U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–567 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–2 

LOAN LEVERAGING IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANTHONY WALTERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 4, 2015 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 30 

Statement of Senator Lankford .............................................................................. 35 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Difuntorum, Sami Jo, Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing 

Council .................................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Gauthier, Robert, Administrator, United Native American Housing Association ........................................................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Gore, Carol, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing Authority ................................ 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

(1) 

LOAN LEVERAGING IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

The CHAIRMAN. I call the hearing to order. 

We are moving along because there may be votes a little bit later 

into the procedure so we will now begin the Committee’s oversight 

hearing on loan leveraging in Indian Country. 

One of the most significant issues in Indian Country is the need 

to access capital. Without capital, tackling challenges in Indian 

Country is difficult. Today we will discuss accessing capital for 

housing. 

Housing is crucial to establish stable homes and to empower Indian people. The National American Indian Housing Council estimates there is a need for about 250,000 new housing units 

throughout Indian Country. 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination 

Act has been successful. The success of this program NAHASDA is 

because it has been carried out at the local level by the tribes 

themselves. Tribal participants simultaneously expand financial 

competitiveness while addressing housing needs. 

While NAHASDA has been successful, there are still opportunities for improvement. These include the opportunity for greater 

participation. Attracting greater tribal participation will attract 

greater investment in Indian Country. Today, we will listen to how 

loan leveraging can be improved. 

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many elected tribal 

leaders here in attendance for this important hearing. I also want 

to recognize an old friend, Patrick Goggles, the Executive Director 

of the Northern Arapaho Housing Authority, who is in attendance 

today and whom I served with, together in the Wyoming legislature. 

First, I want to recognize the Vice Chairman for his statement. 

2 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this 

hearing today. 

This afternoon, the Committee will examine loan leveraging in 

Indian Country. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about 

the numerous challenges we face in addressing Indian housing and 

specifically issues regarding home ownership. 

The housing needs of Indian Country are great. American Indians currently comprise 8 percent of the country’s homeless population—8 percent. They make up 1 percent of the general population. 

Nearly 46 percent of American Indians live in overcrowded conditions and over 25 percent live in housing units that have severe 

structural needs. There are ways we can help, by reauthorizing 

Federal programs that are aimed at improving the immense housing needs across our Indian communities. 

First and foremost, we need to move forward on a NAHASDA 

bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Barrasso on doing 

just that. 

Timely with this hearing, we need to reauthorize Section 184 of 

the Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program. Home ownership in Indian Country is something that we need to pursue vigorously to 

help with the housing crisis we are facing on our Indian reservations. 

Section 184 loans are a piece of this puzzle. I look forward to 

hearing how the current structure of the program is working in Indian Country as well as where limitations might exist. 

Before we begin, I want to welcome the third witness we are 

going to will hear from today, a chap by the name of Bob Gauthier 

from my home State of Montana. Bob comes by way of the Flathead Indian Reservation and has a long and distinguished career 

in Indian housing, including currently serving on the Montana 

Board of Housing. 

Bob is one of the good guys in Montana and we thank you for 

being here today, Bob. 

Is Leif Holmgren in the audience? Leif is from Northern Cheyenne and is also involved in Indian housing. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony from all the panelists today and thank you for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Do any other members have an opening statement? Senator 

Franken. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. May I, because we may have votes? 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing attention to the 

important issues of housing on tribal lands and thank our witnesses for coming today. 

Loan leveraging may not sound exciting but for tribes with limited resources to address their housing needs it is essential. The 

Native American Housing and Self Determination Act, NAHASDA, 

3 

is vital to enabling American Indians and tribes to meet their particular housing needs. 

I look forward to working with the Chairman, the Ranking Member and other members of this Committee to reauthorize 

NAHASDA. I hope we can make improvements to these programs 

in the process. 

At the end of the day, we can design the perfect programs. We 

can cut out all the waste and tinker with them until they are just 

right, but that will not make a significant difference unless we also 

fund them. 

This is the case not only in housing but also in education, law 

enforcement, health care and just about every issue before this 

Committee. Not only have we failed to fund these programs sufficiently, but witness testimonies before us today show that the purchasing power of these programs is actually shrinking. You cannot 

sugar coat it, we are failing these communities. 

In housing, that failure is particularly stark. When Indian Country lacks quality, affordable housing, it compounds other problems 

that tribes face. Poor housing leads to worse health outcomes, 

worse educational outcomes and on and on. 

We need a sustained investment in housing if we want to see 

real progress. I hope today’s hearing moves us closer to that sustained investment. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Does anyone else want to make an opening statement? If not, we 

have three witnesses today: Ms. Sami Jo Difuntorum, who is here 

from the National American Indian Housing Council; President 

Carol Gore, from the Cook Inlet Housing Authority in Anchorage, 

Alaska; and Mr. Robert Gauthier from the United Native American 

Housing Association in Ronan, Montana. 

Senator Daines, would you like to say anything by way of introduction? 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. I certainly echo Senator Tester’s comments. 

Bob, from Ronan, we are very glad to have you here. 

You come from a beautiful part of our State. In fact, my son 

played in Class B football and we came up and played on your very 

nice football field a couple years ago. It is nice you brought a cheering section, even the Norwegian from the Northern Cheyenne. We 

are glad to have you all here. 

Thank you for your contribution to our community, to Indian 

Country as a whole and for providing perspective today. I look forward to your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

I will just tell you that Lamar Alexander wrote a book called The 

Little Plaid Book. He said if you want a standing ovation when you 

give a speech, you had better have five friends in the front row who 

are ready to stand up and that leads the rest of the crowd to join 

as well. Thanks for bringing your friends. 

We are going to move along with the testimony. Members may 

submit written questions to the witnesses as well. Your full written 

4 

testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record. Please 

keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have time for 

questions. I look forward to hearing the testimony from each of 

you. 

Ms. Difuntorum, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SAMI JO DIFUNTORUM, CHAIRWOMAN, 

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. Thank you. 

My name is Sami Jo Difuntorum, and I am a member of the 

Kwekaeke Band of Shasta Indians from northern California. My 

family comes from the Upper Klamath River Canyon. 

I am also the Housing Director for the Confederated Tribes of the 

Siletz Indians in Oregon and Chairwoman of the National American Housing Council. I appear before you today as the Chairwoman of the Housing Council. 

On behalf of the NAIHC, I would first like to congratulate you, 

Senator Barrasso, on becoming chairman of this Committee, to 

thank you, Senator Tester for your hard work and distinguished 

service as immediate past chairman of the Committee, and each 

and every one of your for your commitment to Indian people and 

Indian Country. Our work doesn’t get done without you. 

There are 566 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United 

States. Tribal communities suffer from the highest unemployment 

and poverty rates, the worst health, poor education options, and 

the most substandard housing in the country. 

While Indian Country has made real strides in economic growth 

and development in the last thirty years, the truth is that in 2015, 

poverty in America continues to have an Indian face. 

I would like you to look at the pictures here on the easels. This 

is an example of a successful leveraging program at Siletz. You 

could use Title VI to leverage five times your annual allocation. 

Our allocation for the Indian Housing Block Grant is $3.8 million. Leveraging that five times we were able to borrow $18 million; 

we borrowed $1.4 million and were able to build five homes, infrastructure and roads in a community in Oregon. Not all tribes have 

the ability to leverage their funds. 

Title VI for us is a great program. There are a lot of minimally 

funded tribes that receive $50,000 to $100,000 per year. With limited leveraging of five times their allocation, that can be from 

$250,000 to $500,000. I think that is a challenge for small tribes 

trying to access the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program. 

We have had great success with it. Without the Title VI Loan 

Guarantee Program, it would have taken us seven years to build 

the development that we had. We would have to have saved 

$200,000 for a seven year period. Leveraging the grant allowed us 

to build it. 

We applied in July 2013 and our families moved in the following 

year. It was a very fluid process and a very successful one. We 

would encourage you to continue the Title VI program, increase the 

lending authority and the loan guarantee authority for HUD. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Difuntorum follows:] 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMI JO DIFUNTORUM, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN

INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

Good afternoon. On behalf of the National American Indian Housing Council 

(NAIHC), I would first like to congratulate you Senator Barrasso on becoming 

Chairman of this Committee, and to thank you Senator Tester for your hard work 

and distinguished service as immediate past Chairman. The issues that Indian 

Country care most about continue to rest in good hands with you and the other distinguished men and women on the Committee. 

My name is Sami Jo Difuntorum, and I am an enrolled member of the Kwekaeke 

Band of Shasta Indians which is located in northern California. I am the Executive 

Director of the Siletz Tribal Housing Department in Oregon, and I appear before 

you today in my capacity as Chairwoman of the NAIHC. As many of you know, the 

NAIHC is in its fifth decade assisting American Indian and Alaska Native communities in meeting the housing needs of their members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify about how tribal communities are using 

federal loan guarantees to leverage scarce federal funds to build housing and related 

infrastructure for their members. 

An Economic Profile of Indian Country 

There are 566 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United States. Tribal communities suffer the highest unemployment and poverty rates, the worst health, poor 

education options, and the most substandard housing in the country. 

While Indian Country has made real strides in economic growth and development 

in the last thirty years, the sad truth is that in 2015, poverty in America continues 

to have an Indian face. 

Some tribes lucky enough to be located near metropolitan areas with sizeable populations, have developed successful gaming operations. Nationally, these tribes generate some $28 billion in revenues and employ tens of thousands of people, Indian 

and non-Indian alike. 

Other tribes are blessed with energy and natural resources, and have chosen to 

develop these resources for the benefit of their tribal members. 

Far too many tribes, however, have economies and households that are dependent 

in large measure on federal programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, the Indian Health Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and others. 

Housing and Related Infrastructure and Community Development 

In the mid-1990s, a broad consensus emerged in Congress and the executive 

branch that most programs and services provided by the federal government would 

be more efficiently administered and more effective in results, if they were consolidated and block-granted to states and Indian tribes. 

In 1996, a Republican Congress passed and President Clinton signed, the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (‘‘NAHASDA,’’ 25 U.S.C. 

