U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

24–401 PDF 2005

IMPROVING LAND TITLE GRANT

PROCEDURES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 19, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–46

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

ROBERT U. FOSTER, III, Staff Director 

(III)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

HENRY BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico 

CATHY MCMORRIS, Washington 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JIM COSTA, California 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota

STEVEN J. DING, Chief of Staff 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 19, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 19, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 35

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005

Boyd, Rodger J., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public and Indian Housing, 

Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development ......................................................................................................... 10

Wells, Arch, Acting Director, Office Of Trust Services, Bureau Of Indian 

Affairs, Department Of The Interior .................................................................. 12

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Ney, Hon. Robert W. ........................................................................................ 36

Baca, Hon. Joe .................................................................................................. 38

Kildee, Hon. Dale E. ......................................................................................... 40

Boyd, Rodger J. ................................................................................................. 42

Wells, Arch ........................................................................................................ 45

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Boyd, Rodger J.: 

HUD Section 184 Month End Report, July 31, 2005 ..................................... 48

Well, Arch: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Barney Frank .............................. 49

Written response to questions from Hon. Stevan Pearce .............................. 49

Written response to questions from Hon. Joe Baca ....................................... 50

(1)

IMPROVING LAND TITLE GRANT 

PROCEDURES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS 

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, JOINT WITH THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in Room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Ney presiding. 

Present from Committee on Financial Services: Lucas, Ney, Kennedy, Feeney, Renzi, Pearce, Neugebauer, Frank, Lee, Baca, 

Matheson, Scott, and Wasserman Schultz. 

Present from Committee on Resources: Fortuno, McMorris, Kildee, Grijalva, Cardoza, Costa, and Herseth. 

Mr. NEY. [Presiding.] The hearing will come to order. 

This is a joint hearing on improving land title grant procedures 

for Native Americans. 

One of the most important cornerstones to a strong community 

is homeownership. It creates stability and serves as a strong economic staple in our overall U.S. economy. 

While the national homeownership rate has steadily risen to an 

all-time high of almost 70 percent, there are sectors of the population for whom homeownership remains unattainable. For Native 

Americans, just to mention one group, the focus of today’s joint 

hearing, their homeownership rate is well below 50 percent. 

Clearly more can and should be done to help all families realize 

the dream of owning a home. Presently, the Native American population is estimated at 2.5 million. While the national poverty rate 

is 12 percent, the rate among Native Americans is more than twice 

as high. Forty-five percent of all Native American households are 

located on tribal lands, and housing is one of the most pressing 

issues for Native Americans living on tribal lands. 

Our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and I and Congressman 

Matheson, along with Congressman Frank’s staff, went out and 

had a hearing. It was unbelievable what we viewed out there when 

it came to housing and the conditions. 

Over 32.5 percent of the homes located on tribal lands are overcrowded and 7.5 percent of the Native American homes lack safe 

water and sewage systems. Less than 50 percent of the homes on 

reservations are connected to public sewer systems, and 16.5 percent of the homes on Native lands are completely without indoor 

plumbing. About 40 percent of the tribal homes are considered substandard when compared to a national average of 6 percent. 

2

Again last year, the Housing Subcommittee held our field hearing on tribal land in Tuba City, Arizona, where again we were able 

to witness first-hand the chronic housing affordability and availability problems plaguing Native Americans. 

I want to thank Congressman Renzi for asking us to do that. It 

was the first time that we could research that a House subcommittee ever held a hearing on tribal lands. That was at Congressman Renzi’s request, and I appreciate both the majority and 

minority participating in that hearing. 

Approximately half of Native American households in tribal 

areas pay over 30 percent of their income for housing expenses, 

compared to 23 percent of all U.S. residents who pay more than 30 

percent of their income for their housing expenses. 

The Arizona field hearing gave us the opportunity to learn that 

some of the housing problems in Indian Country can be attributed 

to the unique relationships Native American tribes have with the 

U.S. Government. Native Americans residing on reservations are 

U.S. citizens, but their tribes are recognized as domestic sovereign 

nations with treaty relationships with the U.S. Government. 

The fact that the Bureau of Indian Affairs holds much in trust 

means the tribes are allowed only limited sovereignty over their 

lands. The special relationship limits the types of economic activities for which Indian lands may be used. We also found out out 

there that sometimes it takes up to 1 year or 1 1/2 or 2 years to 

get the title cleared. Of course, if you are trying to get a loan, that 

does not really work out, that time period. In order for Native 

Americans to build a home on trust land, they have to obtain a 

title status report, TSR, from the BIA. 

Today’s hearing will focus on what processes the BIA has in 

place to help produce a TSR for Native American lands in a timely 

fashion, as well as how BIA affects HUD’s ability to help Native 

Americans achieve homeownership. It is important that an efficient 

process is adhered to by BIA, as HUD programs such as the Indian 

Community Development Block Grant Program and the Indian 

Housing Block Grant Program are affected by BIA’s ability to issue 

this TSR. 

Changing land status issues, diversity of tribal laws and governments, lack of mortgage information and credit issues all contribute to the challenges of mortgage lending in Indian nations. 

The governmental programs delivered to Indian Country should be 

highly flexible and adapted to the very unique and specific circumstances in each tribal setting. Native Americans must be able 

to take full advantage of partnering and leveraging across institutions at levels throughout the United States Government. 

If we begin to succeed at these initiatives, then opportunities I 

think will move into these rural areas. 

Again, the minority rate period in the United States is unacceptable in homeownership, and we have to raise that, and again today’s issue of Native Americans. 

So I want to thank again the joint hearing, Chairman Pombo, 

Mr. Frank, Mr. Kildee, Congresswoman Waters, and members from 

both sides of the aisle on both committees for this hearing. 

We will move to an opening statement from Mr. Kildee of Michigan. 

3

[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found on 

page 36 in the appendix.] 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank Chairman Oxley and Chairman Pombo, along 

with Congressman Ney and Congressman Frank, for scheduling 

this hearing today. 

For several years I have heard that the primary barrier to mortgage lending in Indian Country is that the BIA cannot process titles in a timely manner. Tribes assert that the process of attaining 

a certified TSR can take 6 months to several years. This has had 

a devastating effect on HUD’s Section 184 program that requires 

a land title through the BIA. 

A substantial portion of HUD’s Section 184 program funding for 

fiscal year 2005 was rescinded because the funds were not fully 

used. As a matter of fact, under 184, $33 million was rescinded, 

and under another title, $21 million was rescinded. 

In 2000, Congress authorized the Indian Lands Title Report 

Commission to make recommendations to the BIA to address the 

title processing issue. The commission has yet to be created because the Administration has yet to make its nominations. We cannot wait any longer to address this title issue. We must streamline 

the BIA’s title system. 

Among other things, this will require a review of the following: 

BIA’s trust management reform efforts relating to land records, 

how land fractionation hinders the title process, missing historical 

land ownership and title data, and current procedures of the eight 

land title and record offices. 

We must also explore alternative methods of expediting Indian 

land titles through, for example, Indian Self-Determination Act 

contracts or compacts. I am committed to working with the committees of jurisdiction, the Administration and the tribes, the sovereign tribes to develop a solution to this problem. 

I look forward to today’s hearing. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee can be found on 

page 40 in the appendix.] 

Mr. NEY. I want to thank the gentleman. 

Next, the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your strong 

interest, not just in this particular issue, but in housing issues in 

general. 

I want to pay tribute to the leadership that my colleague, the 

gentleman from Michigan, has provided on the whole question of 

Indian matters. 

The housing situation is one that we ought to be able to improve 

significantly. I appreciate the acknowledgement in Mr. Wells’s testimony that there have been some problems. Obviously, we cannot 

solve all the problems. I noticed, too, in Mr. Boyd’s, he said that 

these problems are not responsible for all of the issues we face. 

Agreed, but we can clear this one up. 

It is simply unacceptable for there to be any significant delay in 

issuing these TSRs. We should, I think, agree that within a couple 

of months they are going to be as quickly done as you can process 

the paper, unless you have one of those unusual situations where 

4

there is a problem. I would think, given that we are talking about 

a fixed number of areas of the tribal trust lands that there ought 

to be a pattern that could be followed very quickly. 

So I am going to be asking if anything needs to be done legislatively to speed this up, let us know. If not, I would then hope that 

we would know very soon that these things are going to be done 

in weeks at most, and even weeks seems too long. Everybody is in 

favor of this. The notion that processing paper should interfere is 

a problem, particularly when we are talking about the market for 

the interest rate float, et cetera. But I am told, as Mr. Kildee mentioned, that we have delays that go into months and maybe years. 

There is just no reason to do that. So if you need more people or 

if you need more legislative authority, you have to tell us. 

The processing of these documents ought to be just a routine 

thing. That is not going to solve all the problems of the world, but 

that is a very big one we can go forward in solving. So I am delighted that we have had the hearing. 

As we have often found, I think, the very fact that the chairmen 

of both committees agreed to have the hearing should be helpful. 

All the attention is focused. But I would hope that out of this meeting will come an agreement that we are going to move these things 

very, very quickly, and if there are any obstacles to moving them 

within days, then I would like to know what they are so we can 

go forward with it. 

There is simply no reason why people who live in the tribal trust 

lands ought to be in any way disadvantaged in terms of housing. 

That is what I hope will come out of this hearing. 

Mr. NEY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his concern and comments and also reiterate thanks to Chairman Oxley 

and Chairman Pombo for the hearing. 

The gentleman from New Mexico? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your having 

these hearings. 

In my district, we find continuously that economic development 

is hindered because of the complex and often untanglable mass of 

bureaucracy around the trust lands. 

In the past we have begun discussions with Native Americans in 

New Mexico about simply doing away with the trust status. I am 

not sure why we need it anymore. I think if we begin to unevolve 

that particular part of the problem, that Native Americans might 

be able to get somewhere on their own for the first time. 

So we will be listening carefully to the comments. Thank you. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from South Dakota? 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing today. I appreciate the statements that have already been submitted, and I look forward to posing some questions 

to our witnesses today. 

