidity for mortgages that might otherwise be illiquid. We 

provide this in the form of advances. Advances are needed because 

these loans generally do not meet underwriting criteria of the secondary market. 

53

As of the end of 2005, the Home Loan Bank System had over $600 billion in advances. Of that, San Francisco Bank alone represented over a quarter of the activity. 

I spent some time talking about the advances because, without 

that business, there would be no AHP. There would also be no AHP 

if, in 1989, Congressman Frank and others did not create this program. 

The Affordable Housing Program, also known as AHP, is funded 

by 10 percent of the net income of the banks. For the San Francisco 

Bank, this income is disproportionate and comes from advances. By 

working through its member banks, the Affordable Housing Program provides debt financing for low-income housing. 

To date, the Federal Home Loan Bank System has awarded over $2 billion dollars in AHP subsidies, helping to create more than 

430,000 housing units for low-income families. The AHP program 

is the largest private source of grant funds for affordable housing 

development in the country. In 2005 alone, the San Francisco Bank 

awarded over $40 million in AHP funds in two rounds of funding. 

In 2006, the San Francisco Bank awarded over $23 million in its 

first round. 

The recent winner on Native American lands are the Bee Hoogan 

Shelter Foundation in Kaibeto. Washington Mutual and the Bee 

Hoogan Foundation came together to build twenty three, four and 

five-bedroom homes for very low and low-income families in the 

Kaibeto Chapter of the Navajo Reservation. Currently there is a 

waiting list of over 30 families for this project. AHP funding of $280,000 will assist families in closing and 

down-payment assistance. This project comes online in June of 

2007. The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco supports 

services provided on Native American land such as the National 

American Indian Housing Council. The bank has demonstrated 

support by providing sponsorships and targeted training at the 

Council’s national conferences. 

Funding on Native American lands, historically has not been 

without difficulties. The San Francisco Bank has experienced 

issues in the past with funding projects on Native American lands, 

primarily because of the unique legal ownership status. However, 

the bank’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Board, clarified 

that mechanisms other than a lien on property could be used to secure the AHP repayment obligation. The San Francisco Bank’s 

ability to continue this innovative approach, could be impeded by 

impending regulatory actions. 

The proposal of increasing retained earnings could discourage 

home loan bank membership and thereby reducing AHP funding. 

Over 1000 letters were sent in against this proposed regulation, including the chairman and ranking members of this committee. The 

San Francisco Bank will continue to seek changes to the proposal 

to safeguard the bank’s core business and AHP program. 

We look forward to continuing participation in efforts to address 

the issues of Native American housing. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on behalf of the San Francisco 

Bank. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simons can be found on page 146 

of the appendix.] 

54

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, very much. I appreciate your testimony 

and your insight. The good people of Kaibeto and the other communities in Arizona also appreciate you guys really getting out in 

front. You also get my respect. 

We’re going to open it up for questions to Chairman Ney. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question I 

have is for Mr. Barbier. You mentioned the same dilemma you 

heard over and over. It takes 2 years to get a clearance of title. Do 

you have any cases that go faster than that, or in general is it 2 

years? One year? What is the average. 

Mr. BARBIER. We received reports just last week that there was 

one case that went through in 7 months from the time the homebuyer—prospective homebuyer walked into the door and the time 

they closed their loan. That was a record. That was exceptional. 

Chairman NEY. Seven months? So—now, some of the things we 

heard today the BIA and others say, that, you know, it’s the gone 

quicker in some cases. The—one gentleman was still here. They 

had—apparently they were doing their own work, but you’re saying 

for the people that you deal with, the individuals you deal with, 

that 7 months is the quickest. 

Mr. BARBIER. That’s the quickest we’ve seen on the Navajo Nation. 

Chairman NEY. The other question I had was, Mr. Hellewell, you 

said that the common thread of the journey runs through the process of the Government guaranteeing the loans, and the requirement of the title information about the land and the interest in the 

land held by the borrower. This is probably kind of a dumb question, but something in that I’ve really never inquired. But isn’t it 

a case in history that we know who owns this land and the case 

history is there. What makes it so complicated that case history 

can’t be provided? We know who owns the land. Do you have any 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. HELLEWELL. I suppose it is a matter of practical experience. 

