U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

29–454 PDF 2018

NAHASDA: 20 YEARS ON 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 21, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–35 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

KIRSTEN SUTTON MORK, Staff Director 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 21, 2017 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 21, 2017 ..................................................................................................... 37 

WITNESSES 

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2017 

Frechette, Heidi, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ............ 5 

Gokee, Rosalie, Governing Board Member, Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe ............... 14 

Malcolm, Harry, Doctor, Essentia Clinic ............................................................... 10 

Montano, Mark, Executive Director, LCO Housing Authority ............................ 12 

Tortalita, Floyd, Executive Director, Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority ........ 15 

Tribble, John, member, Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe ............................................... 17 

Walters, Tony, Executive Director, National American Indian Housing Council ........................................................................................................................... 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Waters, Hon. Maxine ........................................................................................ 38 

Frechette, Heidi ................................................................................................ 41 

Gokee, Rosalie ................................................................................................... 48 

Malcolm, Harry ................................................................................................. 55 

Montano, Mark ................................................................................................. 58 

Tortalita, Floyd ................................................................................................. 64 

Tribble, John ..................................................................................................... 76 

Walters, Tony .................................................................................................... 77 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Pearce, Hon. Stevan: 

Letter from Bill John Baker, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief ................... 82 

Lac Courte Oreilles ICDBG Mold Remediation Project Completed Homes 

Photo Album .................................................................................................. 85 

Written statement of Moises Loza, Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council .................................................................................................. 92 

(1) 

NAHASDA: 20 YEARS ON 

Friday, July 21, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m., at the 

Lac Court Oreilles Ojibwe School, 8575 North Round Lake School 

Road, Hayward, Wisconsin, Hon. Sean P. Duffy [chairman of the 

subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Duffy and Moore. 

Also present: Representative Sensenbrenner. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘NAHASDA: 20 Years On.’’ Without 

objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. 

Also, without objection, members of the full Financial Services 

Committee who are not members of this subcommittee may participate in today’s hearing for the purposes of making an opening 

statement and questioning the witnesses. 

Ms. Moore, we welcome you today, and appreciate you traveling 

from Milwaukee to be at today’s hearing; thank you for that. And 

without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, has committed to participate in today’s subcommittee 

hearing. Mr. Sensenbrenner, we welcome you today and appreciate 

you coming from the suburbs of Milwaukee, leaving the urban area 

and coming to the heart of Wisconsin up north, so both of you, welcome. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act (NAHASDA) was enacted in 1996 to provide Native Americans 

greater self-determination and self-governance in how to spend 

Federal affordable housing funds. 

Prior to the establishment of NAHASDA, Native American tribes 

received assistance for affordable housing through various Federal 

programs such as housing development and modernization grants, 

public housing operating subsidies, and Section 8 rental assistance 

through the 1937 Housing Act. 

Under the Act there were no specific provisions related to treatment of Native Americans addressing the unique circumstances for 

2 

how to provide assistance to those living on tribal lands under sovereign governments. 

NAHASDA sought to change that by streamlining multiple channels of housing assistance to Native Americans into two programs: 

the Indian Housing Block Grant Program; and the Title VI Tribal 

Housing Activities Loan Guarantee Program. 

The goal of NAHASDA was to assist and promote affordable 

housing activities in safe and healthy environments on Native 

American reservations, in order for Native American areas that occupancy low-income areas and families to be better helped. 

It also sought to ensure better access to private mortgage markets for Native American tribes and promote self-sufficiency for 

those tribes. 

By coordinating activities to provide housing for tribes and their 

members at the Federal, State, and local level, tribes were then 

able to plan and integrate infrastructure resources to develop housing. 

Importantly, tribes were also given the ability to promote development of private capital markets for the benefit of Native American communities. 

Today, we have a number of witnesses who are involved in 

NAHASDA, but I have asked a few here today to also address a 

rising problem in our Nation, and that is the problem of mold that 

is affecting our low-income housing community, especially our Native American lands. 

The last time NAHASDA was reauthorized with changes was in 

2008 and the program was extended for 5 years. Since 2013, we 

have not had a successful reauthorization, but instead have simply 

been appropriating funds. 

I hope that this hearing will provide some insight as to how the 

program is faring and what changes need to be made, specifically 

those changes under H.R. 360 that passed the House of Representatives last year. 

As I have looked into NAHASDA, I have learned that Native 

American tribes generally view NAHASDA positively because of 

the emphasis on self-determination. 

However, one particular issue has caught my attention, and that 

is the amount expended but unobligated of NAHASDA funds. I 

want to make sure that our tribes that are being awarded money 

are taking proper initiative to put those dollars to work and ensure 

their tribal members are living in safe and healthy affordable housing. 