4101) to block-grant housing resources (and delegate related decisionmaking) to Indian tribes for their low-income members. 

As an aside, authorization for the NAHASDA has expired and again this year bipartisan legislation has been introduced to reauthorize and improve the statute. The 

bill, H.R.360, was introduced by Rep. Steve Pearce (R–NM) and has thirteen original co-sponsors, including six Republicans and seven Democrats. The NAIHC fully 

supports this bill and is hopeful Congress will pass and send this important legislation to the President early this year. 

In the years since the NAHASDA was enacted, there is no question that more 

housing stock is being built and more housing units are being redeveloped and renovated using NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds than under 

the previous regime. 

Since fiscal year 1998, appropriated funding under NAHASDA has averaged $650 

million. NAIHC members and most outside observers agree that this figure is woefully inadequate to address the housing needs of low-income Indian people. These 

appropriated funds are complemented by important guaranteed loan programs: (1) 

the Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program, and (2) the Title VI Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee Program. 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program (‘‘184 Program’’) was designed to provide American Indians and Alaska Natives access to mortgage financing to purchase 

single-family homes as primary residences. Historically, such financing has proved 

difficult to obtain for several reasons: trust lands may not be used as loan collateral, 

a lack of employment and, generally, tribal weak economies. 

6 

1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2014). Loans Guaranteed With Section 184 [Data Map]. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ 

huddoc?id=DOCl8761.pdf 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2012). Section 184 Eligible Areas By 

State [Data Map]. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ 

huddoc?id=DOCl8762.pdf 

By providing a 100 percent federal guarantee to repay the unpaid principal and 

accrued interest on mortgage loans to tribal members, the 184 Program encourages 

bank participation and helps boost homeownership in tribal communities. A down 

payment of 2.25 percent is required on loans over $50,000, with a 1.2 percent down 

payment on loans under $50,000. 

Loans guaranteed under the 184 Program can be used to: 

1. Buy an existing home; 

2. Build a new home; 

3. Rehabilitate a home; 

4. Purchase and rehabilitate a home; or 

5. Re-finance a home. 

Participation in the 184 Program depends on being demonstrably enrolled in a 

federallyrecognized tribe, and HUD has developed a network of national and local 

banks that take part in the Program. According to HUD, as of September 2014, 

there were 25,748 loans guaranteed by the Program, totaling $4.2 billion. 1 See Attachment A—‘‘Loans Guaranteed with Section 184.’’ 

In addition, the 184 Program can be used in forty states, with eligibility in thirteen of those states limited to selected counties: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, 

Texas and Wyoming. 2 See Attachment B—‘‘Section 184 Eligible Areas by State.’’ 

The Title VI Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee Program 

Another tool in the tribal toolbox is the Title VI Tribal Housing Activities Loan 

Guarantee Program (the ‘‘Title VI Program’’), which is designed to assist IHBG recipients in financing their affordable housing projects. Individual tribal members 

are not eligible for Title VI loan guarantees. 

Backed by a federal guarantee, the Title VI Program is used by many tribes to 

leverage their IHBG by pledging future grant funds as security for repayment of the 

loan. 

Much like the 184 Program, the Title VI Program is a tri-partite arrangement involving an Indian tribe, a private bank, and the federal government. Under this Program, the tribe is required to repay the loan, but if it defaults on the repayment 

agreement, HUD will repay the lender and seek reimbursement from the tribe in 

the form of future IHBG funds. 

To be eligible for the Title VI Program, would-be borrowers must be a federallyrecognized Indian tribe that receives IHBG funds, or a tribally-designated housing 

entity (TDHE) duly authorized by a federally-recognized tribe to commit to financial 

obligations and to pledge IHBG funds to secure those obligations. 

Title VI loans may be used to further a recipient’s ‘‘affordable housing activities,’’ 

which is a term defined in NAHASDA at 25 U.S.C. 4132 as: 

1. Indian housing assistance; 

2. Housing development; 

3. Housing services; 

4. Housing management services; 

5. Crime prevention and safety activities; and 

6. Model activities subject to HUD’s approval. 

HUD receives an annual appropriation to cover the cost of the Title VI Program. 

In recent years, Congress has appropriated $2 million per year to cover these costs. 

The appropriators also place a maximum dollar limit on the loans HUD can guarantee. In fiscal year 2013, for example, HUD was authorized to guarantee up to $18 

million in Title VI loans. 

As of June 2013, HUD had guaranteed seventy-four loans totaling $190 million 

since the Program was begun. The leveraging made possible with a Title VI loan 

means IHBG recipients may borrow up to five times the need portion of their block 

grant allocation. It is especially helpful to small tribes that receive modest IHBG 

allocations. 

In order to demonstrate the real-world value of these two loan guarantee programs, I offer the following examples involving the Confederated Tribes of Siletz InVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:12 Mar 11, 2015 Jkt 093567 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93567.TXT JACK
7 

dians in Oregon, the Lummi Nation in Washington State, and the Susanville Indian 

Rancheria in California. 

The first example involves the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI) in Oregon. 

The CTSI is a federally-recognized tribe located in coastal Oregon. The tribal 

membership is 4,984 members, yet they have only 214 units of affordable housing 

for low-income tribal members. Their waiting list for low-income housing includes 

over 200 eligible households. 

The CTSI receives an annual IHBG allocation of approximately $3.8 million. During the Tribe’s annual planning meeting, the CTSI Tribal Council identified the 

need to develop more homeownership programs and opportunities for low-income 

members. As a result, the CTSI applied for a Title VI loan guarantee to build Phase 

2 of the subdivision known as Tillamook. The amount provided through the IHBG 

is not sufficient to both provide diverse housing services and construct new homes. 

The CTSI borrowed $1.4 million to complete on-site infrastructure that will accommodate twenty-one single family homes, construct five energy efficient units for 

first-time homebuyers, and build a connecting road within the subdivision. As more 

families qualify, the only funds that will be needed are for actual home construction 

because they now have the master plan in place, with roads and infrastructure complete. 

The HUD budget allocates $200,000 IHBG funds annually for on-reservation new 

construction, and ordinarily they would have been obliged to save IHBG funds for 

seven years to complete this work. 

But the Tribe did not have to do this, because the Title VI Program’s guarantee 

enabled the CSTI to borrow and repay the loan with IHBG funds over an eleven 

year period. 

The timeline for this was also short: the CTSI submitted a loan application in 

July 2013 and Phase 2 homes were built and occupied by September 2014. 

The second example involves the Lummi Nation of Washington State. 

At Lummi, there are some 4,200 enrolled members, with 2,400 enrolled members 

living on the reservation. To address the housing need, the Lummi Nation adopted 

a 10–Year Housing Plan that proposes to build 442 dwelling units (330 single-family 

homes and 112 apartments). The projected cost for this plan is $79 million—an average of $8 million per year. The Lummi Nation Housing Authority (LNHA) receives 

an annual IHBG allocation of $2.8 million. 

To fill the $5.2 million gap in funding, the LNHA uses IHBG funds to leverage 

additional funds using the Title VI Program. The following are samples of the resources leveraged with IHBG funds: 


204a1.eps
8 

• HUD’s Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program—LNHA 

has successfully competed for ICDBG grants for six consecutive years for a total 

of $3 million, used to build housing-related physical infrastructure. 

• Department of Labor’s Youthbuild Program—The Youthbuild Program has been 

used to assist in providing facilities for LNHA’s housing projects and to train 

tribal youth. LNHA has successfully competed for three Youthbuild grants totaling $2.2 million, which has been used on its development projects. 

• Northwest Indian College—The Northwest Indian College donated land valued 

at $1.2 million for the Kwina Village project. 

• HUD’s Title VI Loans—The LNHA is in the final stages of closing a $7.0 million 

Title VI loan. $5.8 million will be used on the Turkey Shoot project, and the 

balance of $1.2 million for LNHA’s administrative building. 

• Lummi Nation Business Council—The Lummi Nation is contributing $500,000 

to assist the LNHA with the Title VI debt service. 

Over the next two years, the LNHA will be constructing basic infrastructure, new 

apartments, triand four-plexes, single-family homes, and a variety of community 

and recreational support facilities aimed at addressing critical tribal needs in the 

areas of rental and transformational housing, and low-income homeownership. 

Currently, the LNHA is finishing construction of a 52-unit addition to Kwina Village (124 total units) and a 1,200 square foot centralized laundry facility to serve 

the entire Kwina Village neighborhood. It is centrally located near the Lummi Nation’s administration center, Tribal court, health clinic, police, and Northwest Indian 

College. Small one- and two-bedroom apartment units fill the need for housing 

young families attending the college. Over 75 percent of the initial $10 million 

project was funded with leveraged sources from HUD, Northwest Indian College, 

Department of Labor, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The Lummi Nation also recently completed the first sixteen single-family homeownership units constructed on the 150-lot Mackenzie Master Plan for low-income 

tribal members who qualify for the 184 Program. Thirty lots that are fully-buildable 

with full street improvements, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, storm systems, and fire 

protection, were constructed in the past few years with ICDBG and IHBG funds. 

LNHA was just recently awarded its sixth competitive ICDBG grant by HUD to 

construct eighteen additional lots in the Mackenzie Neighborhood in accordance 

with the Mackenzie Master Plan. 

The Turkey Shoot development will be a 55-unit mixed-income development with 

single and two-story tri-plexes, four-plexes, and single-family homes within an integrated neighborhood supported by community and recreational amenities. Families 

undergoing transitional changes will be provided with housing units specially deVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:12 Mar 11, 2015 Jkt 093567 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93567.TXT JACK

204a2.eps
9 

signed to accommodate their unique needs, as well as promote neighbor and neighborhood-building activities. 

Lummi is also providing housing units and ‘‘wrap-around’’ services to families in 

transition. There will be a resident’s center that will include office, clinic, and meeting space for tribal service providers that support transitional families with case 

management and other services. By having the service providers housed in the 

neighborhood, there will be ease of access to services and consistent support for the 

families which the tribe believes will ensure that no one falls through the cracks. 