Often title insurance claim reports are opened because somebody 

will come forward and claim that they own the subject land, or an 

interest in the land. The reason for the title examination and the 

title searching is to confirm that the parties claiming an interest 

do, in fact, have the interest that they claim. Typically in Indian 

country, it’s pretty clear who the vested owners are because the 

process is so methodical. But we’ve had cases where somebody applied for a mortgage and said that they owned the land; this happened in South Dakota, and the TSR came back and, in fact, it was 

not owned by the man applying for the mortgage. It was owned by 

another member of his family, but the applicant was claiming that 

he owned it; there was a family dispute. 

Chairman NEY. But that happens even on the outside. I’m just 

saying within—a lot of the land is in trust where it’s documented 

that it is owned by the Indian Nation. A lot of that is a known factor, isn’t it, within the BIA? 

Mr. HELLEWELL. I agree that it’s known, but it is a matter of getting the documentation into a forum where somebody on behalf of 

the title insurer can see it and read it and know that it exists. 

From the title insurer’s perspective, before we can issue a title inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
55

surance policy, we have to have something that shows, in fact, who 

holds the interest. It’s more complicated if you’re in an allotment 

situation and you have a lot of fractionated interests. Title insurers 

want a clear statement of ownership in every case. Probates also 

play a role. If somebody who is in that chain of title dies, then the 

interested parties have to probate that estate for anyone to know 

who now has the decedent’s interest. So it’s not just absolutely 

clear, and certainly like any other land interest, their interests can 

change, whether it’s a leasehold interest or an allotment. So title 

insurers see changes, some unrecorded and not disclosed, and have 

to anticipate those possible changes and corrections in the ownership interest of every land parcel at the time of a transaction. 

So the title status report, whether or not it’s certified, 

uncertified, or how you obtain it, is still a critical part of the process. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, and my other question is for Mr. 

Shuravloff. Thank you for all your work you’ve done, Counsel. I’m 

looking forward down the road to looking into some of the ideas 

you might have for the insurance problem that you mentioned. 

I’m just curious. What do you think about the testimony today 

about the issue we raised that, you know, last July 17th we wanted 

this to progress, and BIA gave testimony to the U.S. House that 

it would take 8 months longer. I mean, it’s such an important thing 

to have the ability of people not to wait 2 years or 2 months for 

this. 

Do you have any thoughts about how that system is coming 

along, as you might have heard today in testimony? 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course, I wasn’t here 

last year and I don’t have the experience of knowing what was said 

back then, but what I’m understanding today, there are areas in 

the country that the BIA does a fairly good job, and I think as we 

probably heard today, that they’re overworked and understaffed in 

some areas, but the simple reality still is we’ve got a lot of families 

out there who need to get into housing and get into it as soon as 

possible. 

I think that we’ve heard some testimony of some potential ways 

to get that accomplished, and I’m hoping that we can move forward 

in looking into some different directions on how to get our Indian 

people into housing as quick as possible. 

Chairman NEY. Good observation. Mr. Chairman, my last question would be for Mr. Carl. This is something that is kind of new, 

I think, from what I’ve heard. You saying that despite the fact that 

NAHASDA claims to be—provide similar authority, that given the 

tribe on Public Law 93–638, the Act is not specific enough in what 

that authority should be, and, therefore, leaving such interpretations up to the staff of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And then you said they had to walk a thin line between 

the authority flexibility and also dealing with the Inspector General. 

Do you think there are some things internally then within HUD 

that make it difficult to walk that thin line? And I’m just curious 

how the Inspector General plays into that. 

Mr. CARL. Mr. Chairman, let me illustrate by this example. 

We’re doing a community development project on the Navajo ResVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:42 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 031543 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31543.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
56

ervation, very similar to Chairman Fullmer. It includes an economic development corridor, and we’re looking at this development 

as a sustainable community using tourism as a destination point. 

So all the funds for this development could come from tourism; resort center, golf course, and this type of thing. 

So when HUD came in and did a review, again this is an example, on my travel records they found this project called Chaca 

Trails, so they started asking questions, and I said, ‘‘Well, this one 

has—you’re planning a golf course,’’ right, and, ‘‘You’re planning a 

water plant here to support your development,’’ that becomes an ineligible activity because it’s not an affordable activity. 