A lot of this has already been said by my colleagues, but I would 

just like to point out that in Indian Country and in South Dakota, 

I represent nine sovereign tribes. The ongoing perennial issues 

with regard to trust management more broadly, as we all know, 

pose some problems. But as tribal leaders across South Dakota and 

across the country are working towards solid economic development 

5

plans for their tribes, for their members, homeownership, adequate 

housing for that matter, is a real and important part of their economic development plans. 

To have the type of burden, the undue burden that has been 

placed on many individual Indians seeking homeownership opportunities because of the delays in clearing title is something that 

would try anyone’s patience. People can only be patient for so long, 

not just the potential homebuyer, but the lender certainly. 

So I look forward to a discussion today that hopefully, as Ranking Member Frank indicated, will help identify some ways, whether 

it is legislatively if need be, to advance this process in a way that 

is good for the nine tribes that I represent, as well as other tribes 

across the country. 

At the same time and in different areas, we address the broader 

issues of trust management, fractionation of lands, and the difficulty that I know that poses, but, hopefully, we can address this 

issue in a more timely way because it is hindering other economic 

development that is good for communities in Indian Country and 

certainly good for individual Native Americans seeking to become 

first-time homebuyers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. NEY. I want to thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Arizona is here. 

Prior to your arrival, we publicly recognized and thanked you for 

your interest in this when we went with the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters and her staff, and also for the great cooperation 

which I think has led to this hearing on both sides of the aisle. 

The gentleman from Arizona? 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I appreciate 

your time today and your commitment. 

I represent over 60,000 square miles in the State of Arizona, 52 

percent of the landmass of the State, which includes the Navajo, 

the Hopi, the Zuni, the San Juan Paiute, the Yavapai and Tonto 

Apache, the Yavapai Prescott Tribes, San Carlos, White Mountain 

Apaches. 

Last year, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Frank were kind 

enough to help me hold a hearing in Tuba City up in the Navajo 

Nation. Many of you guys were aware of that and some of the results that came out of it. I do appreciate those who helped us pull 

together those entities and have a successful hearing up in the 

Navajo Nation. 

We saw devastating situations. We saw poverty rarely seen 

across America, where in the Navajo Nation over 27 percent of the 

people are in poverty conditions, which is twice the national average. Almost 33 percent of the reservation’s homes are overcrowded, 

more than six times the national average. And 16 percent of the 

homes on the Navajo Nation lack indoor plumbing. 

So despite the statistics, we came away with hope, with the idea 

of working together and trying to make a difference. Last year, we 

passed legislation where we were able to guarantee the loan program up to 95 percent under the Title VI. Those changes have 

helped some of the lenders who do participate in Indian Country 

loans to be more proactive. 

6

At the same time, if you look traditionally at how Native Americans come to homeownership, it typically in the past was that you 

would inherit the land and then you would go out and build your 

own home on the land. It is not traditionally as you see in America 

now where it is so fluid that you actually go on the Internet, get 

a mortgage, go out and buy a home somewhere, and have 20 people 

beating down your door to give you a good loan. That does not happen up on the Navajo Nation. It does not happen in Indian Country. 

And yet we have guaranteed programs where there is money 

each year that is unused that we are giving back. We are giving 

back money that could be used by our Native Americans, and we 

are giving it back to the Government. We are giving it back because there are not enough counselors and not enough people up 

there on the Native American lands, on their soil, teaching them 

how to engage in our traditional ways of homeownership, in educating them, in moving them. 

I was on a recent visit to Camp Verde and saw a Yavapai Apache 

living, a family living in an old trailer behind the brand-new house 

because the BIA recordation process had not been completed. Native American families who are approved for mortgages are ready 

to move into their new homes, but they have to wait because mortgage companies will not transfer their ownership to the new homes 

until BIA then gives them final approval, secondary final approval. 

So you have people sitting in trailers when their home is complete 

waiting for final approval. 

Now, Native Americans typically have about half the income as regular, average Americans, which is barely $20,000 up on the 

Navajo Nation. In Tuba City last year we heard testimony where 

the barriers were brought up with private mortgage lending in Indian Country. A lot of it has to do with the timely recordation of 

mortgage documents and the timely retrieval of title status reports, 

as well as the lack of public access to land ownership documents. 

Ninety percent of the land within the Navajo Nation is held in 

trust by the BIA. 

Mr. Boyd and Mr. Wells, I know you are tired of hearing from 

me, but put yourself in the shoes of a young Native American on 

the Navajo Nation. You have a job that actually pays above 

$20,000. You have a wife and kids. You want to move out of the 

cluster development where the methamphetamine is the highest in 

the nation, and you want to get back to rural America and back 

to your traditional roots. It takes an average of 2 years for the title 

search to be done. 

When a private organization wants to find out who owns vacant 

lots on trust land, the BIA will not release ownership information. 

The BIA has stated that the groups must get written permission 

from the owners before the BIA will tell them who the owner is. 

This is BIA’s version of the famous ′′Catch-22.′′ It might even 

seem comical if it weren’t for the fact that absurd policies like this 

contribute to the terrible conditions many Native families find 

themselves in. 

This kind of administrative bureaucracy has a tendency to repress the spirit of all the Native Americans, and I represent more 

of them than anybody else in Congress, to reach homeownership. 

7

And homeownership in Arizona means better marriages, better 

math scores, higher attainment in high school in graduation degrees, lower crime, all the fruits of ownership we see particularly 

come true when you release that entrepreneurial and that independent spirit in Arizona so they can have homeownership. 

Mr. Chairman, I realize I am going on. I very much appreciate 

you and the ranking member allowing us to have this hearing 

today. I am looking forward to drilling into some of these questions 

with the hope that this will begin to crack the nut on some of the 

administrative repressive policies that are in place. I want to work 

together to find solutions here. 

Thank you so very much for coming over. 

Mr. NEY. I thank the gentleman for his comments and interest. 

The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank you and 

our ranking member for holding this hearing today. 

I just say quite frankly that I am appalled and shocked as I learn 

more about and read the huge statistics, first of all, with regard 

to the need for decent, affordable housing for our Native populations. 

Secondly, the fact that we have authorized programs like Section 

184 which guarantee, of course, this American dream of homeownership, yet it takes 6 months, a year, 2 years to process title 

for this. I mean, it is hard to believe that we are doing this. For 

the life of me, this is a bureaucracy that I think needs to be shattered, and hopefully this hearing can begin to do that. 

We look and see the overcrowding issues in Native American 

families, sometimes 18, 20, 25 individuals living under one roof 

with as few as three bedrooms. So I think not only do we need to 

get going on this and try to figure out how to expedite this process, 

but I think Congress needs to appropriate and authorize more 

funding when you look at the huge need, where 200,000 units were 

needed immediately. This was in 2003. I am shocked to learn, well 

really I guess I should not be shocked to learn, that 90,000 Native 

families are homeless or under-housed. 

I guess why I am so surprised and shocked is that we have this 

effort that is on the books. HUD should be able to process title 

more quickly so that we can begin to address these huge and desperate housing needs of our Native American families. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing and hopefully we 

will be able to begin to unravel the difficulties that our Native 

American people are faced with and begin to make sure that they, 

too, are afforded the opportunity of affordable, decent, and safe 

housing for their families. 

Thank you. 

Mr. NEY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, if you have an opening 

statement. 

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the chairman. 

I was motivated by my colleague from Arizona’s passionate discussion. I am here primarily because in my background; I am a 

real estate and title attorney, and if there is any way we can help 

cut through the roadmap. The truth of the matter is that, given the 

desire and the motivation and a computer system, in most places 

8

in the country you can pull up a title report in about 35 minutes. 

You can have it off to the mortgage company with the push of a 

button on a fax machine. 

So there is no reason for extended delays. And if they are happening, I am going to lend my expertise to cut them down. 

I appreciate Mr. Renzi’s comments. 

Mr. NEY. Next, I want to recognize my aunt’s and uncle’s Congressman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Baca. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, ranking member and minority 

members. 

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this very important 

issue regarding Native American housing. We must figure out how 

to cut the red tape, and to promote tribal sovereignty at the same 

time as Native American land ownership, which is very important. 

I state, Native American land ownership. 

I have always been a strong supporter of Native American sovereignty. Through economic development and other initiatives, Native Americans have been able to build schools, roads, clinics, and 

other necessities. They have also been able to make deals and contributions to surrounding communities. 

All of us have benefited by their contributions in our areas. They 

have built strong economic bases for a lot of us in our communities 

in maintaining jobs in our area without outsourcing. I continue to 

salute Native Americans for their achievement and sacrifices for 

this country. Many of them have served us gallantly in many of the 

wars and continue to do so. By currying legislation and encouraging teaching about Native Americans, they promote their history 

and establishing a holiday to recognize respected Native Americans 

and their culture. This is one of the things that I have done. 

But we must also do more. Native Americans have a poverty 

level that is more than double the Nation’s rate, and I state, Native 

Americans have a poverty level that is more than double the national rate. Much of Native American housing is overcrowded and 

substandard, and I state that. It is overcrowded and substandard. 

Native American housing is expensive. Approximately half of Native American households in tribal areas pay over 30 percent of 

their income for housing, compared to 23 percent of all other residents. 

Native Americans lack sovereignty. Much of Native American 

land is held by trust, and I state, much of Native American land 

is held by trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes do not have 

the authority, I state, tribes do not have the authority to sell, lease, 

or mortgage trust land without Federal approval. Again, tribes do 

not have the authority to sell, lease, or mortgage trust land without 

Federal approval. We must address this problem. 

Much land has been taken away from Native Americans. Approximately 90 million acres of trust lands have been removed from 

Native American lands since the late 1800s. We must address this 

injustice. Native Americans face a lot of bureaucracy in trying to 

build homes, and I state, bureaucracy in trying to build homes. The 

process is very lengthy and requires a great deal of work, time, and 

money. They should not be affected like anybody else who wants 

to build a home. We see these homes going up. We see no bureaucracy. We see them happening. But when it comes to Native AmeriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:11 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.46 RODNEY
9

cans, it seems like it requires a lot more time, work, and money. 