The nearly complete infrastructure of roadways and utilities was funded by the 

2013 ICDBG grant award, IHBG funding, and LNHA proceeds of sale. Construction 

of the buildings will be accomplished utilizing (for the first time) a Title VI low-interest development loan in the amount of $5.8 million, and single-family homes will 

be constructed by tribal families who qualify for 184 Program loans. 

In addition to the residential structures, resident’s center, and recreational amenities at Turkey Shoot, the LNHA will use a Title VI loan to finance a new office 

building at Kwina Village in the amount of $1.2 million. 


204a3.eps
10 

The third example involves the Susanville Indian Rancheria (SIR) of California. 

The SIR is a small tribe located in Susanville, Lassen County, California, which 

is on the north eastern border of California, 80 miles from Reno, Nevada. The SIR 

is comprised of 1,091 members, 378 of whom live in Lassen County, and the majority of those living on the Rancheria itself. 

The SIR consists of four northern California tribes: the Maidu Tribe, the Paiute 

Tribe, the Washoe Tribe, and the Pit River Tribe. 

The SIR has designated the Susanville Indian Rancheria Housing Authority 

(‘‘SIRHA’’) as its Tribally Designated Housing Entity, which constructs new units 

and maintains current assisted stock units using primarily IHBG and ICDBG funds. 

The SIRHA waiting list has 15 to 30 households of low-income status; tribal members who need affordable housing. The list would likely be longer if they had more 

housing stock available. 

The SIRHA is currently implementing a pilot project using the 184 Program to 

finance unit construction. This will assist a tribal member who wishes to purchase 

a home on the Rancheria but does not qualify for assistance due to income limitations of the IHBG Program. 


204a4.eps
11 

The loan will cover the full construction cost of the unit and the tribal member 

will assume the loan once construction is complete. 

The governing body of the SIR sees this as a benefit due to the difficulties that 

arise when a tribal member wishes to live on the Rancheria but does not meet the 

income limitation of NAHASDA. The SIRHA has no product to offer many working 

families aside from a 184 Program. 

As a result, for the SIRHA, leveraging non-program funds is the only way to make 

this project possible and allow for the tribal member to purchase a home on the 

Rancheria. The SIRHA sees this as a critical first step in opening the door to other 

members in similar circumstances. 


204a5.eps
12 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GORE. 


204a6.eps 204a7.eps
13 

STATEMENT OF CAROL GORE, PRESIDENT/CEO, COOK INLET 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Good afternoon. 

Ms. GORE. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today as the Committee examines loan leveraging in Indian Country. 

My written statement includes detailed leveraging examples 

from my home State of Alaska and I appreciate that they will be 

included in the record. 

My name is Carol Gore. I am the granddaughter of Alexandria 

Cooper, an Alaskan of Aleut descent, an enrolled member of the 

Ninilchik Village Tribe, and a shareholder of Cook Inlet Region, 

Inc., an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Regional Corporation. 

For fifteen years, I have served as the President and CEO of 

Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the tribally designated housing entity for Alaska’s Cook Inlet Region. We serve an area the size of 

Switzerland that is home to tens of thousands of Alaska Native and 

American Indian people. 

The enactment of NAHASDA in 1996 profoundly improved the 

ability of tribes to address the housing needs of our low income 

families. For the first time ever, tribal housing providers were able 

to address our specific housing needs using strategies that are effective on our own tribal lands. 

Using the Indian Housing Block Grant as the initial funding 

source, tribal communities also began to attract other investment. 

In my home State of Alaska, tribes are also working together, pooling funding and resources to leverage capital and improve our capacity to bring outcomes beyond just building housing. 

Through collaboration, we achieve economies of scale and bring 

efficiencies to our collective work. We are building homes that improve sustainability for communities and catalyze measurable social, educational and economic improvements. 

Tribes in my home State of Alaska have leveraged IHBG funding 

in a variety of ways. TNHA Regional Housing Authority, which 

serves the northernmost reaches of Alaska, developed an innovative model of sustainable northern housing that is designed to last 

100 years and uses less than a quarter of the heating fuel needed 

for typical rural Alaskan homes. 

To get there, they leveraged non-Federal funding at a ratio of 

more than four to one including a commercial loan secured by a 

Title VI loan guarantee. Thirty such homes are already complete. 

At Cook Inlet Housing, we used the HUD 184 Loan Guarantee 

Program to build seven four-plex family rental buildings in a community called Eagle River. The 184 Loan Guarantee Program is 

unique because it can be delivered as a single, close product, eliminating the need to procure separate construction financing and reducing the overall cost of funds. 

Additionally, the required down payment 2.25 percent is achievable for both families and tribal entities that may have more limited financial capacity. The Native American CDFI Assistance Program, commonly called NACA, has emerged as another critical 

leveraging tool in Indian Country. 

14 

In Alaska, Cook Inlet Housing created a Native CDFI which deploys NACA assistance in a variety of strategic ways to help American Indian and Alaska Native families achieve home ownership. 

While not a loan product, tribes able to secure low income housing, 

tax credit awards can sell those credits to private investors to generate equity for the development of affordable housing. 

In remote Hooper Bay in western Alaska, AVCP Regional Housing Authority invited Cook Inlet Housing to partner with them to 

develop 19 new units of affordable housing. Cook Inlet Housing 

provided tax credit experience while AVCP provided knowledge of 

local design and construction techniques. Private equity from the 

sale of tax credits provided almost 60 percent of the project funding. 

Equally important were efforts to leverage our mutual capacity 

to develop housing that neither organization had the expertise to 

build on its own. 

As these examples demonstrate, many tribal housing providers 

are leveraging scarce NAHASDA resources to secure other critical 

sources of funding. Tribes and tribal housing providers are proud 

of the outcomes we are producing for our people and communities. 

We know we have more work to do if we are ever to achieve 

equal economic and housing opportunities for Native people and 

communities. We embrace that challenge and most respectfully ask 

for Congress’ continued support. 

We extend our appreciation to the Chairman, the Vice Chairman 

and members of this Committee for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gore follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL GORE, PRESIDENT/CEO, COOK INLET HOUSING

AUTHORITY

Good afternoon Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester, and distinguished 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear today as the Committee examines loan leveraging in Indian Country. 

My name is Carol Gore. I am an Alaskan of Aleut descent, an enrolled member 

of the Ninilchik Village Tribe, and a shareholder of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act regional corporation. For fifteen years, I have 

served as the President and CEO of Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the Tribally Designated Housing Entity for Alaska’s Cook Inlet Region. 

Cook Inlet Housing is responsible for serving Alaska Native and American Indian 

individuals living in an area of Southcentral Alaska roughly the size of Switzerland. 

These lands are home to tens of thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian 

people, all too many of whom struggle to find safe, sanitary housing they can afford. 

Unfortunately, the severity of the need for housing among Native families is ubiquitous not just in the communities we serve and the remainder of Alaska, but 

throughout Indian Country. 

Passed in 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act gave tribes access to an innovative resource that revolutionized the delivery of 

housing assistance to low-income American Indian and Alaska Native families—the 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). The IHBG enabled tribes to increase housing 

production and serve more of our people by providing critical funding and allowing 

decisionmaking to respond to local needs and cultural differences. However, housing 

needs in Indian Country are simply too significant for lasting progress to be made 

without the investment of additional resources. Many tribal housing providers have 

become skilled at leveraging their IHBG funds to secure those additional resources, 

including loans from a variety of sources. In tribal communities, IHBG funds are 

most often the first funds that provide the opportunity for critical leveraging and 

meaningful investment. It is my privilege today to share with the Committee some 

of the strategies tribal housing providers employ to provide the highest possible return on investment for the IHBG program. 

15 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA) 

Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

was provided by various programs under the Housing Act of 1937 and other legislation. While these programs provided a broad range of assistance, they were administratively cumbersome and inefficient when used in tribal communities. They required separate applications and program administration, and eligibility requirements differed from one program to the next. The programs were an extension of 

urban-oriented housing programs and failed to recognize the unique social, cultural, 

and economic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native communities. 

In 1994, HUD articulated its intent to strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and federally recognized Native 

American tribes and Alaska Native villages. This created momentum toward the development of NAHASDA, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Rick Lazio. In his remarks, Rep. Lazio explained: 

Tribal governments and housing authorities should also have the ability and responsibility to strategically plan their own communities’ development, focusing 

on the long-term health of the community and the results of their work, not 

over burdened by excessive regulation. Providing the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of housing dollars, within strict accountability standards, is not 

only a further affirmation of the self-determination of tribes, it allows for innovation and local problem-solving capabilities that are crucial to the success of 

any community-based strategy. 

Congress enacted NAHASDA in 1996, establishing an Indian Housing Block 

Grant program specifically for the benefit of American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

NAHASDA represents an acknowledgement of the unique relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. Keeping with the Federal Government’s 

trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native peoples, it for the first time addressed the distinct affordable housing needs of low-income American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. NAHASDA authorizes tribes to address their specific housing needs 

using the strategies that are most effective in their tribal communities, rather than 

strategies mandated by officials working in offices thousands of miles away. 

NAHASDA has had a profoundly positive impact in American Indian and Alaska 

Native communities. Recipients have used NAHASDA to build, acquire, or rehabilitate more than 110,000 homes. We have developed new housing; modernized, weatherized, and rehabilitated old homes; provided rental assistance; created home loan 

programs; delivered housing and financial literacy counseling; offered down payment 

assistance; prevented crime; and revitalized blighted communities. Support for 

NAHASDA is strong throughout Indian Country. According to the Government Accountability Office, 89 percent of tribal housing providers hold positive views toward 

the effectiveness of NAHASDA. 

Like so many tribes and tribally-designated housing entities, Cook Inlet Housing 

has seized the opportunities NAHASDA presents to serve American Indian and 

Alaska Native people in innovative and effective ways. Within our service area is 

the community of Mountain View, which has one of the highest concentrations of 

Native people in the State of Alaska. In the early 2000s, Mountain View was characterized by blight, crime, and economic stagnation. It was a community of last resort. Dilapidated multiplexes run by absentee landlords dominated the housing 

stock, and the main road through the community ran through a sleepy commercial 

center that smacked of disinvestment. Windows were boarded, and discarded liquor 

bottles gathered on vacant, weed-choked yards. 