So now they’re going back and looking at their interpretation of 

what is in the statute and what we consider to be a sustainable 

community so families can have jobs and families can work somewhere and be able to make payments on the house which is going 

to be developed over time. 

But those type of interpretations basically put us at a disadvantage, and what we see is that the HUD staff locally do not interpret the regulations to have internal control over how to interpret. 

Then the Inspectors General have to come down on their case and 

to be the watchdog to basically tell them that they’re not doing 

their job correctly. 

So that thin line that the HUD staff walks, makes our job even 

more complicated because that turns to oversight, and that was basically what I was trying to say. So there are provisions of the statute which we feel support economic development very clearly, and 

some of this is through the action of this committee. 

When it comes to implementation, that is redirected the opposite 

way, and so in order to get past it, we need to get specific authority. In fact, there was demonstration of authority provided in the 

2002 amendment which allowed the community development as 

part of the activity of Public Law 638 as part of the activity, was 

never implemented. The study was given back to the Congress, so 

we don’t know what impact that study would have been. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you very much. I want to—Marty, you talked 

about the fact you said in your testimony the Section 184 lending, 

there was major lenders discontinuing that. Do you see a trend 

that way. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Yes, Congressman. With me I’ve got Gary Gordon, Executive Director of NAIHC. Maybe I can let him speak to 

that issue. 

Mr. GORDON. We were just notified that—the bank is Washington Mutual, and they sent us a letter out that— actually, 

they’re getting out of Government lending programs altogether, 

which include both the FHA and the VA programs, as well as the 

184 program, and the smaller bank is American West Bank out of 

the Washington—the State of Washington. 

Washington Mutual has argued that the Government programs 

represented a very small part of their overall business, and so they 

were going to focus on their primary products. However, I would 

suggest to the committee that those programs—those Government 

programs were established for a very specific purpose, to provide 

opportunities that would not otherwise exist, and I think to lose 

those programs would be very detrimental. 

57

Mr. RENZI. Who do you leave it up to in the market to take care 

of it? Are you going to say, ‘‘Well, we’re out,’’ and leave it to somebody else to do? 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Well, they suggested that they have other 

types of products that would fill the need, but I questioned whether 

that is true. 

Mr. RENZI. On reservations? In Indian country, they have other 

products. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. That’s what their letter indicated, yes. 

Mr. RENZI. Well, it’s—you know, they’ll move Congress to make 

it mandatory in their portfolio, and I’m not a big Government guy 

and hear me at my own words, but if everybody gets out of the 

business, then the Government will force them to be in the business, and I send that out to whoever is here from Washington Mutual, and I appreciate that. 

Let me ask— 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. May I? 

Mr. RENZI. Please go ahead. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. I just want to add one thing, because I agree 

with you in terms of your comments. I think that program is vitally 

important, particularly in Indian country. I heard the questions 

this morning, too, in terms of the progress being made on tribal 

lands. That program was established primarily for people living on 

tribal lands because they didn’t have the opportunity to get funding 

because lenders simply would not go in, and so their approval is 

absolutely necessary. 

At the same time I do want to say that Washington Mutual, even 

though I’m saying this today, has been a very good supporter of Indian housing up to this point. They certainly have contributed to 

the NAIHC programs. They participated in that training. Bev Casper is one of the key people there, and has been very, very supportive, and I think she probably personally feels pretty badly 

about it. 

Mr. RENZI. Well, I appreciate that. At the same time, this can’t 

be left up to other people in the marketplace. 

Ed, let me ask you this. When you were teaching us a little bit 

ago how you all—it’s standard practice and procedure in title 

search history, to go back to the last certified title, and then move 

forward then to look for a cloud on the title. Is that correct? 

Mr. HELLEWELL. Correct. 

Mr. RENZI. And, yet, BIA will go back to the beginning of time 

and redo in many cases what has already been verified. Is that accurate. 