This needs to be changed. 

It is my understanding that in California there alone is a backlog 

of over 4,000 title status report requests. In fact, one of the tribes 

that I am aware of this has had Title I statute report requests 

processed in the past 2 years, and that is a long time, with 50 requests pending, many of which are from the year 2001 or even 

2000. Meanwhile in the private sector, title status reports can often 

be completed in 24 hours. That is double standards. Why is it that 

we can do it in the private sector, yet we cannot do it in tribal 

land? 

This is not acceptable. We can do better. I look forward to being 

here today so that we can examine and address the problems. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Baca can be found on page 

38 in the appendix.] 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking 

member. I appreciate the opportunity and appreciate this hearing 

very much. 

Let me at the beginning associate myself with the comments that 

Ms. Lee and Mr. Baca have just made. The issue of homeownership 

is a national priority for this Administration and this Congress. 

The consequence of the hearing today I hope is to examine and 

change the process by which Native American people can meet that 

goal of homeownership in this country, which is a laudable goal 

and a necessary goal. 

So in associating myself with their comments, let me stress that 

the issue is also sovereignty, but the issue is to extend the dream 

of homeownership to every American, and this certainly includes 

our first Americans. 

Thank you. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, who was at our hearing. We appreciated that. 

Mr. MATHESON. I would just like to say, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for initiating that hearing. I thought it was real 

helpful. I want to acknowledge also my colleague, Mr. Renzi. for his 

leadership on this. I have really enjoyed working on Native American housing issues with him. I look forward to this hearing. 

Thanks so much. 

Mr. NEY. With that, we will go on to the two witnesses. 

First is Mr. Rodger Boyd. Mr. Boyd is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Native American Programs, known as 

ONAP, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Prior 

to his position, he was Program Manager in the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for the Department of the 

Treasury. As a program manager, he designed and directed the 

fund’s congressional-mandated Native American Lending Study. 

Throughout his career, Mr. Boyd has worked with Indian tribal 

governments, Federal agencies, and the private sector to explore 

and develop economic development opportunities for the Native 

10

American communities with the goal of establishing self-sustaining 

economies. 

Mr. Arch Wells was appointed acting Bureau Deputy Director, 

Office of Trust Services for the BIA, in 2004. As the Bureau Deputy 

Director, Mr. Wells is responsible for all activities associated with 

management and protection of trust and restricted lands. This protection involves the oversight of national programs including land 

title and records offices, minerals and energy management, and forestry and fire management. 

Previously, Mr. Wells served as the acting Director for the BIA’s 

southwest region in Albuquerque, New Mexico, beginning in 2002 

to 2003. Prior to that position, he served as Trust Resources Protection Manager for the BIA’s southwest region from 2000 to 2002. 

I would also, before we proceed, note that without objection all 

members’s opening statements will be made part of the record for 

members who were not here at this particular time. 

We will begin with Mr. Boyd. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, OFFICE OF NATIVE 

AMERICAN PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Financial Services and Resources Committees, for inviting me to comment today on the BIA’s title status report process and its impact 

on homeownership and the implementation of HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block Grant 

Programs. 

As mentioned, I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office 

of Native American Programs in the Office of Public and Indian 

Housing. I am responsible for the management, operation, and 

oversight of HUD’s Native American programs. 

These programs are available to over 562 federally recognized 

tribes throughout the country. We serve these tribes directly or 

through their tribally designated housing entities, or TDHEs, by 

providing grants and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community and economic development activities. 

For more than 5 years, the Office of Public and Indian Housing 

has been in discussions with various departments to formulate a 

memorandum of understanding to develop an expedited process for 

land title searches for homeownership in Indian Country and to 

better coordinate our respective programs. 

Agency representatives signed an MOU in September 2004. Since 

the MOU signing, an interagency task force has participated in a 

series of meetings that have generated meaningful discussions and 

a greater understanding of the impact that the title status report 

or TSR process has on Federal loan guarantee initiatives in Indian 

Country. 

The Office of Native American Programs can see where progress 

has been made to improve the TSR process in some regions. However, there continue to be inconsistencies in the time it takes to 

process the TSR request from region to region. The BIA has informed HUD and USDA that the newly developed residential lease 

regulations will be released later this summer. 

11

I am optimistic that the new leasing regulations and the resulting guidelines will provide a uniform process that supports mortgage financing. The creation of a centralized process will enhance 

the leasehold lending process by eliminating the different policy interpretations that occur on a regional basis. 

HUD has received feedback from lenders who are concerned 

about the length of time it takes to process leasehold transactions. 

The discussion has focused on the potential costs to the borrower, 

who is subject to interest rate fluctuations due to market conditions while waiting out the process. 

The homeownership rate among Native Americans lags behind 

that of the rest of the country. Although there are a number of contributing factors, the lack of a resale market on reservations is a 

major consideration. Streamlining the TSR process and increasing 

the level of homeownership and credit counseling will support the 

evolution of a more vibrant housing market in Indian Country. 

In addition to our work looking at options with other agencies on 

the memorandum of understanding, HUD has worked with a 

Northeast tribe and the Department of the Interior’s solicitor’s office in Washington to create mortgage lending based on tribal assignment law. The solicitor’s office has issued an opinion that the 

assignment law would not require secretarial approval. 

A national title insurance company is prepared to issue title 

opinions on the assignments, creating the necessary mechanism to 

perfect a lien on the assignment. The tribe must develop an approved process to record the assignments that meet the title company’s requirements. ONAP is cautiously optimistic that the assignment law option can assist tribes that have the capacity and 

expertise to implement such a program. 

The TSR process has minimal impact on the Indian Housing 

Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block Grant 

Programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 recognized and simplified the department’s 

system of housing assistance to Native Americans by eliminating 

several separate HUD programs of assistance and replacing them 

with a single block grant made directly to the tribes or tribally designated housing entities. This Act recognizes the right of tribal selfgovernance and the unique relationship between the Federal Government and the respective Governments of Indian tribes. 

NAHASDA, as it is called, significantly changed the way HUD 

provides housing funds to Indian communities. The Indian Housing 

Block Grant Program offers maximum flexibility to tribes or their 

TDHEs to design, implement, and administer their own unique 

housing programs. The department is no longer involved in the 

day-to-day operations of the housing program and our involvement 

with tribes, and the Bureau regulating lease issues for the housing 

developments is limited. 

Also, development projects using Indian Housing Block Grant 

funding are typically larger in scale and require more planning, 

which allows more time for interaction with the BIA. Although 

there have been some delays, the impact is not as great as seen in 

the Section 184 program. 

Tribal governments and a limited number of tribal organizations 

are the only eligible participants in the Indian Community DevelVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:11 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.46 RODNEY
12

opment Block Grant Program, and new housing construction is limited under this program. In most cases, the development of community facilities, including health facilities, would be on tribal land 

and there would not be a need for tribes to issue a lease to themselves. 

Decisions to acquire fee land, former reservation lands, and other 

parcels of land to be put into trust are tribal decisions. The status 

of such lands would not ordinarily affect the viability of an economic development project so long as the tribe has control over the 

land sufficient to accomplish its proposed goals and objectives as 

stated in its application. 

In summary, the TSR process has room for improvement, but it 

is not solely responsible for the current homeownership rate in Indian Country. HUD has seen an increase in cooperation with the 

BIA and looks forward to working with the Bureau to develop solutions that streamline the TSR process. HUD is committed to supporting homeownership education programs and is working with 

the BIA and USDA to develop some successful models that demonstrate the benefits of a collaborative interagency initiative. 

Thank you for providing the department the opportunity to testify about this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Rodger J. Boyd can be found on page 

42 in the appendix.] 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Wells? 

STATEMENT OF ARCH WELLS, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

TRUST SERVICES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you. 

In saying that I am heartened to hear the field experience that 

sits in this room, it is where I come from. 

Mr. NEY. That is okay. We are still not used to it ourselves, so 

you are in good company. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WELLS. Good. 

So good morning Chairman Oxley, Chairman Pombo, members of 

the committee. My name is Arch Wells. I am the acting Director 

for Trust Services for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I come out of 

the Southwest. I have at least 28 1/2 years of experience in Indian 

Country. 

I am heartened to hear the interest in getting this resolved. I, 

too, have witnessed a lot of what you have witnessed. The gentlemen from Arizona and New Mexico, you come from my stomping 

grounds. You have obviously seen what I have seen, so I am glad 

to be here. 

I am here today to provide the Department’s testimony on the 

BIA’s role in assisting individual Indians in the pursuit of homeownership. I will begin by providing some background information 

on the current process and procedures for obtaining a title status 

report, known as TSRs, and the BIA, and comment on this process. 

The BIA has land title and records offices, or LTRO, located 

within eight of its regions, those being Anchorage, Alaska; 

Muskogee, Oklahoma; Aberdeen, South Dakota; Portland, Oregon; 

13

Sacramento, California; Billings, Montana; Anadarko, Oklahoma; 

and Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I hail from. Each LTRO is 

responsible for recording all title and encumbrance documents for 

Indian lands within their respective regions and they issue certified TSRs to provide a record of ownership. 

A TSR is a compilation of the information in the LTRO ownership. It is a compilation of all of that data. It is a legal description 

of recorded liens and encumbrances on a designated parcel of land. 

The production of TSRs for mortgages is our LTRO offices’ top priority. We are striving to get those things out the door as fast as 

possible. We strongly support programs that improve or develop 

housing on Indian lands for Indian people, as does HUD, as stated 

by Mr. Boyd. 

The current procedure requires that all requests for a TSR for 

mortgage purposes first go through the agency superintendents at 

the relevant BIA office or through the regional director on behalf 

of the tribal member. The certified title is required by the lending 

institution as part of the lending institutions effort to verify that 

the loan applicant has acquired a leasehold interest on tribal land 

or that the loan applicant has total ownership on trust land and 

that the title is clean and clear of any liens against the property 

so the loan application process can move forward unimpeded. 