Just this morning the members here with me today had an opportunity to tour one of the homes here at LCO, and I know that 

Ms. Moore, and I hope she will talk about this, as she went into 

this home, it was one that was full of mold, and if you have a respiratory ailment and you are an adult and you go into that home, 

you are triggered almost immediately. 

We have little children in our community who live in these 

homes, and I am all about autonomy and sovereignty for our tribal 

lands, but the Federal taxpayers sent $800,000 to remediate what 

we thought would be 53 homes; we have done less than ten. And 

I think not only does the LCO community, but the Congress has 

3 

a right to know how that money is spent. We have a right to see 

receipts that if it wasn’t 53 and it is only 6 or 8, what went wrong? 

What do we have to do differently, looking forward, to make sure 

that people are cared for. 

And if this is a situation where we don’t have enough money, 

your Congress will fight for more money; but if this is a problem 

where money isn’t being spent well, we want to make sure that our 

Federal tax dollars are spent effectively before we come back and 

ask for more. 

And so today I want to have a conversation about NAHASDA, its 

future, its past, but I also want to talk about this significant issue 

that we have in our community, that we need to partner together, 

local, tribal, and your Federal Government, to resolve this issue. 

No one should live in a home like the one we toured today, not in 

America. And so with that I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

Right now, I want to recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin, 

Ms. Moore, the ranking member of our Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, for about a 3- 

minute opening statement. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank the witnesses, some of whom have traveled a great distance 

to make this trek to lovely Wisconsin. 

We are sparing you from the horrible heat wave in other parts 

of the country. 

I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Duffy, for holding this hearing and I think it is helpful for us to get outside of D.C. from time 

to time to these field hearings. Of course, I always love being home 

here in Wisconsin, and I’m really happy to be here with the LAC 

Courte Oreilles. 

As Mr. Duffy indicated, we toured a home today that was contaminated with black mold and I had to flee that housing. I was 

unable to continue the tour because I am very allergic, and I do 

think it is important to recognize that we are compelled to act. 

I have been working on the reauthorization of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act, also known as 

NAHASDA, since late 2012 and early 2013, and I am happy to report that I have had some tremendous partners on both sides of the 

aisle, on a bipartisan basis, and we have passed our bill and it has 

been sitting in the Senate. 

And I thought that we really dealt with a number of issues in 

that bill, up to and including, including all native peoples, including Native Hawaiians. 

NAHASDA has been largely a huge success, and to the extent 

that there are any problems like mold, it is largely a function of 

the program needing more resources. 

For example, we have reauthorized $650 million and that is a lot 

of money, but it is only scratching the surface of the need. We are 

here with the LAC Courte Oreilles, for example, and Ms. Gokee 

and I had a sidebar conversation where we knew up front in our 

allocation that you were 50 houses short of what would be needed 

to do a good job. And if the chairman and the Majority party are 

so inclined, I would be absolutely open to including more moneys. 

4 

The Sioux tribe actually brought one of their housing units to 

D.C. by semi-trailer truck and put it on the mall so that we could 

see this black mold for ourselves, so thank you for bringing us to 

northern Wisconsin so they wouldn’t have to do that. 

I want to hear from our witnesses, but I do want to say that I 

am deeply committed to the reauthorization of NAHASDA. 

Again, we have passed a strong bipartisan bill twice and it needs 

some updates and it needs some reforms, but I think the bill we 

have honors self-determination for all Native populations, legislation on which I was very pleased to have Mr. Duffy’s support when 

it passed in 2015. 

So thank you and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Moore. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chair of 

the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, for 3 minutes. Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Chairman Duffy, for 

inviting me up to this hearing to let me know a little bit more 

about how this program is being administered. 

One of the constitutional obligations and duties of the Congress 

is to do oversight and, unfortunately, I don’t think the Congress 

does as much oversight as we should to see that money is being 

effectively spent and spent according to the purpose for which Congress appropriated the money. 

I guess what I am concerned about here is that we have a lot 

of money that is unobligated, meaning it has been appropriated 

and not spent, and we do not see the mold remediation and other 

problems where this money could effectively be spent, and I think 

that it was important for the Congress to know why and to figure 

out what can be done to use this unobligated money to take care 

of problems like I am sure we are going to hear about in a little 

bit greater detail when the witnesses come to speak. 

One of the things that I did during my chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee and the Science Committee is spend a lot of time 

on oversight; and we were effective in making agencies better, we 

were effective in having money spent in a more effective manner 

and giving the taxpayers more bang for their buck. 