Mr. HELLEWELL. That was their previous practice. The 2005 endorsement was supposed to change that. The most recently adopted 

endorsement that they worked out last week, is also supposed to 

change that practice. Instead of a certified TSR, they’re going to 

come forward from the first certified TSR for the transaction and 

utilize that same down-date practice as utilized outside Indian 

country. Then they’re going to issue an endorsement to be signed 

by—in some cases I think a Realty Officer in this most recent 

agreement so that they can produce title information quicker. So 

BIA has adopted that practice. That’s a practice that exists outside 

of Indian country. 

58

Your homes and my homes were all the subject of a title exam 

which was saved by the examining company and added to its database. That’s how title companies develop a base file, and the title 

companies come forward from that. Title insurers and now BIA 

take the risk that there is something amiss with the previous examinations, but it will help reduce the problems with the time required to obtain title information. 

The problem was that the 2005 memorandum is—at least it was 

our understanding that it was not being implemented, and some of 

the offices apparently didn’t know about its implementation. 

Mr. RENZI. Hold on a second. Arch, have you moved forward on 

that? 

Mr. WELLS. It’s moving forward, and the 2005 and the one that 

the gentleman spoke about just last week, those are being incorporated into all LTRO’s in the regions, and in fact I have a meeting 

with them all on the 14th, 15th, and 16th to reinforce that. 

Mr. HELLEWELL. If that’s done, I think that will— 

Mr. RENZI. That eliminated the backlog. That will accelerate it 

and eliminate the backlog. 

Mr. WELLS. That, and reducing the items that we actually do 

TSR’s on; family mortgages and land sales that involve more than 

two people. Forget the rest of them. 

Mr. RENZI. That, plus taking the 638’s out, here you go. I appreciate that. Thank you. I wanted to ask—Pattye, I was told—first 

of all, I want to thank you for your work—exceptional work, particularly the offer that you made in helping to train—I think you 

said that your experiences with Pequot Tribe, and the Pequots are 

willing to get on the road and help in training, and Jamie is president of the inter-tribal council of Arizona, which involves a majority of our tribes, and if we can get that kind of training, is that 

something we could export from the southeast. 

Ms. GREEN. Now, on two different things. On the Pequot Tribe 

is the assignment where we streamline the process to get the loans 

done. That’s the assignment where we don’t have to do the groundlease mortgages. 

Mr. RENZI. If Jamie and Kathy and Joe of the Navajo Nation, if 

they go 638, they’re going to essentially have to set up a land title 

records office. Right? So we’re not just talking about a setting up 

an office that does the title searches. They’re going to do a lot of 

other things. Right. 

Ms. GREEN. Right. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. Go ahead. 

Ms. GREEN. We have other tribes. Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in 

Michigan is a tribe that is more than willing. They talked about 

wanting to work with other tribes and help them set up their land 

and title recordation office, and we have tribes more than willing 

to work with other tribes to set up their offices. 

Mr. RENZI. Have any of the tribes that have begun to set it up, 

seen seed moneys that Steve was talking about? Are we talking 

about private money coming in from the lending—from outside the 

Federal Government to help with that, a public private partnership? Are we coming up with seed money to start it with. 

Mr. BARBIER. My first reference to seed money had to do with the 

study, Congressman, and the study would consolidate—we heard 

59

some great ideas on the table today, and the study would consolidate those ideas to provide a range of options for tribes to choose 

from, sort of a menu. Within each one of those options, there are 

a number of considerations; planned assignments, economic development trust. 

The Salish and Colville both continue to rely on the TAAMS 

database, so they have essentially taken over the TAAMS database, and they’re talking other options to that. A study would look 

at trying to flush out all of those options. 

So in terms of seed money, the way Mr. Carl referred to the possibility of recognition of the start-up costs that would be required 

for a tribe moving to 638, some of that will come through the Bureau and some of it will need to—some of it will need to come from 

other places. 

Mr. RENZI. Let me ask Arch. Do you need us—if we’re going to 

provide start-up money for the tribes, do you need us to do it as 

specific—let me ask my staff. Is it as a specific line item we put 

in the budget for, or how would you prefer to see it? 

Mr. WELLS. That’s an emphatic yes. If you don’t do that, it won’t 

ever get there. 

Mr. RENZI. It will just go in the general pot, so within your budget, we have to come up with a specific line item, funding of 638 programs for— 

Mr. WELLS. For realty specific efforts. Realty LRTO’s and title— 

Mr. RENZI. And then once you see that line in our budget, Mr. 