16 

Working with residents, local government, the non-profit community, and state 

and federal policy makers, Cook Inlet Housing Authority helped develop a strategy 

to draw investment back into the community. Leveraging its NAHASDA funding to 

secure investments from numerous local, state, federal, and private sources, we 

began to acquire the ‘‘ugliest of the ugly’’ housing stock in Mountain View. We purchased properties that had been abandoned and homes that had burned, collapsed, 

or been boarded up. We acquired buildings identified by code enforcement and the 

fire department as threats to community safety. We bought sites that were contaminated and plagued by hazardous materials like asbestos and lead-based paint. And 

then we tore them down. 

Where 143 blighted structures previously stood, discouraging investment in a 

largely Alaska Native community, now stand 349 new affordable homes. Contaminated properties have been remediated. Vacancy rates have decreased, and property 

values have risen throughout the community. Today, residents remain in the neighborhood longer—by choice. 

Housing is a foundational investment; by improving housing stock and collaborating with a wide array of public, private, and non-profit partners, Cook Inlet 

Housing has been able to measure other social, educational, and economic improvements in Mountain View. For example, business is booming. Two new dentistry offices have opened in the neighborhood, as have a credit union, a telecommunications 

store, and a new fast food restaurant. A health clinic has announced plans to open 


204b1.eps 204b2.eps
17 

a community office. Additionally, Cook Inlet Housing developed two mixed-use commercial/residential buildings in Mountain View in an effort to provide incubator office and retail space that would attract businesses to the neighborhood. Every one 

of the six commercial spaces we built has been leased. Even education in the neighborhood has shown measurable improvements. Eighth grade test scores are up, as 

is attendance at parent-teacher conferences. Meanwhile, school transfer rates have 

declined. 

For our work in Mountain View, Cook Inlet Housing received the 2014 HUD Secretary’s Opportunity and Empowerment Award. Presented jointly by HUD and 

American Planning Association, the award honors excellence in community planning 

resulting in measurable benefits in terms of increased economic development, employment, education, or housing choice and mobility for low- and moderate-income 

residents. 

Cook Inlet Housing’s work in Anchorage’s Mountain View neighborhood is but one 

example of the way in which tribes are using NAHASDA to address tribal housing 

needs in innovative and pioneering ways. Other tribes are finding ways to design 

and build culturally, environmentally, and economically sensitive housing that is 

improving life for many thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native families. 

Fiscal Challenges 

Tightening federal budgets have made it more challenging for Indian Housing providers to find the resources necessary to improve housing conditions in tribal communities. In FY 2015, the Indian Housing Block Grant appropriation is just 1.5 percent larger than the amount Congress appropriated fourteen years ago, in 2001. Due 

to inflation, NAHASDA’s purchasing power has been reduced by nearly half since 

the first Indian Housing Block Grants were awarded in 1998. For example, in the 

remote village of Seldovia, accessible only by air or sea, Cook Inlet Housing owns 

and operates 18 units of elder housing. Income among Native people in traditional 

communities is low, yet expenses in isolated Seldovia are very high. Utilities alone 

amount to nearly $5,000 per household per year, primarily due to the cost of heating 

oil. The combination of low household income and high operating expenses makes 

it very difficult to develop housing delivery models that are financially sustainable 

for both Indian Housing providers and the families we serve. However, there are 

tools available, which tribal housing organizations have used with great success. 

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program 

Title VI of NAHASDA authorizes HUD to guarantee up to 95 percent of a loan 

made to a NAHASDA recipient for affordable housing activities. Borrowers pledge 

a portion of current and future IHBG funds to secure the loan. The guarantee encourages lenders to invest in housing in Indian Country, which in turn empowers 


204b3.eps
18 

Indian Housing providers to engage in long-term development planning for projects 

that are larger in scale. 

According to HUD, Title VI loans had by 2013 facilitated the development of 2,700 

housing units and leveraged more than $74 million for affordable housing in Indian 

Country. In Alaska, Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) is one of a number 

of tribes leveraging its IHBG funding using Title VI loan guarantees. IRHA is the 

Tribally Designated Housing Entity for 30 Tribes in the Doyon Region of Alaska. 

Over the past eight years, it has obtained ten Title VI loan guarantees, leveraging 

more than $6,000,000 in private financing to help build thirty-three affordable 

homes and complete fifty-four rehabilitation projects in remote Alaskan villages. 

Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to address the lack of mortgage lending and homeownership in Indian Country. The program offers a loan guarantee to private sector 

lenders who make mortgage loans to eligible borrowers, which include American Indian and Alaska Native families and individuals, tribes, and Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities. 

Several characteristics of the Section 184 loan guarantee make it a particularly 

powerful leveraging tool. For example, new construction can be financed with a ‘‘single close’’ loan that provides permanent guaranteed financing before construction begins. This eliminates the need to procure separate construction financing, which 

typically carries a high interest rate. Additionally, the required down payment (2.25 

percent) is achievable for both families and smaller tribal entities that may not have 

the financial capacity to make a large down payment. Because there are no income 

limitations for the 184 program, tribes are also able to serve a broader range of families and build healthier, more economically diverse communities. 

In 2014, Cook Inlet Housing completed the Coronado Park Workforce Housing 

project in the community of Eagle River, Alaska (right). The 28-unit development 

is comprised of seven new 4-plex buildings. In effect, we used $1.3 million in IHBG 

funding and Section 184 loan guarantees to leverage $6.2 million in additional funding, including nearly $5 million in HUD 184 debt. The single close allowed us to 

access the HUD 184 debt during construction in lieu of conventional construction 

financing, thereby reducing our cost of funds. In the end, the HUD 184 Loan Guarantee Program enabled Cook Inlet Housing to create a mixed-income community 

and increased the number of units we would have otherwise been able to produce. 


204b4.eps
19 

The Native American CDFI Assistance Program 

The Native American CDFI Assistance Program, administered by the Treasury 

Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, is another critical leveraging tool in Indian Country. The CDFI Fund was established by 

the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, as 

a bipartisan initiative to increase economic opportunity and promote community development investments for underserved populations and in distressed communities. 

The CDFI Fund achieves these goals in Native communities largely through its Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) program, which provides financial assistance, technical assistance, and training to Native CDFIs. 

Native CDFIs deploy NACA assistance in a variety of strategic ways to help 

American Indian and Alaska Native families achieve homeownership. Some Native 

CDFIs use NACA funding to deploy non-traditional second mortgage products that 

fill the gap between the cost of a home and the amount of the loan the first mortgage lender is willing to make using its standard underwriting criteria. Others use 

NACA funding to provide down payment or closing cost assistance, which reduces 

the amount of cash a borrower must have on hand to close a loan. Providing down 

payment assistance also helps American Indian and Alaska Native families avoid 

the burden of private mortgage insurance (PMI) costs. NACA funding allows Native 

CDFIs to deploy loan products with low, fixed interest rates, long terms, and nontraditional underwriting. 

The primary barrier to deploying NACA funds in some tribal communities is the 

requirement that matching funds be provided by entities applying for Financial Assistance awards through the NACA program. Unfortunately, the amount of first 

mortgage lending leveraged by products like NACA-funded second mortgages does 

not satisfy the matching fund requirement. This fails to recognize the amount of 

first mortgage lending leveraged by the NACA program and for some tribes presents 

an insurmountable barrier to securing and deploying NACA funds. 

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the nation’s largest and most 

successful affordable rental housing production program. Although the LIHTC is not 

a loan program, it is a critical housing development resource that many tribes are 

able to leverage using their Indian Housing Block Grant funds. The LIHTC 

incentivizes the utilization of private equity in the development of affordable housing. Since its creation in 1986, the Housing Credit has leveraged nearly $100 billion 

in private investment capital, providing financing for the development of more than 

2.6 million rental homes for low-income families. The Housing Credit produces or 

preserves nearly 100,000 homes per year and supports 95,000 jobs annually. 

The Housing Credit is a premier example of public-private partnership. Because 

private investors can only claim credits after projects are completed, meet all federal 

requirements and are occupied by income-eligible tenants at affordable rents, the 

Housing Credit benefits from private-sector discipline. This model has led to effective management of affordable housing developments that have experienced an extremely low level of foreclosure—just 0.62 percent over the Housing Credit’s entire 

history, according to the accounting firm CohnReznick. 

The Indian Housing Block Grant provides funding that tribes and TDHEs can use 

to fill development gaps for potential LIHTC projects that might not be financially 

feasible otherwise. The utilization of LIHTCs to develop housing in Indian Country 

has increased unit production and resulted in developments characterized by a degree of efficiency typically seen in the private sector. 

One example of the use of LIHTCs in Indian Housing is Cook Inlet Housing’s 59- 

unit elder rental housing development, Eklutna Estates. The project design incorporated accessibility features that will enable elders to age in place. Other design 

techniques helped Eklutna Estates achieve a 5-star energy rating, reducing longterm operating costs. As the chart below demonstrates, Indian Housing Block Grant 

funds, including funds available through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

comprised just 12 percent of the overall project financing. 

20 

Case Study—Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority (TNHA) 

TNHA serves the northernmost region of Alaska. Their Sustainable Northern 

Shelter Project was specifically developed to address the need for sustainable rural 

housing for northern climates, using simple construction techniques and resulting 

in the production of dwellings that use very little water or energy. TNHA built a 

prototype home in the village of Anaktuvuk Pass, which used less than 200 gallons 

of heating fuel during its first year, less than a quarter of the average heating fuel 

consumption for typical rural Alaskan homes (880 gallons per year). When completed, TNHA’s Sustainable Northern Shelter Project will consist of 24 homes in six 

villages throughout Alaska’s North Slope region. 