But a lot of whether oversight is done and done effectively depends upon the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee, 

and by bringing the subcommittee out of Washington and up to 

northern Wisconsin, where there have been problems with how this 

money has been spent, I think is a way for us to find out firsthand, 

and from the people who have been affected by this, what the problem is and what we can do to fix it, and for that reason I think 

that Chairman Duffy has been extremely unique in identifying the 

problems, and starting to put a little heat under the agencies: one, 

to spend the money; and two, to spend the money to fix the problems and make sure that we don’t have any more problems arise. 

So thank you, Chairman Duffy, for having me up here and I am 

looking forward to seeing how we can constructively address this 

problem so as to fix it. 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair now recognizes and welcomes our witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Heidi 

5 

Frechette, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Native 

American Programs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, better known as HUD. Ms. Frechette, welcome. 

Our second witness is Mr. Tony Walters, executive director of the 

National American Indian Housing Council. 

Third, we have Dr. Harry Malcolm of the Essentia Clinic, who 

was previously a family practice doctor in the U.S Air Force and 

has practiced here in our hometown of Hayward for over 20 years. 

Dr. Malcolm, welcome and thank you for your service to our country. 

Our fourth witness, Mr. Mark Montano, is the executive director 

for the LCO Housing Authority. He previously served as both vice 

chairman and director of the tribal operations for the Red Cliff 

Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Bayfield, Wisconsin. Welcome. 

Ms. Rosalie Gokee is our fifth witness and she is a governing 

board member here at the LCO tribe and was with us, as many 

others were, this morning for our tour. 

Our sixth witness, Mr. Floyd Tortalita, is the executive director 

for the Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority. 

Mr. Tortalita has 17 years of experience in planning, design, and 

housing development projects for the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos. 

He also currently serves as the Region 8 representative for the 

Ameren Board of Directors, which provides important insurance 

products to our tribal community. 

And finally, we have our seventh witness, Mr. Jeff Tribble, a 

member of the LCO tribe. 

All of you are welcome. In a moment, you will be recognized for 

5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection, all of your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. 

Once the witnesses have finished presenting their testimony, 

each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes within 

which to ask questions of our panel. 

With that, Ms. Frechette, you are now recognized for 5 minutes 

for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HEIDI FRECHETTE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Thank you. [Speaking native language.] Hello 

and thank you. My name is Heidi Frechette, I am the nominee 

from Wisconsin and it’s great to be home, especially in the summer; 

and I am also the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Native American 

Programs at HUD. 

I want to say [speaking native language] and thank you to Chairman Duffy for the opportunity to discuss American Indian housing 

programs, and to Chairman Louis Taylor for hosting us here today. 

I am very honored and humbled to testify with this esteemed 

panel of tribal leaders and tribal housing advocates. 

And as a career SES at HUD, I administer the Federal Government’s largest national Indian housing programs and work closely 

with tribal leaders, tribally designated housing entities, and tribal 

housing departments, who are doing amazing and innovative work 

in their communities. 

6 

Since I began my tenure in June of 2016, I have visited Native 

communities across the country to discuss the issues and challenges tribes face and to hear directly from tribal leaders on what 

HUD can do to strengthen Indian housing programs. 

Like my tribe, far too many Native American communities struggle with severely overcrowded housing conditions, affordable housing shortages, substandard living conditions, and significant barriers to economic opportunity. 

Today, one out of every four Native Americans lives in poverty, 

including one-third of all Native American children. Given these 

grave statistics, HUD’s Native American programs provide a vital 

resource to tribal communities. 

These programs include the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant, known as ICDBG; the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee, known as Section 184; the Indian Housing Block Grant, 

known as IHBG, which is under NAHASDA; and the Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee or the Title VI program. 

HUD’s Indian housing programs are successful examples of Federal programs that provide local choice, contain streamlined governmental requirements, leverage private market investment, and 

respect tribal self-governance. 

In the interest of time, I am going to focus on two of the programs: the ICDBG program; and the IHBG program. 

The ICDBG program was authorized in 1977 through an amendment to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 

and it’s a competitive award that’s awarded to American Indian 

tribes and Alaska Native villages under the Community Development Block Grant. 

This program funds infrastructure, community buildings, and 

housing rehabilitation for lower-income Native American communities. And in FY 2014 and 2015 the program included the setaside of funding for competitive loan remediation and prevention 

grants. 

The IHBG program was authorized by the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act and provides a formula to block grant funding to tribes eligible for affordable housing 

activities. 

Tribes across Wisconsin have used ICDBG funds to support their 

communities, including development of community facilities that 

target support to elders, to at-risk or homeless tribal youth, and 

ensuring the health and safety of their communities through water 

infrastructure projects and improvements to things like portable 

water infrastructure. 