Once the mortgage has been approved using the BIA-generated 

TSR, the document is sent to the LTRO for recording purposes with 

a request for a second certified TSR, as Mr. Renzi noted. HUD requires the subsequent TSR showing the mortgage as an encumbrance to the title before the loan is guaranteed. That is a requirement. Some lending institutions also require this additional TSR 

before releasing the funds. 

There are very few differences in the production of TSRs from location to location. When there are, often those differences are dictated by the particular lending institution or Federal agency providing the loan. Requirements and standard operating procedures 

vary from Federal agency to Federal agency. The BIA LTROs strive 

to accommodate these differences as we support the mission to provide home loans to Indian people. Private lending institutions also 

have varying requirements and procedures. Consequently, our process for providing TSRs may vary to accommodate the lender. 

Due to increasing workloads within the LTRO program over the 

years, we found that some offices have provided an uncertified title 

status report showing the mortgage as reflected in the LTRO 

records as an encumbrance to the property in lieu of the certified 

report. There has been some heartburn over that. On April 13, 

2005, BIA issued a directive requiring that all LTROs provide certified title status reports when requested by the agency superintendents or regional directors. 

BIA has qualified and dedicated personnel within the LTRO program to examine our records and produce TSRs. We are the sole 

source for Indian trust land records. Because Indian trust land 

records are to a degree confidential, lending institutions and other 

Federal lenders are completely dependent upon the BIA for all certified TSRs, thus creating a significant workload. 

Since the inception of the Federal loan programs, the mortgage 

requests for TSRs have been a high priority for the LTROs. We 

14

have made significant changes to our title program, as Mr. Boyd 

noted, over the past 3 years aimed at improving our ability to deliver in an accurate and timely manner in all aspects of our Indian 

land title operations, including the processing of TSRs. We have 

additional changes planned in the near future which will improve 

the quality of the data in our title system, thus improving our overall product. 

One of the improvements to the BIA title system is the recently 

completed conversion to the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System, known as TAAMS for processing titles at all LTRO 

program offices. The system has greatly improved our ability to 

provide title information to tribes and Indian people. That, I might 

add, is getting us closer to the computerized system noted by the 

gentleman on my right. 

The quality of the data has been significantly improving. We 

have been conducting a comprehensive data cleanup, which we expect to be completed in 6 to 8 months. Without clean data, we are 

nowhere, I might add that. So there is a huge effort onboard right 

now to get the data cleaned up. 

The BIA currently has an efficient process of providing TSRs 

upon request within a reasonable time frame. In the recent memorandum of understanding, noted by Mr. Boyd again, between the 

Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, and 

the Interior, the BIA’s realty and LTRO programs agreed to provide the necessary products and services within 30 days to keep the 

process moving forward to assist Indians in becoming homeowners. 

Lenders can utilize the information in those TSRs to assist in assuring that the lands are free of liens and are available for mortgaging. 

The BIA’s process has remained fairly constant through all of 

these years. However, lenders often do not take the time to learn 

the process or provide sufficient notice that a loan is being processed, so we do have a disconnect we need to work on. The BIA 

needs a reasonable lead time to provide a certified TSR. Thus, a 

key part of an efficient process includes early notice from the borrower or the lender. 

When this takes place, our LTROs are able to produce TSRs in 

a time period comparable to the private sector. Some of the BIA regional offices have started providing training to lenders in order to 

facilitate a timelier processing of TSRs. I intend to roll that out to 

all of the BIA regional offices to make sure all 12 regions are working with the lenders in a training effort to try to bridge this gap. 

In conclusion, anytime a mortgage is approved, it has the potential to improve the quality of life for Indians. As stated earlier, requests for title status reports for mortgage purposes are and will 

remain a high priority for the BIA. Over the past decade, our legacy title system has served us well in spite of its shortcomings. 

Now with our recent conversion to a new real-time title system, it 

has already shown increased efficiency and cost savings. 

As we continue to enhance our title system, streamline our business processes, and develop adequate budgets through performance 

measures to address our workloads, we hope to eliminate any situation where we have failed to provide timely title service to meet 

the needs of our Indian clients. 

15

I would also like to add, in a nutshell, lenders must recognize 

that, one, obtaining a TSR should be part of the lender’s overall effort to verify the condition of title; and two, a TSR is a summary 

of the information from the current records of the BIA at the time 

of the issuance of the TSR, so there is no confusion on what a TSR 

truly provides. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Arch Wells can be found on page 45 

in the appendix.] 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

The question I have, based on the hearing, lenders said they 

were growing weary of how long it takes and that they were not 

able to commit, obviously, to interest rates and things like that. 

So my one question is—I hate to use the word ′′privatize,′′ but 

if we privatized this—we buy a house through standard process 

and it takes 2 days; you pay about $600—if we privatized this, 

would it work, where you have private attorneys, would that work 

or not? 

Mr. WELLS. I would like to take a first crack at that, if I could. 

I would love to say yes, but I do not think it would because they 

are going to be relying on the same data that we are relying on. 

We are just now becoming automated with the TAAMS system. 

It is a huge conversion from pen and paper-type data into an automated system, and it involves a monumental cleanup effort. 

The private entity would be faced with the same daunting task 

that we are faced with and have less corporate memory to understand it. 

Mr. NEY. Okay. From today forward, how long would it take to 

clean up the data so it is ready? You are in the process of automation and corrections. 

Mr. WELLS. We are on track right now for an 8-month timeframe 

to get all of that cleaned up at eight LTROs. 

Mr. NEY. So are you telling me that 8 months from now we will 

not ever have to have a hearing because it is going to go through 

in 2 days? 

Mr. WELLS. I wish that would be the case. I am not saying that, 

but all the data is going to be cleaned up if we can get all the lenders and the other Federal entities in concert, one way of doing business, and Mr. Boyd noted we are going through a new regulation 

change associated with the fiduciary trust model. 

It is not only the regulation change on TSRs, but it is a regulation change on how we do business in all of realty. We should be 

able to streamline the system. That is one of the primary reasons 

we are doing the regulation change. 

Mr. NEY. So having the private sector clean up the data would 

not help. You are convinced that the way you are doing it will be 

the fastest way to clean the data up. 

Mr. WELLS. I am convinced that the way we are doing it will get 

the job done, and we are using private contractors. There is no way 

that the present staff can do all of this. The way we are doing it 

with private contractors, trying to provide our corporate memory to 

them to get over the rough spots, is about the fastest way we are 

going to get there. 

16

Mr. NEY. And the estimates are within 8 months from now and 

the data is up. How long would it take to get the title done? 

Mr. WELLS. I am saying with 30 days it should be done. 

Mr. NEY. Thirty days. 

Mr. WELLS. Within a 4-week timeframe. 

Mr. NEY. The gentleman from Massachusetts? 

Mr. FRANK. I want to follow up on that. 

Mr. Wells, you say that part of this is coordination among the 

various Federal agencies to agree on a common mode of dealing 

with the land title questions. Is that right? 

Mr. WELLS. That is correct. 

Mr. FRANK. How many agencies are we talking about? 

Mr. WELLS. Primarily three. 

Mr. FRANK. HUD, BIA, and what is the third? 

Mr. WELLS. Agriculture. 

Mr. FRANK. Now, where are we in getting that agreement? Can 

we have it in an hour? If not, why not? 

Mr. WELLS. The agreement was signed in 2004. 

Mr. FRANK. So we have the agreement. 

Mr. WELLS. The agreement is in place. 

Mr. FRANK. And are the procedures carrying out the agreement 

in place? 

Mr. WELLS. I am going to defer to Mr. Boyd on that. 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Boyd? 

Mr. BOYD. What we have been doing recently is to look at different case studies, developing case studies, if you will, around the 

country. One of them is in New Mexico, actually, and we are working with the State finance agency, the Enterprise Foundation and 

a number of tribes, and BIA’s title plant out of Albuquerque to 

begin to really sit down and begin to assess what we really have 

to do to streamline this process. So we are taking it on a case-bycase basis. 

As I mentioned in my testimony as well, what we are doing is 

looking at other options. One of them is the assignment law that 

we have been working on with a tribe in the Northeast and the Solicitor’s office at Interior. 

Mr. FRANK. But this agreement we are talking about, is the 

agreement now in effect? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, it is. 

Mr. FRANK. I guess, you know our frustration, doing this on a 

case-by-case basis troubles me. Why don’t we have just one model 

that we execute? 

Mr. BOYD. When we look at the BIA’s total process, we have 

found out that throughout the country there are maybe a couple of 

different agencies that are responding on a timely basis. We are 

thinking that that could very well be a model. 

Mr. FRANK. What agency, BIA? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. So you said BIA, some agencies are on a timely 

basis, but others apparently are not? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. That is true. 

Mr. FRANK. Why aren’t they? Mr. Wells, do you know which ones 

they are? It is so frustrating. Why can’t they just process the 

17

paper? What is the reason people are not responding on a timely 

basis? 

Mr. WELLS. It would be wonderful if everybody could respond on 

a timely basis. One of the reasons they cannot respond on a timely 

basis outside of the two regions that were just mentioned, fortunately Southwest being one of them where I come from, is because 

we have this huge uphill battle to do the data cleanup. We also 

have a massive probate initiative. 

Mr. FRANK. All right, let’s take these one at a time. What is the 

data cleanup issue? 

Mr. WELLS. The data cleanup issue is the issue where we are 

converting all of the hard-copy data that is in all the files for a century’s worth of material over to an automated system called 

TAAMS, which is the Trust Asset and Accounting Management 

System. 

Mr. FRANK. Why does that have to hold up the individual case? 

Mr. WELLS. Because it is the same individuals that are doing all 

of that data conversion that have to do that. 

Mr. FRANK. Okay. So it is a manpower shortage. 

Mr. WELLS. It is a manpower shortage. 

Mr. FRANK. If you had more people, then you have the same people doing the data cleanup who would be doing the processing on 

the individual cases. So if you had more people to do the individual 

cases, then people would not have to wait so long. Is that correct? 

Mr. WELLS. I would add one qualifier to that. 

Mr. FRANK. What is that? 