Chairman, then the private industry will help match a little bit—

or, not match—or also put some seed money in, too. 

Mr. BARBIER. NeighborWorks America is putting up seed money 

to help launch this study, and we look to other private partners. 

Mr. RENZI. Why are you studying this? 

Mr. BARBIER. Well, I appreciate your call to action. I’m right 

there with you, but the—in our analysis of this, there are many 

considerations, and we’ve only had three or four tribes so far move 

forward with this out of 562. 

They’re very interested in what are the risks, what are the economic opportunities, how much is go it going to cost us? 

Mr. RENZI. The study would be individualized, so if Jamie wanted a study to find out what his vulnerabilities might be, or would 

this be a national study? 

Mr. BARBIER. The study is a national study. You take all these 

options that we talked about today, and put them in a menu for 

tribes to choose from. 

Mr. RENZI. When are you doing the study. 

Mr. BARBIER. Today. 

Mr. RENZI. Starting after this? 

Mr. BARBIER. Starting after this. 

Mr. RENZI. When will the study be completed? 

Mr. BARBIER. We’re projecting we’ll have some results in the next 

6 to 12 months, and we would like to work with the legislative 

process to be feeding into as appropriate, some of your call to action. 

Mr. RENZI. That’s good. I want to drill in a little bit on the discussion. One of the things the team has been teaching me and the 

chairman talking to me in the beginning has said, is when we’re 

60

dealing in Indian Country, in order to be able to build a house, you 

all know we have to extend the electricity, we have to extend the 

power, the gas. 

Kathy Kitcheyan spoke about the fact that she’s got millions of 

acres, and just a small area of it can be developed. I want to ask 

Chester, if you don’t mind, what can the Federal Government do? 

Where is the impediment that is holding up the first part of expanding homeownership on Indian country, which is the infrastructure expansion? What do we need to do to unlock that? 

Mr. CARL. Let me push a plug for Arizona Finance Authority and 

the Fair Housing Commission and the Department of Indian Housing. In order to consolidate a lot of these, not only technical assistance, but having the ability to go after grants similar to Chairman 

Fullmer, we have developed a Arizona tribal CFI, and as part of 

that process—Chairman Fullmer is part of that board. As part of 

that process, it is a real critical element to providing infrastructure 

financing, is to make an application so simple. 

Mr. RENZI. Where did you get the money from, Chester? 

Mr. CARL. It comes from—there was a partial investment from 

the Arizona Finance Authority, the State of Arizona, and basically 

other investors as we moved forward. 

Mr. RENZI. How big is the pot of money? 

Mr. CARL. We’re currently right around $5 million. 

Mr. RENZI. So you have $5 million in State investment funds, 

and you have some money out here in— 

Mr. CARL. Right, and so then we have somewhere around 37 

tribes in the State of Arizona, and they have the opportunity to 

start their infrastructure development, even before— 

Mr. RENZI. We’re looking at Section VI money. How effective is 

it in helping to expand infrastructure? 

Mr. CARL. Are you talking about Title VI money? The problem 

we run into with Title VI money is that it is still so tied into the 

affordable activities requirement, the environmental requirements 

that it imposes on you, sometimes it’s not worth the effort. 

You spend more time trying to weed through that bureaucratic 

process, administrative time, consultant time. By the time you’re 

done, you spend a lot of time and effort trying to get through that 

application process, and the tribal CFI is totally opposite. 

Mr. RENZI. Pattye, what are your thoughts on Section VI money. 

Ms. GREEN. The CFI—I agree with Chester. The Title VI money, 

it’s a good project that is out there. When I was at the tribe, the 

environmental issues that we had to go through to get the Title VI 

through, was very cumbersome, and the time—like Chester said, by 

the time you got through it, it wasn’t worth it, and a lot of tribes 

are still very, very afraid of the debt. They’re very afraid that it 

is going to tie up their NAHASDA dollars, and there are still education issues out there that tribes need to be educated on the Title 

VI issues, and it’s guaranteed by HUD, but it is—it is hard for 

them to understand and— 

Mr. RENZI. How do they pay it back? 