TNHA’s sustainable northern shelter model incorporates numerous innovative design and construction techniques. The homes, comprised of three bedrooms on one 

level, are 1,000 to 1,300 square-feet in size. Their construction combines the timetested method of earth banking with original ideas such as spray-on soy-based urethane foam insulated walls, which will be covered by waterproof steel siding. Materials have been customized to transport cheaply in smaller planes that can land on 

the short gravel runways common in most remote Alaskan villages. This strategy 

has enabled one house to be delivered in just two planeloads, allowing on-time delivery with transport costs far less than those required for traditional ‘‘stick built’’ construction. The steel studs and joist system for the projects are packed in cross-sections, nested into each other. Rather than using time-consuming multi-seasonal piling foundations, 18 inches of gravel mat allows for site preparation and foundation 

placement within a single day. The end result is the production of homes that are 

designed to last 100 years or more while using a fraction of the energy consumed 

by most homes. TNHA has managed to do this for approximately $170,000 less than 

the allowable Total Development Cost (TDC) for isolated Anuktuvuk Pass. 


204b5.eps
21 

TNHA has achieved these results by leveraging its IHBG allocation to secure 

loans guaranteed under the Title VI Loan Guarantee program. Additional grant 

funding was provided by the State of Alaska. 

Funding Sources Amount 

NAHASDA IHBG Funds $1,671,180 

Title VI Guaranteed Commercial Bank Loan $6,672,170 

State of Alaska Housing Grant Funds $1,478,468 

Percentage of Leveraged Funds in Project 83 percent 

Total Project Funds $9,821,818 

Case Study—Hooper Bay, Alaska Development Partnership 

The Village of Hooper Bay is located in the remote reaches of western Alaska. In 

2006, the community was ravaged by a fire, which destroyed much of the community’s available housing. The TDHE for the region, AVCP Regional Housing Authority, sought to work quickly to rebuild. However, a housing development of the scale 

needed would require the investment of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and 

AVCP Regional Housing Authority did not have experience developing or operating 

LIHTC properties. 

AVCP reached out to another Indian Housing provider that had the requisite experience—Cook Inlet Housing. Together, our two organizations secured an allocation 

of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, sold the credits to an investor to generate equity for the project, and built 19 new affordable homes for a community in the midst 

of a housing crisis. 


204b6.eps
22 

Development funding for the Hooper Bay partnership came from a variety of 

sources, including NAHASDA, a State of Alaska housing grant, HUD’s HOME and 

Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHEP) programs, and equity from the 

sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. 

The Hooper Bay partnership between AVCP Regional Housing Authority and 

Cook Inlet Housing demonstrates the importance of leveraging both money and capacity. The investment of IHBG funds leveraged other sources, including tax credit 

equity, while AVCP’s willingness to tap the existing capacity of another Indian 

Housing organization produced timely results and a collaborative relationship that 

persists to this day. 

Conclusion 

NAHASDA, and particularly the availability of the Indian Housing Block Grant, 

fundamentally changed how affordable housing is delivered in American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities. Many tribal housing providers have learned to leverage 

scarce IHBG resources to secure other sources of funding, including federally guarVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:12 Mar 11, 2015 Jkt 093567 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93567.TXT JACK

204b7.eps 204b8.eps
23 

anteed loans, private equity from the sale of housing tax credits, and first mortgages 

for home buyers receiving additional assistance through the CDFI Fund’s Native 

American CDFI Assistance program. 

However, I urge Congress to recognize that loan leveraging has its limitations. In 

communities like Mountain View, Anuktuvuk Pass, and Hooper Bay, where costs 

are high and income is extremely low, leveraging debt cannot be viewed as the primary strategy to address housing needs. Effective leveraging must result in housing 

developments that are financially sustainable in the long term. Private investors 

must achieve stable returns from Indian Housing projects or their desire to invest 

in our communities will remain low. 

For this reason, adequately funding the Indian Housing Block Grant program is 

the single most effective way for Congress to ensure that additional housing will be 

developed in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Further, tribal housing providers have, through the National American Indian Housing Council, recommend minor changes to NAHASDA that would reduce unnecessary administrative burden, empowering tribes to spend less time navigating bureaucracy and more 

time building new homes. 

Congress made the right decision when it transitioned Indian Housing from a disjointed system that did not fit our communities to a more flexible block grant that 

has allowed tribes to build our collective capacity to produce housing. We are proud 

of our good stewardship of federal funding and the outcomes we are producing for 

our people and communities. We know we have more work to do if we are ever to 

achieve an equality of economic and housing opportunities for Native people and 

communities. We embrace that challenge, and we ask for Congress’ ongoing support. 

Again, we extend our sincere appreciation to the Chairman, Vice-Chair, and Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for the opportunity to appear today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Gore. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GAUTHIER, ADMINISTRATOR, 

UNITED NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I will go right to the bottom line, if I can, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I too want to thank you and congratulate you. Senator Daines 

and Senator Tester have been tremendous to work with as we 

share our frustrations. 

Montana is one of the States that has been left behind. We have 

remote reservations that have high levels of poverty. I love hearing 

the success stories taking place but I want to share one thing. This 

is the fourth time I have appeared before this Committee over the 

last 30 years years. 

The first time I appeared, I was Chairman of the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 

Housing. The findings of that Commission, when the Honorable 

Daniel Inouye chaired this Committee, said the problem with 

leveraging and progress in Indian Country is there is too much dependence on HUD. 

We need to get all the resources that America has in rural communities to build housing. Here we are 22 years later and I would 

like to tell you it has changed. I think following NAHASDA, HUD 

has been a fabulous partner. They are going to do more 184 loans 

this year than the NAHASDA block grant. That is a fabulous story 

for Indians. That is the good news. 

The bad news is around 10 percent of them are on reservations 

and even less on restricted trust lands. 

What I am here to say is we need help bringing the other Federal agencies, USDA, the Veterans Administration, into the mix. 

They have significant resources and there is some attention to that 

24 

but they are not bringing their lending programs and we need their 

technical assistance dollars on reservation. 

The other thing I will say is we have been trying to build a mortgage market in Indian Country for all 30 of the years that I have 

been here. There are significant challenges. We thought once the 

184 program was passed, banks would swarm on to reservations. 

In fact, they have swarmed off reservations by and large because 

of the imperfections and lack of capacity in a lot of remote tribal 

areas. 

They don’t have reporting systems, they don’t have good appraisal systems, loan origination, mortgages are not a part of the 

culture, and the lease rules have been cumbersome. We are making 

progress on all those things is my message today. 

But, if we can, one thing we need—no more money, no more authority from the existing agencies. We need some of their technical 

assistance funds so that we can go to tribes that are willing and 

give them the assistance to build capacity to lend and make it comfortable for lenders to come to those remote reservations. 

Once we do that, we will open the doors for economic development and all sorts of good things. I think by and large, remote reservations with the highest amount of poverty and the largest land 

base are the ones struggling the most. That would be my comment. 

I know there are tremendous amounts of good things happening, 

tax credits and others, but we need capacity at the tribal level to 

help them learn how to be borrowers and good partners in lending. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gauthier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT GAUTHIER, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED NATIVE

AMERICAN HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and other members of the Committee for the opportunity to address you today concerning what I believe is the number one impediment to growth in Indian Country. 

When I hear the term Indian Country, I think of tribal lands under the jurisdiction of duly elected officials from Federally Recognized Tribes. I believe Indians living in other parts of the United States have needs related to available credit too, 

but for today’s comments; I would like to focus on Indian Reservations and Trust 

land. 

In 1993, when the NATIONAL COMMISSION ON AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKAN NATIVE AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING completed 18 months of Hearings and published its Report: A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE, the primary recommendations for Congressional action outlined changes to making credit more 

available for American Indians across the Nation with a special emphasis on the 

impediments of Trust land. 

HUD did its job during the Clinton Administration and developed the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA), introduced 

by New York Congressman Rick Lazio, which for the first time, provided capital 

those Tribes could use to leverage other Housing Resources. Over 40 of the Commission’s recommendations were incorporated into NAHASDA. As a bonus, Title VI of 

NAHASDA provided incentive for Banks to lend to Tribes with a 95 percent guarantee! Congress also responded thanks to Nebraska Congressman Doug Bereuter 

and his staff, and passed the HUD 184 program. For the first time, Indians on reservations had available to them a market rate loan product! I believe most Indian 

Housing practitioners and housing experts expected lending to Native Americans to 

take hold in a dramatic fashion. And it has, unless you happen to live on Trust land. 

In my opinion, nearly 22 years later, remote tribes on Trust land are still not 

making significant progress establishing sustainable lending programs. The result 

is that they continue to have a significant waiting list with diminishing subsidy. I 

wish it were different. Many will talk about the success of the HUD 184 program. 

The program has now grown to over $4 Billion in loans to Indians. That shows the 

25 

need. However, an Indian living in Spokane Washington has many market rate loan 

products. He is however, able to take advantage of a program designed for developing markets and by its design was not as rigorous as other loan programs. If you 

happen to be an Indian living in Browning Montana on Trust land, the HUD 184 

may be your only market rate option. My concern is that as the program grows, 

more and more it will resemble conforming loans without the flexibility and affordability developing Tribes and its members still require. 

USDA has still not come to the table with nationwide lending products adapted 

to unique tribal governmental requirements. In Montana, the Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes have an unresolved dispute with USDA regarding a couple of minor provisions in USDA required lease agreements on Trust Land. They have been unwilling 

to compromise. Indian Country badly needs the several loan and grant programs 

USDA administers. In most states, active partnerships with USDA do not exist. 

Tribes need exposure and training on these programs. 

In 1993 Treasury told HUD at an Indian Housing Leverage meeting that there 

was no need for the Administration to develop a new GSE dedicated to Indian Housing. HUD had been working on a draft of a Native American Finance Authority, 

when Treasury assured participants that the new CDFI legislation would not only 

provide capital, but also technical assistance to overcome the imperfections in Indian lending on Trust lands. Still, it is not happening. 

After nearly 33 years working in Indian Housing, I am convinced that overcoming 

the challenges of lending on Trust land is the key to solving the housing crisis on 

Americas Indian reservations. In fact, solving the housing lending puzzle will open 

up streams of capital for economic development as well. I know because the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes developed a revolving loan program in the 1940s 

that today provides over 600 members of that Tribe access to mortgages on Trust 

Land. Their model is largely responsible for the high number of 184 Loans made 

in Montana as well. The membership is gaining wealth with nearly 70 percent of 

families owning their own home. 