Mr. WELLS. More qualified people. 

Mr. FRANK. I will stipulate to that. Yes, I will stipulate to that. 

I am not asking you to hire unqualified people. I appreciate that. 

All right, so how many people would it take? I would like this 

in writing. How many people would it take for the BIA to hire so 

there would be no more delays due to the fact that people were 

busy with the data cleanup, in the whole country? 

Mr. WELLS. I do not have that number right off the top. 

Mr. FRANK. Right. I would like to have that. 

Mr. WELLS. We can get that to you. 

Mr. FRANK. Okay. And then the other thing, you said something 

about probate. 

Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRANK. What is that issue? 

Mr. WELLS. All right. Probate also has a tremendous backlog. I 

do not want to open that can of worms here. 

Mr. FRANK. Why not? No, no. We are here to open cans of worms, 

Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. Okay, we will open that can of worms. 

Mr. FRANK. The problem is that the worms are giving us problems. That is exactly why we are here. Please. 

Mr. WELLS. It is like a court scenario. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FRANK. A what scenario? 

Mr. WELLS. A court scenario. I should not have said it. 

Mr. FRANK. No, excuse me. That bothers me. We are here to try 

to fix the problem, and no, you should not be withholding or worrying about opening cans of worms. The victims of the unopened 

18

cans of worms are why we are here. And no, that is totally inappropriate. We are here to fix this problem. 

What is the probate issue? 

Mr. WELLS. The probate situation is that there have been a myriad of probates that have not been tackled over a long period of 

time. We are all about getting the backlog cleaned up, because you 

cannot do new probates without getting the old probates cleaned 

up. You do the new probates without getting the old probates 

cleaned up and the old probates affect the new probates. 

Mr. FRANK. Again, is it a case of not having enough people? 

Mr. WELLS. Pardon me? 

Mr. FRANK. On the probate, this is because the land has been 

split up. Is that the problem? 

Mr. WELLS. Fractionation is part of the problem. The Indian 

Land Consolidation Act is spurring a lot of this along. 

Mr. FRANK. Again, is it a manpower shortage, a person-power 

shortage? A qualified person-power shortage? 

Mr. WELLS. Absolutely, no question about it. I have 144 people 

strictly working on probates. That is not near enough. I have had 

to extract those people out of the realty function that do what you 

are talking about doing on TSRs. 

Mr. FRANK. All right. This, I think, we are getting somewhere. 

So, in other words, what we have is basically the Native Americans 

who want to take advantage of these programs, who want to be 

able to participate, they are being it seems to me doubly victimized. 

First of all, they are victimized historically because we let things 

get screwed up. And now they are being victimized because the 

people who should be helping them process the documents to buy 

their homes are too busy unscrewing things up. So it seems to me 

we owe people just to hire some more people. Again I will ask you, 

as I did in the first case, please let me know how many people we 

would need to fix it up. I think that is something we will address. 

Mr. WELLS. We will do that. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. [Presiding.] I thank the ranking member. 

We will move to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. 

I am frankly pretty underwhelmed by the factual data presented 

in both reports. It seems if you have a shortage of people, your report should have documented that. 

In the past when we processed one of these TSRs—say I am a 

Native American and bought a property and 2 weeks later someone 

else wanted to buy that property from me, would that transaction 

be all categorized and clean so that the next one could go through? 

Or is it going to take another 2 years? 

Mr. WELLS. I do not think it would take 2 years. 

Mr. PEARCE. How long would it take? 

Mr. WELLS. Let me ask my learned crew back here for a minute, 

if you could hold for a second. 

Mr. PEARCE. By the way, you are already one-thirty-fifth into the 

35 minutes that it would take on the initial transaction, according 

to Mr. Feeney’s expertise. 

Mr. WELLS. I bet so. 

19

Mr. PEARCE. Just in asking back and forth. 

Mr. WELLS. Thirty days. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thirty days. 

Mr. WELLS. That is an estimate. 

Mr. PEARCE. Why, once you have done the data, why don’t you 

store it in the fashion that makes it accessible and easy so that we 

do not have to recreate the wheel every time? Is there some cultural bias inside the institution that hates solutions or what? 

Mr. WELLS. No, it is not a cultural bias. It is the fact that we 

are now moving it all into an automated system. 

Mr. PEARCE. I mean, you knew, according to a GAO report in 

1998 you had 113 man-years backlog, and the fact that you are 

now creating a TAAMS system, to me, if you are sitting here solving the same problems over and over again, that is more than a 

people shortage. That is a cultural problem. It is a mental problem 

inside. 

Wal-Mart bought a large retailer in Canada. My daughter went 

up there. And just by reorganizing on the shelf, the stuff that was 

there, the items began to fly out of the door, and the old employees 

from the Canadian firm said stop, stop, you are going to sell all the 

inventory. Well, that is the function of retail management. 

I think maybe you all have a culture that just says just send us 

more people, but we do want these convoluted old processes, because you say in your report that the lenders should become more 

familiar. That is, we should give the lenders the same change that 

we giving to the borrowers and maybe we would all then walk at 

the same speed because we have weighted everybody down with 

the same kind of a process. 

I am sorry, but when you describe that the lenders do not come 

in and learn the convoluted processes, that is a cultural problem; 

that is not a problem of not enough people. It is a cultural problem 

inside the organization that says we are going to demand that 

these people on the Indian reservations never get a breath of fresh 

air, never get economic development because we are going to make 

it so convoluted that only very few lenders will learn the process, 

and we are going to make them learn the process, rather than simplifying it to the 35 minutes that Mr. Feeney suggested. 

You say in your report that the TAAMS has greatly, greatly improved the processing. How much has it lowered the time to process the papers? 

Mr. WELLS. It is still being loaded-in right now. 

Mr. PEARCE. But your comments say that it is greatly improved. 

How can you say it is greatly improved? 

Mr. WELLS. It is no longer 2 years or 4 years or 6 years. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is my question. How long? It has decreased 

from 2 years to how long? 

Mr. WELLS. I will get you the matrix. I do not have it right in 

front of me, but I can get that to you. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is the reason I am saying I am very 

underwhelmed by the amount of detail that you put into these reports and the effort that you put in. We are dragging the committee here trying to solve very difficult problems. The gentleman 

that just spoke in front of me has commented that we appear to 

20

be asking the questions all from our side, and I agree with his concept that we have sort of avoided unraveling this. 

How many tribes have taken over the administrative duties of 

the BIA and real estate actions under the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance provision? 

Mr. WELLS. I do not have that off the top of my head. I know 

in the Northwest, it is four, but I only know that because I have 

just recently worked with it. 

Mr. PEARCE. Would the BIA be open to, not you personally, I 

know you cannot speak for the BIA, but would you personally be 

willing to accept requests from individual tribes saying, look, we do 

not need tribal monitoring anymore. We do not need trust status. 

We have an articulate, good, open governance. We have educated 

people who are knowledgeable. 

And those tribes who would make application, for just you to distribute all the trust land to them, that belongs to them under your 

trust? Not the ones who are a little nervous and the ones who are 

concerned, would you personally think that would be one way to 

start unraveling this complex array of problems? 

Mr. WELLS. Are you describing a compact situation? 

Mr. PEARCE. I am just saying, just give the land to the people 

it belongs to; take it out of trust; write them a deed; hand it to the 

tribe and require that they administer their own problems instead 

of having this trust status. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. WELLS. I personally cannot do that. 

Mr. PEARCE. I did not ask. I said would you favor it? 

Mr. WELLS. What I would favor is a compact situation which is 

clear to what you are describing right now. They take over all the 

responsibilities. They do it all. We, in fact, have tribes that do that, 

Flathead being one of them who actually took over the LTRO title 

duties. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. 

We move to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I would hope that both of you would take away from this 

hearing a sense of urgency. We take this matter very, very seriously here. I have been in Congress now 29 years. I have been 

working on Indian matters 29 years. Very often when the Indians 

are not getting good service, it is in many instances because of a 

lack of a sense of urgency. I think that is responsible for you two 

to take that back to your agencies and try to disseminate that 

sense of urgency. 

My wife is a realtor. Among her responsibilities in selling a home 

is to make sure that they clear the title. That really is one of the 

less complex parts of her job, clearing the title. Now, in Michigan 

to clear the title, of course, you go to the Register of Deeds. They 

really have a really up-to-date automated, very, very modern function. They have to perform. The Register of Deeds in Michigan has 

to turn over those titles and get that cleared very quickly, maybe 

because they are elected. They run for a 4-year term, and they really have to put it out. And when one does get defeated, it is because 

maybe they have not had that sense of urgency that I think that 

really you should carry back to your agencies. 

21

I do not mean you two specifically. I have been here 29 years, 

and I have felt very often sometimes an improvement in the sense 

of urgency on Indian matters and a diminution of that sense of urgency. But I think they have been left out very often. 

Let me ask you this question, Mr. Boyd. If the BIA can expedite 

the TSR, is HUD prepared to expeditiously complete the process, 

your responsibility? 

Mr. BOYD. Absolutely. 

Mr. KILDEE. How long after you get a TSR do you complete your 

responsibility? 

Mr. BOYD. It is almost instantaneous. I mean, once the TSR is 

cleared by the Bureau and the transaction takes place between the 

borrower and the lender, that completes a great requirement that 

we have. The next step, then, is leading towards the guarantee 

itself. That is literally within a matter of days, we have to get that 

TSR cleared. 

Mr. KILDEE. So once you get it, how long does it take you then, 

how many days to process? 

Mr. BOYD. Twenty-four hours. 

Mr. KILDEE. Twenty-four hours. 

All right, within BIA, what is the average length of time that it 

takes you to process a TSR? 

Mr. WELLS. What we are shooting for is 30 days. 

Mr. KILDEE. I do not know what you are shooting for. They have 

been shooting for many, many years. They have always promised 

me. I have served under so many BIA Directors, I have lost track. 

Mr. WELLS. Six hours from beginning to end on a national level. 

Mr. KILDEE. What was the time again? 

Mr. WELLS. Six hours to complete the TSR. Six hours. 