Ms. GREEN. Well, they— 

Mr. RENZI. The construction dollars that they borrow. 

Ms. GREEN. The tribe has to pay it back. 

Mr. RENZI. Through general revenue. 

61

Ms. GREEN. General revenues. They have to— 

Mr. RENZI. Does it get built into the mortgage at all? 

Ms. GREEN. Yeah, it’s built into the mortgage, and they pay 

back—the thing is if it goes into default, then it starts coming out 

of their yearly NAHASDA dollars, and that’s what scares them. If 

something happens and they can’t pay it back, they lose some of 

their NAHASDA dollars, and that’s what frightens them. They’re 

so afraid—they have to have the NAHASDA dollars to do any affordable housing project. 

Mr. CARL. The application is very, very cumbersome. 

Ms. GREEN. Very, very cumbersome. 

Mr. RENZI. Should we streamline Title VI? Is that the answer. 

Ms. GREEN. We’re looking at options, and we haven’t come up 

with the answer, yet, at Fannie Mae, but we’re looking at other options of doing construction financing and— 

Mr. RENZI. We want to work with you on that. That’s the baseline and the foundation. How we would get to the next step of 

housing, is making sure we expand—we’re putting $3 million a 

year into electrical renovation for expansion on Navajo and it’s a 

drop in the bucket. It’s not enough. We’re not getting enough families at the end of the line each year. 

Tim, you guys over at San Francisco did a great job on a project 

called Apache Dawn, in the Whiteriver. It was stalled. I think they 

were a half million dollars behind on the infrastructure. You all 

came in and you took a risk, and that infrastructure got completed 

we have 300 families now who have been over there for a couple 

of years now, and the statistics that I quoted in my opening remarks about family and mass boards going up and better relations 

within the community, a lot of it has to do with your involvement, 

and I appreciate that. 

You talked about the affordable housing programs up in Kaibeto 

and Page where you’ve been working on the Navajo. Can you drill 

in on that up there, some of the successes up there in Kaibeto? 

Mr. SIMONS. Sure. What they’re doing up there is building some 

rather large family houses. I think it’s 1100 or 1500 square feet, 

and there is actually a great backlog going on, but the goal is to 

make sure that lower income families are actually put into these 

houses. 

Mr. RENZI. Yes. Larry, can you tell the audience about that 

project on Apache Dawn. I just want you all to hear quickly about 

a bank that took a risk and we have 300 families now in 

Whiteriver, and I want to hear this story real quick because it’s a 

good way to finish up. Larry Parks from San Francisco Bank. 

Mr. PARKS. I’m Larry Parks from San Francisco Bank. On the 

Apache Dawn situation, we had a couple of things going. One was 

in the alternative, we had people who had no title to the property, 

and we would take a lien and support that lien, and it was a cumbersome process and Congressman Renzi was very helpful in making that happen. 

The second thing we were able to do is the Ace program and our 

Ace program allows a member to work with a non-profit group, but 

it was really about infrastructure growth and it basically got—they 

came and borrowed from us at cost, so it was using basically our 

62

letter of credit to allow members to borrow from us at cost to begin 

improvement in the area. 

Mr. RENZI. How do the tribes step up? What did the tribe have 

to do to make the— 

Mr. PARKS. First of all, they work with the member bank. 

Mr. RENZI. They work with the member bank. 

Mr. PARKS. That’s the first thing. The member bank comes to us 

and basically uses its authority to come to us for a letter of credit, 

but the tribes do more than anything else is we were able to work 

through the lienhold situation so the regulators would come 

through and see we were engaging in activity that is permissible. 

So that was the process where we worked through your office to 

make sure that actually happened. 

Mr. RENZI. What did the tribe do to—what did they put up from 

a collateral standpoint to get your member? 

Mr. PARKS. That’s a good question. I think—well, once we got the 

lienhold situation straight with the land, they were actually able 

to use the land as part of the collateral, so it was a comfort level, 

the ability to build would result in active development of the land 

and, therefore, we create enough density to improve. 

Mr. RENZI. In the land itself, the sovereign land. 

Mr. PARKS. The sovereign land. 