Over the past 20 years I have learned also that capacity at the Tribal level is another critical component of success with developing sustainable lending on Tribal 

Trust land. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe operate its own Land Titles 

and Records Office (LTRO) under a contract with the Bureau of Indian affairs. They 

have developed reliable closing processes that are similar to closings on fee simple 

lands. I believe this too is a critical factor. I am surprised that Tribes asked Congress to pass the HEARTH Act in 2012, yet only two tribes across the Nation have 

developed BIA approved Regulations! 

In closing, I would like to recommend that this Committee work with the Tribes 

that have had success in developing functioning lending systems incorporating Trust 

lands and dedicate resources to provide a step by step guidance for developing tribes 

to follow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for the comments from you 

all. 

If you notice some of the Committee members have gone. It is 

because we are in the middle of a roll call vote so we will be coming 

and going. The questions may be repeated by someone who did not 

hear them but it is all information that is very interesting and important. 

At this time, I would call on Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Gauthier, thank you. I was struck that you 

did not look at a single note as you gave your testimony which tells 

me you have been doing this a long time. Thank you for being here 

today. 

Thank you for cutting to the chase. So often here in Washington, 

we circle around the airport as we decide what needs to be done. 

I appreciate your clear line of sight to solving this problem. 

I met with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe yesterday in my office 

and heard about how important access to home mortgages is and 

how difficult it is. As a kid who grew up in the building business, 

my mom and dad are home builders, they started off as mom and 

pop builders with a pickup truck, a dog and grew a little business 

in Boozman. 

26 

Home ownership is about shelter and about human dignity. I am 

reminded of what Milton Friedman said once, that nobody washes 

a rental car. There is something about the ownership and the pride 

of ownership and how that builds safer and more secure neighborhoods as well. 

I believe many of the important aspects begin in the home. It is 

not about a house, it is about a home and how we build stronger 

families. We had the principal of Northern Cheyenne K–12 School 

in the office speaking about the value of Indian housing to Northern Cheyenne children and families. 

If you don’t have a home, achieving other life needs is difficult 

but with the high unemployment rates we are seeing in Indian 

Country, access to loans is very difficult. The Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act, I believe, is an important law to facilitate access to housing for Native American 

communities. 

Mr. Gauthier, have Indian housing programs been easily accessible to tribal members or is there a need for technical assistance? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. There is most definitely a need for technical assistance. There are a lot of resources for homebuyer education, 

some that are Native American-based. Capacity at the tribal level 

is going to make this happen. The Northern Cheyenne are a perfect 

example. Once they got their audits going, a good and stable board 

and the staff, in eight years, they added $30 million to their block 

grant from other resources. 

That is a significant change and can create a lot of jobs and 

rehabbed a lot of houses. I am a believer in capacity and lending. 

We have courts on reservations in Montana that need to have 

the right foreclosure process. It needs to be compatible with USDA 

and the Veterans Administration. We have some issues to resolve 

with HUD to make it work better but they are trying hard. The 

other agencies we do not see as much. 

USDA said we have 13 housing programs. This morning, Mr. 

Hernandez came. He was very enlightened speaker and got us 

pumped. His heart is in the right place but I don’t think he really 

understands. There are a lot of assumptions made about what has 

to happen on trust land. 

I have come to the conclusion that what money we can find, 

whether through HAC or USDA, we need to get hands-on assistance to the tribal level if they choose it so they can build the right 

system to report loans and to appraise properly. All those pieces we 

take for granted outside reservations do not exist on a lot of the 

most remote reservations. That is my plan. 

Senator DAINES. My staff heard from the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe similar concerns about this lack of access to technical assistance on the loan programs coming through HUD. Would you agree 

that there is value to allowing the Native American Indian Housing Council instead of HUD the ability to provide the technical assistance to tribes? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I definitely think it should be a partnership. The 

name of the Act is the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act. Tribes should be teaching each other self determination. HUD has a lot to offer but I think it needs to be a two way 

street. 

27 

Senator DAINES. Sami, do you have a thought on that as well? 

I can see you smiling over there. 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. Yes, we believe Native people should teach 

Native people. We are a fan of the National American Indian Housing Council being able to provide technical assistance directly to 

tribes. They should be able to call our office, ask for technical assistance and have it dispatched to them. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

I have to go vote but I will say thank you for helping define the 

problems today. My training before I got into business was in engineering where you define a problem. Let’s go find a solution. I 

think we have one here. I think we have a committee here that can 

act on this and let’s get this problem fixed. 

Let’s get you back in Montana longer and not so much time here 

in Washington, D.C., Bob. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Daines. The 

panel gets back to back Montana. I will pick up where you left off. 

Senator DAINES. That is a good thing, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Carol, we have seen an increase in the use of low income housing 

tax credits in Indian communities across the Nation. Still, these 

tax credits remain under utilized as a mechanism to provide housing to Indian Country. What are some of the barriers that exist in 

using these tax credits? 

Ms. GORE. First of all, I would echo what both Bob and Sami Jo 

have said, which is capacity matters. You don’t jump from building 

a home to doing a complex tax credit development without capacity 

building. I think that is incredibly important. 

I would go back to the example I gave for Hooper Bay which is 

the westernmost region of Alaska. They lost all their housing in a 

huge fire, so they have this critical need. They couldn’t build just 

one house at a time and their funding was fairly low. 

The idea that we reached across tribal boundaries and worked together where we had no experience in building in a place that had 

no dock, no hardware store, no materials available or no local capacity to work with them. 

We worked with the investor to convince them that their economics were really worthy of an investment and by partnering with 

AVCP and Cook Inlet Housing together, we had the right long term 

sustainability compliance. 

I think training and capacity building really matter to the investor. 

Senator TESTER. That is especially helpful with dollars that come 

from HUD being whacked or at least not being applied. 

This is a question for all three of you. We will start with you, 

Sami Jo. NAHASDA was first passed in 1996 combining 14 different programs at HUD that were operating in Indian Country. It 

was not a normal situation but not without precedent. This action 

led to one of the most flexible programs in Indian Country. 

From your perspective, what is the next step when it comes to 

Indian housing from this level? 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. I think we are on track with the hearing today 

and the topics being discussed. I think loan leveraging and learnVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:12 Mar 11, 2015 Jkt 093567 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\93567.TXT JACK
28 

ing how to better utilize the Federal resources that we get is really 

timely and important. 

More training and technical assistance, Bob was correct on that 

but I think it is not that simple an answer. When you look at the 

really remote areas and the size of the tribes, not everyone has 

equal access to technology and not everyone has equal access to 

training and technical assistance which is why I believe the National American Indian Housing Council should be the training and 

technical assistance provider. 

Next step, if it is different than Sami Jo’s. 

Ms. GORE. It is different. I do think we need to try to tune up 

what we have but I also think we gave up a bundle of things that 

were making a difference in Indian Country and moved to a block 

grant. 

Now we are finding there is a bundle of funding where we are 

not eligible to apply. Many of us are ready to compete. I would encourage the Committee to look at the funding sources that come 

here to make sure tribes and their organizational structures, their 

entities like their housing TDHE’s, have the ability to actually 

compete and apply. 

Lastly, I would say I would like Congress to look outside of Indian funding and allow us to compete with everyone else. When 

HUD is providing housing funding and USDA is providing housing 

funding, are we eligible to apply? If there are a dozen USDA housing programs, are they clearly open for us to use their funding? 

Senator TESTER. Bob? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I will continue with what Carol was saying. We 

talk about 13 housing programs with USDA. Every single one of 

them has a place in Indian Country. We have over 20,000 mutual 

help units which have been conveyed. Most of them are not insured 

and most of them need repair. Where do you go to get the money? 

They are eligible to be served in NAHASDA if they are income 

eligible but we need 504 grants from USDA and we need 504 loans. 

USDA says yeah, come on in. So we have an elder that finished 

paying for a mutual help unit and they go into the USDA office and 

it is like starting all over. Who lives with you, what are your taxes, 

what is your income, how many kids, and what car do you drive? 

They take the application and go home. 

We need to have a delivery mechanism that is sensitive to some 

of the cultures in which we have to provide those services. Currently we are told there isn’t the money to do that. We have a 

whole group of Natives eligible for those programs who are not accessing them. 

Senator TESTER. Let’s continue on financing and continue with 

you, Bob. I know you would be an expert on Indian housing issues. 

The number one issue, as you have talked about, is finding the 

money, where is the money. If we look at the private sector, if we 

look at the community banks and those kind of folks, credit unions, 

those kind of folks. How do we get those folks to invest in Indian 

Country or is that just not a possibility? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Senator Tester, do you watch Dancing with the 

Stars? 

Senator TESTER. No, never. 

29 

Mr. GAUTHIER. If you did, you would find out they practice a long 

time before they start dancing. We have a lot of partners that have 

not yet had a dance lesson. 

The banks are ready, willing and able and have the money and 

want to lend it but it isn’t profitable. Almost every loan they currently make is qualified unless it is a guaranteed loan. That is 

holding them out in droves. 

If anything, right now it is getting tougher. I talked to HUD 

about this. Some of the latest program recommendations and modifications, dealing with the environmentals, I think will even chase 

more of the banks away. 

The second thing I would recommend is a way to empower the 

national and regional housing organizations, that is nonprofit to 

originate loans in a sustainable manner where they can get the 

loan fees and do it. If the banks aren’t going to do it, let us do it 

until we work out the problems. Then banks can come in and compete. That is the way it should happen. 

The CDFI was supposed to do it, Senator Tester. There was talk 

in 1992 of creating a GSE strictly for Indian lending. Treasury said 

not needed. We have the CDFI and this thing is going to work 

great. Almost no CDFI’s have housing as a primary goal in Montana. 

Senator TESTER. You also talk about the success of the revolving 

loan fund the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes developed 

several decades ago. Can you talk about the impact this program 

has had on the housing situation on your reservation? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. It kind of hit me alongside the head. One day I 

was meeting with some of the other regional housing authorities 

and listening to their story of how hard it is to operate Indian 

housing authorities. I said, are we talking about the same program. 