Mr. KILDEE. Six hours to complete the TSR. One day here, 6 

hours here, that is 1 1/4 days then. Where does the delay come in? 

I got straight A’s in math. I am trying to figure this out now. 

Where does the delay come in? One day for one; 6 hours for the 

other. The Postal Service? We have not learned a whole lot here 

today. 

Mr. WELLS. The delay comes in because, as I noted, it would take 

6 hours to do the TSR from start to finish. Getting to the TSR due 

to the backlogs that we have built up is the delay. That is the 30-

day timeframe that we are referring to. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thirty days. Now we are up to 31 days, rather than 

1 1/4 days; 31 days. 

You say that you are trying to work with the lenders so they will 

be able to access you and know what they are supposed to do. How 

intense is your training to the lenders, and what does it consist of? 

Mr. WELLS. It has started in only one region so far, and it consists of going to the lenders, not bringing them in, but going to the 

lenders, explaining to them what we go through to do a TSR, what 

a TSR in fact is, and what the process is, and the timeframes that 

they need to give us to get geared up to do the TSR, and that encompasses that backlog issue which I just mentioned. They also understand that we have a limited supply of people to do all of the 

same type of stuff. They need to get in the pipeline as soon as possible so that we can get the TSRs elevated. 

22

Mr. KILDEE. Well, my final statement will be, take back that 

sense of urgency. I think that is very, very important. These are 

people out there. Homeownership is very important in this country. 

We are lagging behind in Indian Country, so urgency is needed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

I have just a few questions, and then we will move on. 

Mr. Boyd, in the year 2000, Congress passed and the President 

signed the establishment of the Indian Title Commission. Five 

years ago it was established. There is no commission. There is no 

report. There is no recommendation. 

I and my office, and I know several other Congressmen’s and 

Congresswomen’s offices have recommended individuals to serve on 

that commission. I have nominated a Navajo gentleman, Chester 

Carl, who has served on the Navajo Housing Authority for many 

years. 

What is the status of the commission? 

Mr. BOYD. To my knowledge, I know that names have been submitted to the White House, and that is about as far as I know. 

Mr. RENZI. Is it the White House that is holding it up? 

Mr. BOYD. I am not sure, sir. I know that we have submitted 

names. 

Mr. RENZI. I will need a status on it. 

Mr. Wells, I do appreciate your coming out from the Southwest 

and your backbone. I can feel your desire. I also appreciate your 

candor when you said there is significant workload. We both know 

there is a possibility you could break through, uncorrupt your database, your baseline database, get it in, get the new $1 million, $1 

trillion TAAMS system up and running, and you could get this 

thing going. You possibly could. That is why we are going to have 

to follow up with this kind of a hearing. 

But let me say this to you. Right now, if you and I went out and 

bought a home and they did a title search, when we get our lender 

approval and guarantee, we can move into the home. We do not 

have to wait for the second one to come around. There is another 

report that is done to make sure there is no cloud on the title in 

between the time we were approved and the time we close. You are 

right, but we can move in. 

And when you go out in Indian Country and you see the folks 

just sitting there, the houses are empty and they are being vandalized, or the copper tubing, as you know, coming from the Southwest, they are going in and ripping out all the plumbing, all the 

copper tubing, and then we are left with houses where families 

were approved, the first title search was done, and now the house 

is vandalized and we are left nowhere. And you are seeing it all 

over the country like I am. 

This duplication has got me absolutely frustrated. Go ahead, Mr. 

Wells. Your thoughts? 

Mr. WELLS. I think it is an understatement to me to say ′′frustrating.′′ I am really torqued about it, coming from where I 

am, and that is one of the reasons why you sense the expediency 

and the ownership that I have right now to get to a clear way of 

doing business and an expedited way of doing business. 

Mr. RENZI. You talked about changes in the future. 

23

Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RENZI. What about the double, can we get rid of it? Can we 

move them in and then go to the final cloud, looking, you know, 

just to make sure? 

Mr. WELLS. That is one of the reasons why we need to work very 

closely with HUD to do this. I want to get rid of having to do two 

and sometimes three TSRs. I want to just do one and just get it 

cleared right there. 

Mr. RENZI. Homeownership is the release. You talked about no 

move-up market, Mr. Boyd. Homeownership becomes the economic 

incentive. It becomes the release for people to borrow against their 

home and then buy businesses; borrow against their home and 

send their kids to college. It is the fundamental economic engine 

in America, particularly in small town and rural America, and yet 

it is bound; it is hamstrung on the Native American reservations. 

I think, Mr. Boyd, in your testimony, I was trying to listen closely, you even went and talked about something I am going to drill 

into later, which is business leasing, which can take 2 and 3 years. 

If we wanted to be partners together and open up a business on 

the Navajo Nation, it would take 3 damn years to get approved. 

That is a whole different can of worms, Mr. Wells, as you referred 

to it. Okay? 

So here we are trying to buy our homes which can take 1 year 

or 2 years for title searches, nevermind the fact of trying to open 

a business. And it feels like, Mr. Wells, is that BIA and the Government of America is actually a repressive body on the Native 

American trust lands that do not allow them that economic release. 

Go ahead, yes. 

Mr. WELLS. Same feeling I have, coming from the same neck of 

the woods that you do. That is one of the reasons why all of the 

realty regulations are being rewritten so that we can begin to 

streamline this process and standardize it so we do not feel that. 

Mr. RENZI. Is the multiple TSRs that we do, the two, and you 

have enlightened me on three, is that regulation procedural or administrative? What is that? 

Mr. WELLS. As far as I know—

Mr. RENZI. It does not conform to industry standards. 

Mr. WELLS. It is procedural. 

Mr. RENZI. Procedural? 

Mr. WELLS. I am going to defer to Mr. Boyd because HUD requires that that occur. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Boyd, you know what we are talking about right 

now? Okay? We are talking about double, triple TSRs before you 

can move in that leaves houses vacant and vandalized. Is that procedural? 

Mr. BOYD. Part of it is procedural. One of the things, Congressman, that as we look at the process in total, initially it begins with 

the lender and the borrower sitting down. What the lender is now 

requiring from the potential borrower is a clear TSR. The individual then has to go, working with their tribe and with the BIA, 

then they get a TSR. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. 

24

Mr. BOYD. Once they get that, they come back. They get the 

mortgage, and then we wait for BIA to record that. Once they 

record it, then we will do the guarantee. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. I am going to come back for a second round. 

I move to the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boyd, in your written statement you indicated that the TSR 

process has minimal impact on IHBG and ICDBG programs. But 

isn’t it true that last year $54 million from Section 184, the loan 

guarantee program administered by HUD, went unused and was 

rescinded? 

Mr. BOYD. That is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH. How long have those funds been going unused, 

and what steps has the department taken to better serve tribal 

needs under that program that was authorized? 

Mr. BOYD. The breakdown was a combination of Title VI and 

184, so the total amount that was rescinded was $33 million. At 

the time, certainly I think that, and what we have done just recently to correct that situation, and part of it had to do a lot with 

marketing. A lot of it had to do with getting out and being more 

proactive with tribes and with the lenders. 

What we have done over the past couple of years is that we have 

begun to more aggressively work with tribes by having individuals 

from our respective six area offices to do more training, to actually 

in a sense, if you will, to help create housing deals to take place. 

In other words, lend the expertise to the tribe and act as the intermediary between the lenders and the tribes to structure new deals. 

As a result of this, especially in 184, the comparison of growth 

in the program has been tremendous. From 2004 to 2005, we increased the amount of home mortgages on reservations by 130 percent. Right now in fiscal year 2005, we project that we will do 

about $80 million to $100 million worth of mortgages in Indian 

Country. So we had a learning curve, but I think that we have a 

better handle on it, and we are being a lot more aggressive. 

Ms. HERSETH. I appreciate the update. If you could perhaps keep 

us posted, maybe with each quarter of the rest of the year based 

on what you are projecting and the increase based on the improved 

marketing and being more proactive. 

Which leads me to just make a comment about the need to be 

proactive. When we established a commission 5 years ago and you 

have Members of Congress who are trying to be proactive in submitting names for nominations, as Mr. Renzi mentioned, I would 

just like to reiterate the points made there, and the committee’s efforts and staff, our offices’s efforts to try to advance the ball, but 

we need your assistance as well. 

Mr. Wells, let’s get to the automated system and the efforts to 

streamline this process. Is this related to the Cobell litigation? 

Mr. WELLS. To some degree. 

Ms. HERSETH. And do you feel that you have adequate funding 

once you anticipate that within 8 months, bringing us to about February or March 2006, to fully integrate this new automated system 

into each of the eight locations around the country? 

Mr. WELLS. I would say no. 

25

Ms. HERSETH. No, you do not have adequate funding to integrate 

it? 

Mr. WELLS. Correct. 

Ms. HERSETH. So even though by March you will have cleaned 

up the data, turning the hard copies in to the automated system, 

we, therefore, lack funding at that point to integrate it fully, in addition to all the training that will be necessary for those eight offices. So we cannot get to the 30 days that you estimate unless we 

have adequate funding to integrate the system and to train people 

to clear the titles. 

Mr. WELLS. Correct. Two downfalls on this, and that is that, one, 

as Congressman Frank noted, qualified staffing is a problem. It 

takes time to train people and to get the corporate memory instilled in them. Two, we need a central repository for all of the information that is in all of these eight title operations. At present, 

the title entities are compartmentalized, and they need to be able 

to cross-speak, so to speak, because Indian people have land all 

across the United States. They do not have land just in one tribal 

base or one region. It is all over the place. So we need that. 

And quite frankly, we need to be able to combine TAAMS and 

TFAS together in a meaningful way so that we get not only correct 

information, but we also have the ability to collect and invest and 

distribute the funding that is associated with a correct title. 

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just a couple of followups? 

I agree that we need that clearly. In your opinion, do we also 

need a settlement in the Cobell litigation? 

Mr. WELLS. I am not going to speak on that. 

Ms. HERSETH. Let me spin this out a little bit then. 

Mr. WELLS. Okay. 