Mr. RENZI. Wow. You take sovereign land for a— 

Mr. PARKS. Well, that’s what our regulators said we’re not going 

to do, but— 

Mr. RENZI. So the tribe steps up and they put up their own credibility and their own sources of general revenues, and anything else, 

also, for the project itself. 

Mr. PARKS. Right. 

Mr. RENZI. Anyway, yeah. Chester, go ahead. 

Mr. CARL. Congressman Renzi, the project over in Kaibeto, the 

San Francisco Home Bank involvement and also the Department 

of Housing for Arizona, we were able to build 11 additional homes 

out there. The project was funded by NAHASDA. Their involvement enabled us to build 11 additional homes. 

Mr. RENZI. Because of the financing guarantee? I got you. Great 

stories. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, anything else? 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Chairman, before you close, I wanted to—I 

know you have some staff here that you want to recognize. I want 

to thank our staff. Sitting in order, they were Cindy Chetti; Clinton 

Jones; Jeff Riley; and Tallman Johnson. They’re from Washington, 

D.C., and once we finish up, they will go back and work on these 

issues. They have a lot of passion and a lot of years of experience, 

and they should wear t-shirts that say, ‘‘We’re from the Government, and we’re here to help.’’ Well, we’re from the Congress. This 

is bipartisan, both Democrat and Republican, and this issue of 

helping everybody in Indian country. 

I just wanted to again re-stress Chairman Mike Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank, our Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Maxine Waters, who are so passionate and caring and 

concerned for all these issues, and it is your impression if you see 

it in Washington—if you watch C-Span you don’t think any of us 

talk to each other. We do, at least in the housing subcommittee, 

and last but not least, Congressman Renzi, whom I’ve learned a lot 

63

from, he’s a pit bull on the issues, and many other issues, and he 

does it with passion and sincerity. It has been a real pleasure. 

I ran a freshman orientation when he came to Washington, and 

I see Members come and go, and when I ran a freshman orientation, I looked at him and I knew that day that he wasn’t someone 

who needed 5 years on-the-job training. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for bringing this 

subcommittee out here, for your support, and for the kindness that 

you’ve shown all people of this world who are reaching out trying 

to have a home of their own. I know where you come from. You’ve 

felt and you’ve seen it. The chairman flew all the way out here in 

the middle of his own election to be with us, and it’s not easy to 

get people to come out in August when we’re on recess, so it says 

a lot about Bob Ney. 

Gold is man’s commodity, and time is God’s commodity, and for 

a man to give the minutes of a life that he’s given for us, says a 

lot about this guy, and I’m grateful. I really am. Thank you. 

With that, the Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in 

writing. Without objection, the hearing will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to the witnesses and 

to place their responses in the record. 

With that, Chairman Fullmer, thank you for your hospitality, 

and the hearing is closed. 

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X

July 31, 2006

66


31543.001
67


31543.002
68


31543.003
69


31543.004
70


31543.005
71


31543.006
72


31543.007
73


31543.008
74


31543.009
75


31543.010
76


31543.011
77


31543.012
78


31543.013
79


31543.014
80


31543.015
81


31543.016
82


31543.017
83


31543.018
84


31543.019
85


31543.020
86


31543.021
87


31543.022
88


31543.023
89


31543.024
90


31543.025
91


31543.026
92


31543.027
93


31543.028
94


31543.029
95


31543.030
96


31543.031
97


31543.032
98


31543.033
99


31543.034
100


31543.035
101


31543.036
102


31543.037
103


31543.038
104


31543.039
105


31543.040
106


31543.041
107


31543.042
108


31543.043
109


31543.044
110


31543.045
111


31543.046
112


31543.047
113


31543.048
114


31543.049
115


31543.050
116


31543.051
117


31543.052
118


31543.053
119


31543.054
120


31543.055
121


31543.056
122


31543.057
123


31543.058
124


31543.059
125


31543.060
126


31543.061
127


31543.062
128


31543.063
129


31543.064
130


31543.065
131


31543.066
132


31543.067
133


31543.068
134


31543.069
135


31543.070
136


31543.071
137


31543.072
138


31543.073
139


31543.074
140


31543.075
141


31543.076
142


31543.077
143


31543.078
144


31543.079
145


31543.080
146


31543.081
147


31543.082
148


31543.083
149


31543.084