We would find the problems were out in the Dakotas, eastern Montana and all over. 

I suddenly realized that I didn’t have one tribal councilman or 

one board member that had ever lived in a house that I managed 

for 20 years at the housing authority because our tribe created the 

revolving loan program. They expected the members of our tribe 

with a job to go get a loan there. If you didn’t have elders, low income families would go to the housing authority. 

My job was easy because I could work the program the way it 

was designed to work. We had the luxury or the disadvantage of 

being in an area that had alternative housing, banks, a lot of different things that allowed us to develop more. 

When you go to a remote reservation that only has HUD-built 

units, it becomes very political and very tough. If the only units 

being built for 40 years are by HUD, even though there are 37 

HAC units with very tight restrictions, they are going to be used 

by everybody because there is no other housing. 

Senator TESTER. Let me flesh this out a little more. For the Revolving Loan Fund, there has to be more availability than just 

HUD housing. Is that what I just heard you say? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. America as a whole depends on HUD support for 

4 percent of their housing needs. Twenty years ago, in Indian 

Country it was 50 percent and it is growing. That isn’t sustainable. 

We need to figure this out. We need to figure out the lending. 

30 

Yes, we need USDA, we need VA, but until we figure out lending, like America, over half of Americans pay for their own house. 

At one time, it was 67 percent. 

Senator TESTER. Are there other reservations that use revolving 

loan funds that you know of? Are there others out there? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Not in Montana. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just to be clear, the reason for that is, why 

haven’t they done it? You have had success with it. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. We have had success with it but I think the perception is there are better jobs or more jobs or better economic conditions at Flathead and that may be true. We have our share of 

poverty there but our tribal council understood quickly if it was 

their money, you had to pay it back. 

Yes, it gets political occasionally but that loan fund is now $40 

million. Today as we speak 600 members of our tribe out of 4,000 

who live there have their loans through tribal credit on trust land. 

It is an important driver. 

We are also one of the highest user reservation tribes of the 184 

program. I think we have done over 300 184 loans. 

Senator TESTER. Have you asked questions yet, Senator 

Heitkamp? I will yield. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. 

I don’t think anyone really understands how critical this issue is. 

Recently, Secretary Castro came to Pine Ridge and then came back 

and toured Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa housing. It is HUD 

Project 1 in the Turtle Mountains. 

I think the shock and dismay on his face kind of said it all. This 

was the first time that he really had experienced the issues. I think 

it surprised everyone when he really came to the conclusion that 

the challenges on Turtle Mountain might even be in excess which 

is not to diminish the huge challenges on Pine Ridge. 

We know in the upper Great Plains how critical this issue is. 

Half of the housing in Turtle Mountain has black mold, the lack 

of the ability of folks to really afford anything and to repair what 

is there, and the inability of the tribes to really find the resources 

to do what needs to be done. 

At the very heart of it, you cannot expect children to go to school 

and learn when they are sleeping in a two or three bedroom home 

with 14 people. This is a formula for failure. At its base level, we 

can talk about health care, education and all those critical services, 

but housing is the beginning as far as I am concerned. 

If we simply look at doing what we have always done, we are 

going to continue to fall further and further behind. 

I will tell you a tale. I served on what essentially was the board 

of directors of something called the Housing Finance Agency in 

North Dakota. Sarah Vogel was the Ag commissioner at the time 

and I was Attorney General. We had a path that we were going to 

try to do just one first time homeowner, just one home, in Indian 

Country on trust land that would qualify and get first time homeowner status. In eight years, neither one of us got it done. 

31 

Home ownership, never mind affordable housing, we take the 

next step to home ownership which we know builds communities, 

builds opportunity, builds equity for retirement, we are not there. 

We have got to look at this differently. We have to not just look 

at the existing programs. 

It is absolutely critically important. I am with you on those critical needs but we have to think beyond what we are doing because 

if we don’t take care of this problem, we will suffer the consequences as we have going forward. 

I just want to challenge you to think outside the box on Native 

American housing. Take a look at those creative programs, publicprivate partnerships, foundation partnerships that we can engage 

and foster and build whether it is tax credits dedicated to just Indian Country for affordable housing. 

My great dream is single family housing that is affordable, quality and really houses just one family. 

If anyone wants to comment on that, I think the real challenge 

here is not to keep doing what we have always done and expect different results because we are getting further and further behind. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. I have one quick comment I want to make. I 

don’t know if it was Carol or Sami Jo who said our work doesn’t 

get done without you. I would say quite the contrary. Our work 

doesn’t get done without you. 

The folks on this Committee know the most about Indian Country of anybody in the U.S. Senate. The education process is great 

to do what Senator Heitkamp said, think outside the box and develop programs that will work and get houses built. 

We need to do our best to convey good information and hopefully 

will be able to teach the rest of our Senators what the challenges 

are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to respond, Ms. Difuntorum? 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. I would, thank you. I do have a comment or 

two, particularly with respect to the Title VI program, the Loan 

Guarantee Program, for a small tribe that receives under $100,000 

to be limited in leveraging ability to five times their grant, I don’t 

think really gives them enough capital or enough money to do anything. 

I think if they were structured differently so the tribes who receive smaller amounts of money have greater leveraging ability. 

That would be my suggestion in terms of Title VI. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anything else? I appreciate that answer because 

it was actually one of the things I wanted to ask you about the implications there. Thanks for bringing it up. 

I also wanted to ask you about your testimony where you discussed the tribe’s success under Section 184, the Indian Loan 

Guarantee Program and how might tribes with a smaller land base 

approach Section 184 loan guarantee programs compared to tribes 

that have a much larger land base in terms of how this all works? 

Can you share some of those things with us? 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. I can. I will say I am not a 184 expert. If there 

is someone on the panel who has more experience, I would cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:12 Mar 11, 2015 Jkt 093567 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\93567.TXT JACK
32 

tainly defer to them. I am more familiar with Title VI. That is 

what we have primarily used. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gauthier. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I know that Carol has done some tremendous 

things with 184 and leveraging and using it in ways that are very 

creative. I think that is a wonderful thing. 

I will tell you for the benefit of the Senators, 184, it is important 

to remember the concept. I think we have gotten away from it and 

I am a little bit nervous. 

The dialogue took place downstairs in the buffet room with Congressman Bereuter and a staff member named Joe Pigg, who I 

think is currently with the American Bankers Association. The discussion went like this: Congressman Bereuter would like to help 

you somehow in your work with the commission. We said right now 

HUD provide grants for low rent, mutual help under the 37 Act. 

What if we lent money to Indians and only 50 percent of the loans 

were successful and the other 50 percent failed, we would double 

our production. That was the concept of the 184 program. 

Now, it is looking more and more and more like an FHA program. Some of the examinations of it require that underwriting is 

tighter. All those things are missing the target. The original target 

was Indians on reservations. Banks were comfortable to get that 

100 percent guarantee. 

It has grown and is $4 billion in assets. It is fabulous. Unfortunately, the growth has primarily been off reservations and we are 

still struggling with ways to get those Indian folks on reservations 

a market rate loan that will help them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me also ask you about financing on trust 

land or some of the things you wrote in your testimony indicating 

that greater tribal control and management can address some of 

the challenges. 

I am wondering how tribes develop their capacity to manage sustainable lending operations like what is taking place on the Flathead Reservation? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Capacity. We have a title plan at Flathead. You 

don’t hear horror stories about waiting months for a title status report. You go down to George DuCharme and he produces one for 

you. He can even certify once he is comfortable. That really speeds 

up the process. 

It takes not much more time to do a 184 loan on trust land as 

long as it is a leasehold than it does a conventional loan on fee 

land. 

The important thing is capacity. The tribe has developed that capacity because for 50 or 60 years, they have done mortgage lending 

to their own members on trust land and have refined the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Gore, you spoke about the regional impact 

that Cook Inlet Housing Authority is having. Can you share more 

with the Committee about the social and economic impact your 

community’s housing assistance projects are having on the region? 

Ms. GORE. Using an example or two, we have been investing in 

a community that had a very large population of Alaska Native 

people. It was also the worst community in terms of crime and education, all of those social outcomes. 

33 

We believed if we partnered with the community and specifically 

the safety officers, the fire department, to identify the really hot 

spots where the crime was occurring and the homes were unsafe, 

if we could strategically cut like a surgical knife and take those bad 

rocks out of the neighborhood and replace them with bright, colorful energy efficiency homes, that could in fact change other things 

in the neighborhood. 

After eight years, we did a social and economic impact study hoping we haven’t just put pretty homes in an old neighborhood. In 

fact, the outcomes were pretty outstanding. We found families in 

the neighborhood had lived there five years or longer, 50 percent 

of them. When we first started, it was 8 percent. 

Educational outcomes, participation from parents and teachers, 

were as high as 80 percent and they had been at the 30 percent 

level. Reading, writing and math scores were up between 8 and 20 

percent in that neighborhood. 

We cannot claim all the credit for that, but we truly believe at 

some point the neighborhood started to stand up for themselves. 

We used some crime prevention design principles, just eyes on the 

street, windows, simple things, porches, light fences to keep the 

foot traffic down, put the homes close to schools and community 

centers. 

The police told us after eight years we are getting more calls 

than ever and we were pretty depressed about that until they 

shared with us that their view was that the neighbors were now 

willing to make a phone call and they could actually see the potential crime without leaving their homes where they felt safe. I think 

there is great opportunity for those kinds of outcomes. 

We have had smaller communities consider that same plan. We 

think it is replicable. We have been through several small phases 

because we didn’t have enough money to do it at one time. 

I think working hand in hand with a community, being great listeners, trying to be strategic with the tools and resources we have 

has been a major win for them. I am really proud of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. It sounds great. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Gore, for that and all your work. 

Appropriations for Indian housing have not kept pace with inflation and the cuts under sequestration further exacerbated the scarcity of funds for affordable housing. In fact, you noted in your testimony that NAHASDA’s purchasing power has decreased by nearly 

half since 1998. 

It is time to move in the other direction. The President’s budget 

on Monday proposed an additional $25 million to support Indian 

housing and economic development. That is a start. 