Ms. HERSETH. If we have hard copies, as you said earlier, that 

date back centuries. 

Mr. WELLS. That is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH. And we all know that there have been problems 

with historical accounting, according to other officials within BIA 

about the adequacy of those records, the availability of those 

records. 

So as we are integrating into an automated system, yet records 

sit and in some cases are incomplete, what do we do then about 

moving to an automated system that is used not only for the purpose of dealing with titles, but when you said in part this automated system is driven by the Cobell litigation and we are cleaning 

up this data, and perhaps you could explain more about what 

cleaning up the data means. 

Is this automated system going to be used in any other way? Or 

does it have the capability to be used in any other way to ensure 

better management of trust accounts? 

Mr. WELLS. Yes, it does. It is also title and leasing at the present 

time. It also incorporates, as it was initially designed several years 

ago, it incorporates a forestry entity and a land grazing entity. It 

will allow you to be able to manage most of the resources throughout Indian Country in an automated fashion, hooking into the title 

hook. The title is key. If you do not have correct title data, what 

do you have? 

26

Ms. HERSETH. That is a good question. 

Mr. WELLS. That is the reason why we are performing a tremendous task right now of cleaning up data. 

Ms. HERSETH. So one last question because I have gone overtime. 

In your opinion, in light of the questions Mr. Frank posed earlier 

and the other questions of my colleagues about the shortage of 

qualified people to be doing what needs to be done within the next 

8 months to automate the system, to clean up the data, then the 

additional funds that will be necessary to integrate that into the 

eight regions around the country, as well as to tie it in with other 

systems. 

Up to this date, does this constitute another example of putting 

funding based on what you said earlier about, even though it takes 

6 hours to do the TSR, it is a matter of getting to the TSR, that 

this is another example in which the monies that have gone into 

the Cobell litigation have been diverted away from other programs 

like probate and like the TSRs? 

Mr. WELLS. Again, I am not going to comment on the Cobell situation. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. The gentleman from California, who has been so patient? 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Renzi, and thank you for 

your leadership in this endeavor. 

By the way, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Wells, I am a native of New Mexico and was born in New Mexico, so when it comes to problems in 

that area, all of us are very much concerned not only what happens 

with New Mexico or South Dakota or Arizona or California, but 

throughout our Nation, especially as it impacts sovereignty and 

equal rights. 

As we address homeownership and the American dream, you 

have talked about a lot of the problems, but I know that the Democrats were trying to increase the funding for the BIA. They were 

actually denied the additional funding. It seems like it boils down 

to a lot of the problems due to the lack of funding to the BIA to 

implement some of these programs, especially if you are talking 

about an automated system or streamlining part of the process. 

Without the additional revenue, it seems like we cannot apply the 

same kind of services. 

So it seems like there are double standards. Off the reservation, 

it seems like there is additional funding in the area of housing to 

assure that the process is implemented in a timely process, but yet 

within our reservations and sovereignty country, we are not willing 

to provide the revenues. So it seems to be a major problem. If we 

got over this hurdle, maybe then we could solve some of the problems that currently exist by implementing the kind of staff, to implement the kind of processes, procedures, and guidelines and criteria that can be expedited in assuring that everyone gets treated 

equally. 

Let me ask my question. I have a series of nine questions. I will 

submit the rest of them for the record, since I will not have time. 

One that I would like to address particularly, In 1986, there was 

an unverified status report completed on all existing properties in 

Southern California. Yet the land title and the record office staff 

27

continually disregarded this report. Instead of using this record 

and updating the records from the 1986 baseline, the land title and 

record office staff reconstructed the entire record. 

Why can’t BIA have a convenient manager sign off an updated 

status report from 1986 so we do not have to continue to recreate 

the records and, thus, take even longer to process this request? 

Mr. WELLS. That is for me, right? 

Mr. BACA. That is for you, Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Baca—a very familiar name from New Mexico, 

by the way—I am not sure of the answer, going back to 1986, why 

that was the situation. But my staff sitting behind me, I am sure 

have duly noted that, and we will get a response to you. 

Mr. BACA. Right. And hopefully you guys can just sign off instead. 

My other question is, it is my understanding that many of the 

records to complete a title status report are not computerized and 

are not microfiched or even handwritten. Is there a process in place 

to computerize these records? If so, how long will it take? If not, 

why not? 

Mr. WELLS. There is a process in place, and that is the one I 

have been referring to as TAAMS, the Trust Asset and Accounting 

Management System. That is the data cleanup, part of the data 

cleanup that I am referring to is getting that hard copy stuff in 

whatever form it is in, and you have noted several forms, into an 

automated system which will help to streamline this thing once 

and for all. That is what we are all about. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. This question is for Mr. Boyd from HUD. Because title status reports and processes are so time consuming, 

tribes have started to contract with BIA to conduct these functions 

themselves without the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Would the Department of Housing and Urban Development accept title status reports completed by tribal land titles and 

record offices? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. 

Mr. BACA. Remember, that is for the record. You are saying yes, 

and it is noted here. 

Mr. BOYD. Well, one of the things that we have been working 

with the BIA on under the memorandum of understanding was to 

look at the process in such a way that we might be able to accept 

on a quicker basis their recording of different TSRs. So once we 

know that they have submitted a TSR to a lender and the actual 

mortgage takes place, then there is a time when that has to go 

back to BIA to be approved again and to be recorded. At that time, 

we will accept the soft, if you will, answer from BIA with regard 

to that and turn the guarantee around on a very quick basis. That 

is when we mentioned within 24 hours. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Next question. Native American housing is 

overcrowded and substandard. Over 32 percent of the houses located on tribal lands are overcrowded; 7.5 percent of the Native 

Americans’ homes lack safe water sewage systems; and less than 

50 percent of the homes on reservations are connected to public 

sewer systems; and 16.5 percent of the homes on tribal lands are 

without indoor plumbing. 

28

These are serious issues. I am pleased with the strides that Native Americans have made to begin to address these problems when 

allowed to develop their own independent source of revenue and 

autonomy. What can we do to continue to make Native Americans 

more self-sufficient? 

Mr. BOYD. What we have been doing over the past couple of 

years, and I think that through the 184 program and the Title VI 

program and through the participation of a number of tribes 

throughout the country, the whole leveraging of public money with 

private money has expanded tremendously. We know that there 

are limited funds, but some tribes have really, I think, set the 

record and set the mark for leveraging these funds. 

I think it has only happened, with my knowledge, probably within the last 6 or 7 years where the whole concept of leveraging has 

really taken a foothold in Indian Country. That has helped us with 

regard to expanding the coordination that we have with tribes with 

State housing finance agencies, with foundations. It is taking I 

think a lot of outreach. It has taken a lot of education, both on our 

behalf as well as the tribe’s behalf in the art of leveraging. That 

has helped tremendously. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. I know that my time has expired, but one 

last question. 

Much land has been taken away from Native Americans. Approximately 90 million acres of land trusts have been removed from 

Native American hands since the late 1800s, and they continue to 

lose land through the process of condemnation, eminent domain, 

foreclosures, and transfer of property to non-Native Americans. 

What can we do to compensate Native Americans for these 

losses, and how can we ensure that they do not lose more land? 

And then I will submit the rest of my questions for the record. 

Any one of you? 

Mr. BOYD. I would like to defer that to Mr. Wells since the whole 

land aspect of trust land is really under his jurisdiction and not 

HUD’s. 

Mr. WELLS. What we have attempted to do is stem that tide dramatically by taking more fee land into trust. We have a fairly good 

track record of that over the last 10 years. Rather than have it go 

out of trust along the lines you are talking about, condemnation, 

being sold off, and so forth, have it pulled into the reservation 

level, those lands that are within the exterior boundaries of the 

reservation or closely associated therewith. That is what we have 

attempted to do. 

As far as compensation, other than what the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is attempting to do right now, I have no other answer. 

Mr. BACA. Then we continue to steal from them. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from California. 

Mr. Cardoza from California? 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am interested in asking a couple of questions on this Cobell 

case. We all want a fair and thoughtful and equitable settlement 

that all parties can agree on. I am sure, Mr. Wells, you agree with 

that so that we can move on, the bureau can move on, the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:11 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.46 RODNEY
29

ment of Interior and Congress can concentrate its efforts on other 

issues important to Indian Country. Given that the Indian-proposed settlement in June was rejected, what would the bureau and 

the Department of Interior be willing to accept in terms of a settlement? 

Mr. WELLS. Again, I am not going to respond on Cobell. That is 

open litigation with the Department of Justice and not me. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Well, maybe you can answer this question, which 

relates, but is not specific to the case. If there was a settlement or 

if Congress decided to intercede and force a settlement, where 

would the funds come? Certainly, we have a limited amount of 

money. It would have to come from some other place within your 

department under the current rules. Do you have any suggestions 

where we could find the critically needed funds? You say that in 

order to staff up and reposition and provide enough, we are going 

to need additional funding. Do you have any ideas where that funding could come from? 

Mr. WELLS. The soft answer is no, I do not. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Well, it has been a number of years since we have 

been trying to solve these issues. It really seems to me that it is 

time for someone to step in and solve the problem. Do you think 

it is appropriate for Congress to take action at this time? 

Mr. WELLS. Again, I am not going to comment on it. That is for 

the Department of Justice. I am sorry. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

We will move to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems to me that this is a problem that has been going on for 

a long time. I would share some of the frustrations of some of my 

other colleagues, but I am not hearing very many alternatives expressed. I am hearing we need to clean up data, and it all sounds 

fine and well, but I am not sure that that is going to solve the 

problem. I do not think you have made a compelling case. I do not 

think you have offered solutions for us to consider up here about 

how we can fix this problem. 

I think that in your written responses to some questions that are 

going to be given to you and you can compile after the hearing, 

maybe you can give a little more thought to coming up with constructive solutions, because in my opinion I have not heard it 

today. This is an ongoing problem, and we are not getting the right 

answer. 

A couple of thoughts I wanted to throw out that I would like your 

response to. First of all, has there been any initiative or is there 

thought given to the notion of giving tribal members more of a 

participatory role in this process? I have heard that within the 

Navajo reservation there is a desire to work more with local county 

recorders’ offices and help solve this problem. I am wondering if 

there has been thought or effort to try to engage a program like 

that. These counties have the ability to process title reports. They 

probably are suffering from the same data problems you all are. I 

am wondering if that has been considered. 

Mr. WELLS. It has been considered, but the fact that it is a trust 

responsibility, it has not been allowed to be an option. The closest 

30

that I can get to that is, again, the example that I used before, and 

that is the Flathead reservation where they have compacted the 

LTRO operation and they perform their own title operations as a 

tribe. They do very well. 

Mr. MATHESON. Let me follow up. Chairman Ney asked this 

question at the start. What are the impediments to having these 

title searches conducted by outside title companies? 

Mr. WELLS. The outside title company is not a trust entity, and 

that is a major impediment in that it is a trust responsibility, thus, 

restricted to the Federal Government. 

Mr. MATHESON. So it would require a legislative change to allow 

that to happen. 

Mr. WELLS. I would say that is an accurate read. 

Mr. MATHESON. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Florida? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wells, you have indicated in your testimony, and during the 

course of this back and forth discussion, that staffing was one of 

your significant problems. Yet, and I checked to make sure that I 

was correct in this assumption, you did not ask for funding for additional staffing in your budget request. I am wondering, if that is 

such a significant problem and one of the major obstacles to you 

solving the problems that exist with this title issue, why you would 

not have asked for more money for staff? 

Mr. WELLS. One of the reasons why I did not ask for additional 

money is because, one, I have been here for about a year now; and 

two, it takes time to pull the matrix together. It cannot be anecdotal anymore, like I need a whole lot more staff. Well, everybody 

wants to know how much more; what are they going to do; is your 

staff working at the full potential; and we are all about putting 

that matrix together right now. 

What we did do, though, was carve out of the realty component 

as a specific entity 144 people just to take care of the backlog in 

probate. It affects everything else we are talking about here. We 

have to get that taken care of. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. At what point in the year that you 

have been here did you determine that you needed more staff? Because a year is not a short period of time. I mean, you were aware 

and were brought in with these problems existing. So I hate to tell 

you, but that is not really a short period of time in which you could 

have determined and then asked for funding for additional staff. 

Mr. WELLS. Understood. Right after I came here, I noted that 

where I come from there is a lack of staff to be able to take care 

of these situations and take care of these operations to the degree 

that we would hope to be able to do this, thus eliminating the backlog and getting things taken care of, as in someone comes in the 

door and you deal with it, and it is done within a reasonable 

amount of time. 

But to make the case for a budget increase, I was told that I 

needed to produce the matrix and measures, and that is what I am 

doing right now. 

31

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, maybe it is that I am a 

freshman, and I am not familiar with the Washington window, but 

I was in the legislature for 12 years before coming here. I thought 

that bureaucracy in State government was significant. It is amazing that the Federal Government even functions at all. I can understand now why my constituents, who include the Seminole tribe, 

just want to throw up their hands and turn around and walk away 

from the whole ball of wax. 

Native Americans are being treated like second-class citizens 

when it comes to their being able to access affordable housing or 

housing at all. And you all are not doing very much of anything 

to show them that you are trying, up until this conversation and 

being asked questions that you admitted you wished you were not 

asked or that you had not revealed your hand on. It is difficult for 

me to understand why it should have taken this long for someone 

to come in and even recognize that there was a problem and that 

it needed to be unraveled. 

I will be honest with you. All I have heard from you is excuses. 

It is unacceptable. I came to this hearing expecting to hear your 

proposal for a solution and you are talking about matrix’s and jargon that just makes no sense to the average person. I really think 

you need to do a quite a bit better job at unraveling the problem 

and proposing a solution because we are out of patience and so are 

the Native American tribes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Wells, Mr. Boyd, I just have a couple more questions, if you don’t mind. I do appreciate your coming over. 

I want to ask, in the testimony that I read, there is a hint of the 

lenders being able to do a little more. I do not doubt that. Can you 

go ahead and drill into that a little bit for me? Mr. Wells? 

Mr. WELLS. The need for the lenders to do some more is to understand, and this is just a common man’s parlance here, that 

there is a backlog that I have been talking about, that there is a 

need to get in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs immediately 

when they know there is a need for a loan, to trigger that switch 

and say we are going to need a TSR as soon as possible. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Wells, let me ask you, and forgive me for my ignorance. Loan origination documents are done; It looks like there 

is going to be approval. Is that when you are notified? Do you want 

them to back up a little bit earlier and give you a little bit of notice, knowing that they are dealing with a different entity than the 

commercial world? 

Mr. WELLS. Exactly. 

Mr. RENZI. And ideally how would you see that, sir? What process? 

Mr. WELLS. I would like to see—

Mr. RENZI. Preliminary underwriting acceptance? 

Mr. WELLS. Something along those lines. I would like to have 

that. That is along the lines that I believe that Mr. Boyd is talking 

about. I believe you call it a soft document. I would love to entertain that idea. 

Mr. RENZI. And that would give you maybe another 30 days possibly? 

32

Mr. WELLS. Sure. And that would be able to begin to bridge the 

gap that we have been talking about here. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Boyd, any thoughts on lender participation, lender improvement for the system, other than what Mr. Wells talked 

about? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, throughout the course of the year, we do 184 

lending training sessions. We probably spend about 30 percent of 

our time in those sessions with the lenders, educating them, introducing them to not only the 184 process, but also as it includes 

what they have to do working with the borrower to get the TSRs 

cleared. I think that that has helped tremendously, and I think it 

has also given them a window, if you will, into the entire process. 

I do know that that has helped them. 

Mr. RENZI. I appreciate that. Do you in your seminars explore at 

all the fact that we are having monies rescinded each year out of 

NAHASDA? Last year, $33 million were rescinded back, unused 

monies that the Government is actually putting out there for Native Americans to achieve homeownership, and yet we are not 

using it. Any thoughts in both your experiences on how we can buy 

down, use that money, get it down to zero, and why we are not? 

Mr. BOYD. As I mentioned before, I think what we have begun 

to do a better job of being more proactive. Under the Office of Native American Programs, we have six area offices throughout the 

country. We have designated staff in those area offices to go out 

and be more aggressive not only in marketing, but working with 

tribes, TDHEs, tribal entities and the borrowers. 

Mr. RENZI. Are these circuit riders or are these actual locations? 

Mr. BOYD. Within their respective regions. 

Mr. RENZI. Have you thought about maybe doing more offices, actual permanent locations? Maybe Congress needs to plus-up and 

provide better money so that you can actually have more locations 

spread out in Indian Country where you have a permanent office 

where people are going and the local community is seeing successes 

being made, and then their word-of-mouth is getting around, well, 

even more than that, advertising, marketing, but word-of-mouth of 

success stories. You know, you can go up here to a local office and 

they will find a way for you to own a home. 

Mr. BOYD. I think that would be helpful. I know, and as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of tribes that are doing a great 

job out there and are great success stories on leveraging both public and private, and in some cases tribal money, to do very good 

housing not only for rental, but for homeownership. 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Wells, you came out of Albuquerque, and I appreciate having you back here. I do believe that just a year is not 

enough. I lend myself to the comments earlier. I do believe that 

your intention is honest. I want to ask you, the Navajo Nation paid 

for a staffer to be out there and participate in the Albuquerque office to try and help process quicker internally. How did that turn 

out? 

Mr. WELLS. My understanding is, yes they did pay for a staffer 

out there and that turned out well. Anytime that we can get additional qualified staff to help, and key to this is that they are a tribal member. They know the nuances. As you are talking, word-ofVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:11 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.46 RODNEY
33

mouth is the way to go on the reservation. Now, you can do all the 

advertisement and emails or whatever it is. 

Mr. RENZI. Success stories up there on the reservation are like 

wildfire. It spreads. 

Mr. WELLS. It is the key. 

Mr. RENZI. So, Mr. Wells, the Navajo Nation sends an individual, 

well-trained, qualified as you have been talking about, embedded 

in your system in Albuquerque and they are able to work through 

the nuances and help speed up the system a little bit. We could do 

a curtain call maybe to some of the tribes and ask them to come 

back to be part of your new system here in Washington, or you 

would rather have them out there in the field? 

Mr. WELLS. I would rather have them in the field any day. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. 

Mr. WELLS. That is where the action is, and that is where the 

rubber meets the road. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. Mr. Wells, last question. I do appreciate both 

you guys coming over here and taking some hits. At the same time, 

you can see that we are trying to keep pushing you a little bit and 

let you know that we are on this issue. How long do you want me 

to give you before we do this again, before we come back and dance 

with each other? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RENZI. Honest. Reasonable, because Mr. Wells, I am going to 

request you. I realize you were like a last-minute replacement from 

what I hear, but you did a hell of a job. I am going to request you 

next time, though. How long do you want before you come back and 

face the music again? 

Mr. WELLS. I would like 8 months. 

Mr. RENZI. Eight months. I will see you in 8 months. 

Mr. WELLS. I would like to see 8 months and see what type of 

progress we have made. 

Mr. RENZI. Especially with the TAAMS system and the database. 

We could look at how the database is actually fleshing out. 

Mr. WELLS. There is an activity. There you go. Exactly. That is 

what I would like. 

Mr. RENZI. Okay. And then maybe during budget season, will 

you guys come over and visit me in my office, okay, and we will 

talk, particularly some of the people have good points on budget. 

Okay? 

Thank you all. 

Mr. Kildee, anything else in closing comments? 

Mr. KILDEE. No. 

Mr. RENZI. The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses 

and to place their responses in the record. 

I want to thank both witnesses today. I appreciate it very much. 

The hearing is dismissed. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X

July 19, 2005

36


24401.001
37


24401.002
38


24401.003
39


24401.004
40


24401.005
41


24401.006
42


24401.007
43


24401.008
44


24401.009
45


24401.010
46


24401.011
47


24401.012
48


24401.016
49


24401.013
50


24401.014
51


24401.015