Ms. Gore, you said ‘‘housing needs in Indian Country are simply 

too significant for lasting progress to be made without the investment of additional resources.’’ What could increase funding for Indian housing block grants not only in terms of direct spending on 

housing but also in terms of the tribes’ ability to leverage those 

funds for additional resources? 

34 

Ms. GORE. We are used to being scrappers but I think we are 

sort of at the end of the rope in terms of scrapping. The more we 

develop, the less need money we really have to invest. 

To an investor, it means if we have reauthorization of 

NAHASDA, they know we have an income stream that they can 

count on. That will matter to investors. They care that our money 

has not been reauthorized. Though we have confidence in all of 

you, that does matter. 

If we had additional funding, I can tell you we all have pipelines 

of development that are five to ten years long that we cannot get 

to for the lack of resources. We can attract more resources but we 

need that first money in and that is always NAHASDA. 

If you look back historically, you would see that without 

NAHASDA, leveraging was nonexistent in Indian Country. We had 

to have that first dollar in. Even now, when we think about the 

communities we serve in Alaska, we are dependent on seasonal 

economies and subsistence economies, lack of infrastructure, no 

roads to most of Alaska, so you can imagine literally half of our 

costs are transportation of materials. 

That extra money is going to matter. We can get scale. We will 

build five homes instead of one. You cannot imagine how much 

scale that would bring to a small community scrapping together 

under Title VI. 

Using 184, if we could build two 4-plex units instead of one 4- 

plex unit, that makes a difference. You might be doubling the 

availability of housing with just one doubling of that one development in one small community. Little things really matter. 

Senator FRANKEN. In your last answer, you talked about the effect of putting up good looking houses. In 2013, we heard testimony 

from Chairwoman Karen Diver of Fond du Lac, Minnesota. She 

testified that close to 20 percent of her tribe’s service population 

lives in overcrowded homes, that this can cause safety concerns 

and increase the spread of communicable disease, and cause greater stress. 

Overcrowded housing has a particular impact on children. A 

2012 report by Wilder Research stated that it can ‘‘threaten their 

educational success, health and mental health and personal development.’’ 

This problem is obviously not specific to one tribe. A disproportionate number of homes on tribal lands are inadequate, overcrowded or unaffordable. Ms. Difuntorum, you mentioned a number 

of other challenges tribes face such as poverty, poor health and 

poor education. 

Can you comment on how lack of quality, affordable education 

compounds those problems? 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. I believe Senator Heitkamp mentioned when 

you don’t have a home, have multiple people living in the same 

home, you don’t have the opportunity to go to school. A lot of times, 

we don’t have teachers in our schools for the student to teacher 

ratio that the States require. It is a challenge for rural areas to get 

teachers to come into the area and stay there. 

I know on the Siletz Reservation, people actually bus their children to other schools because the quality of education in the rural 

community and the lack of, I don’t want to say something ugly 

35 

about the teachers, the lack of ability to recruit and maintain a 

good educational system and educators. A lot of it has to do with 

the lack of available housing for them. 

Senator FRANKEN. Law enforcement too, I would imagine. 

Is it okay, Mr. Chairman, if I ask the other two to comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, please continue. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. The other side of that coin, Senator, if we ask our 

young people to please do well in school, get an education and then 

come home, share what you know and build your communities and 

we can’t give them a place to live. They end up off reservation 

sharing their knowledge, spirit and culture rather than where they 

would rather be. 

We see that happen every single day because of the lack of the 

ability to get affordable loans in a timely fashion. 

Ms. GORE. May I comment on the overcrowding? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, please. 

Ms. GORE. I would put it maybe in the context of domestic violence which is a huge issue in Alaska. That is often the result of 

not just overcrowding but the lack of safe shelter. How do you get 

out of a domestic violence situation if there is no place to go? 

In our smaller Indian communities, there is rarely any sort of 

safe house or transitional housing, so we often wonder why it is 

just a cycle. I think the lack of affordable housing is just the foundation of virtually every social issue. 

When you look at the data, you find Alaska Natives and Native 

American people are over represented in virtually every one of 

those social conditions. I can’t say enough. 

I came to this from the housing business generally but I can tell 

you this has my passion because I see it from people who come into 

our office every single day. They don’t come because they have an 

answer and just need a house. They come because they have 15 

things going on and we are the solution. 

We have to make housing first. It is the first solution for all the 

things you are talking about today. I appreciate the highlight on 

the issue. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Lankford. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you all for being here and the conversation today. 

There are 566 recognized tribes nationwide. Is the issue of affordable housing and access to loans true for all 566? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I think there have been quite a few tribes. I 

would say not a large number but probably a percentage, maybe 

10 or 15 percent that have really blossomed under NAHASDA. 

They have the capacity to do it right. It has really given them an 

opportunity. 

Senator LANKFORD. Let’s talk about that a bit. That is one of the 

things I like to do. In neighborhoods, communities, schools, wherever it is, because sometimes you look at the school and you say 

all these kids are having a really tough time. When you slow down 

and look at it, you go, no, there is 5 or 10 percent thriving in it. 

36 

It begs the question of why. What is it we can learn? Those being 

successful in it are there characteristics we can pick up and pass 

around? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Fabulous capacity, if they are a self-governance 

tribe that has had success. One of the failures of NAHASDA, as a 

person who was there and advocated for it, as we look back, it assumed every tribe had the same level of capacity. As we know now, 

that is not true. 

I think we should have gone to more of an approach of opt in/ 

opt out like some other self governance programs. While this isn’t 

true, the self governance program as defined by the BIA and IHS, 

it has a lot of the components. 

Many small tribes need HUD to help them run a low rent program because they don’t have any capacity to do it and their members suffer. Tribes who do have the capacity and are willing to take 

off, if I had it to do over, I think we would discuss that sort of situation. 

Senator LANKFORD. Self-governance, is that the main thing, their 

capacity for self-governance is the dividing point? Are there other 

areas you can look at and say I think that is a part of this? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. It helps to be near or have a tremendous amount 

of fee land. The more restricted land there is, the bigger hurdle 

there is. 

Senator LANKFORD. Reservation or non-reservation land in trust, 

fee-based, that becomes a big issue as well? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Absolutely. Our reservation at Flathead, over half 

of it is in trust but the half that isn’t is in fee and the Flatheads 

are a minority there. You can get a 184 loan on fee land within the 

outside boundaries of the reservation very quickly but trust land, 

not so quick. 

Senator LANKFORD. Define for me not so quick. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. It sort of depends on the number of factors. If it 

is a leasehold, it can happen maybe twice as long. There could be 

other issues. There are sometimes underwriting issues. 

Senator LANKFORD. Tell me in times, days, weeks or months. For 

fee based land, how many months or days or weeks, whatever it 

may be and then tell me about the other. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. From start to finish with appraisal in the works 

on fee based, you should be able to get a loan closed within 30 

days. Tom Wright, who has overseen $4 billion worth, might want 

to argue that but it has been our experience at Flathead one month 

for a fee based 184 loan. The underwritings change with little nuances to it but 30 days. 

Senator LANKFORD. The underwriting changed based on DoddFrank or some recent regulations or is that something else? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. I think all those are a piece. Dodd-Frank, environmental rules, a lot of different things changed, underwriting 

rules, HUD’s relationship with banks. 

It is one of the things I have been talking to Assistant Secretary 

Boyd about and Tom Wright that this $4 billion of loans has been 

a wonderful thing for Indians nationwide but my concern is it has 

all been done without real consultation with tribes. I wish that 184 

was subject to negotiated rulemaking. We could help solve some of 

37 

their problems and make sure there continues to be a program 

focus on helping the most underserved communities. 

They have had good success with it and it has been able to meet 

some of the needs used in other ways. Take Northern Cheyenne, 

98 percent trust land, and they have to go to Billings for all their 

title work. When they identify a lot for a potential building, oftentimes they find out the surveys were done 30 or 40 years ago and 

are incorrect. The Bureau won’t accept them. 

They have a very, very slow process. I have heard, as I think 

Senator Tester or someone mentioned this morning, a two year 

window of one family that waited two years to have a title status 

report so they could proceed with a loan. The markets and banks 

wanting to 184 loans simply cannot tolerate that. 

Senator LANKFORD. Obviously they have turned around, they 

have cost and expenses. If it is a fee based, 30 days or so and that 

has gotten a little longer with some of the recent regulatory actions. If it is in trust, you are saying two years or two months? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. No, not as a rule. I have heard that as a worst 

case example. 

Senator LANKFORD. What do you think it is typically? 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Typically, if it is a good lease and everything is 

in good shape, I would say more like eight weeks. 

Senator LANKFORD. Twice as long. 

Mr. GAUTHIER. Twice as long. One other point just for discussion, 

there are things being done. The HEARTH Act was supported by 

almost everyone. At the conference this morning, they said only 

two tribes out of 566, probably 400 that would have a use for it, 

only two tribes two years later have adopted the regulations for 

residential leasing. 

To me that is an illustration of the capacity and awareness of understanding the complexity of building at each reservation a system that is friendly to lending. 

Montana and Wyoming, we started the Montana-Wyoming Association which has been working with the Bureau and the University of Montana, Indian Law Clinic. We now have drafts for all ten 

of our tribes. We are hoping by the spring we have a HEARTH Act 

implemented with every one of those tribes. 

We are also working with the Bureau to develop an alternative 

to an appraisal that is State licensed. Those kinds of appraisals 

don’t work on Indian reservations. They have been a problem and 

184 anticipated it and allows, in most cases, the replacement value 

of the cost of construction and to move an appraisal but that is 

nonconforming. 

There is a lot of pressure to make these loans conform more and 

as they do, they are available to less and less qualified Indian borrowers. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions Senator Franken, Senator 

Heitkamp? If there are no further questions, members may also 

submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing 

record will be open for two weeks. 

I want to thank each of you for being here today to testify. 

Thank you for your time and your travel. 

38 

Alison, we wish you the very best at the White House. Don’t forget us while you are down there. Remember we are still up here. 

All the best to you and thanks for your hard work. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