Tribes have made great strides on NAHASDA and the IHBG program. The recently published Indian Housing Needs Study thus 

concluded that NAHASDA works. 

Under NAHASDA, tribes have produced more housing units than 

under the previous programs, and they have actually produced better housing, housing that is tailored to the local community, the 

customs and the climates. 

NAHASDA supports the government-to-government relationship 

between the Federal Government and tribal governments, and it 

recognizes tribal sovereignty because it provides for flexibility and 

7 

local control, because tribes can decide what they need best in their 

communities. 

NAHASDA funds are often used as seed money to leverage funding for new construction and rehabilitation. Last month, I had the 

honor of traveling to New Mexico to the San Felipe Pueblo. The 

tribal housing entity there used their $500,000 annual Indian 

Housing Block Grant funding to attract an additional $5 million in 

leveraging funds to construct a whole new housing subdivision. 

There are examples like this from tribes across the country, 

tribes that are leveraging the housing dollars and utilizing other 

Federal programs to address their housing needs. 

HUD looks forward to working with Congress on reauthorization 

of NAHASDA. 

My written testimony submitted today includes HUD’s observations on the main elements of H.R. 360, the bill that was introduced in the House in 2015. 

So in closing, when considering reauthorization, I always am reminded of the fact that HUD’s Indian housing programs are more 

than just building homes; they bring hope to many communities. 

I recently visited a tribe and was invited into a new home of a 

mother and her four small children, and often on my tribal visits 

I am not invited into homes that are occupied, I see vacant units 

so as not to disturb families, so I was surprised that the mother 

was insistent that we visit her home. 

And when we arrived we were welcomed by the grandmother, 

who was there because the mother was at work, and she was accompanied by her eight-year-old granddaughter, who was out of 

school for the summer. And it was so moving to see how happy this 

young girl was that she got to move out of her overcrowded home 

and she insisted on giving me a tour of her new home. 

And she was particularly proud to show me that for the first 

time in her life she had her own bedroom and she didn’t have to 

share it with her three little brothers, which she was incredibly 

thrilled about, and I understand where she’s coming from. 

So as I left I thanked the grandmother because I felt it was incredibly generous that they invited us into the home, and she 

hugged me and thanked me for the hope and the opportunities that 

the HUD programs provide. And I was encouraged by the difference that the tribes and the tribally-designated housing entities 

were making in the lives of their people. 

So I thank you again for the honor to appear before you today 

and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [Speaking 

native language.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Frechette, and welcome back 

to Wisconsin. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Thank you. 

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

41 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Walters, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

8 

STATEMENT OF TONY WALTERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL; 

Mr. WALTERS. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tony Walters, and I am the executive director of the National American Indian Housing Council. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma. I have been with the Council for only 31⁄2 months, so 

I am clearly learning some of the services that we provide as a nonprofit, advocating on behalf of tribes, as well as all of the services 

and programs designed with our Federal partners in D.C., and 

across the country. 

I would like to thank Chairman Duffy, and Representatives 

Moore and Sensenbrenner for the hearing today and for allowing 

NAIHC to testify. 

Just a little bit more about myself. My grandparents grew up on 

tribal land in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They took advantage of HUD and 

tribal housing opportunities there and moved from a small trailer 

in rural Holler up on top of a hill where they had a new home and 

they recently completed that purchase under a lease-to-ownership 

program over the last 20 years, so I know—I grew up a little bit 

in Indian housing specifically that was designed by the Cherokee 

Nation and for my family and for families in our community and 

now I work and live in D.C., advocating on behalf of tribal communities and housing in that area. 

NAIHC is a nonprofit, and we serve 250 members, which represents almost 500 tribes across the country in their housing entities. We do that in two ways. The first is through advocacy and 

partnership with the Federal partners in Washington, D.C., whether it is on the Hill or the agencies themselves. 

The second way we help our tribal members is through our training technical assistance program. We usually provide conferences, 

training programs across the country throughout Indian country 

and regional and specific communities as requested. 

So we try to be a great advocate for our tribal members, we work 

well with our partners in Washington, D.C., such as NODAC, as 

well as other programs, the USDA, the Department of the Interior, 

and others. 

We were asked to talk a little bit about NAHASDA. I think everyone on the panel here and everyone I have spoken with generally says NAHASDA has worked for 20 years. 

When NAHASDA was enacted, tribes took over the ownership 

and maintenance of nearly 70,000 units that they needed to maintain, as well as continuing to address the unmet need in their communities moving forward. 

In 1996 or 1998, one of the first years of NAHASDA funding, it was around $600 million at the time. When you think about that, 

that’s roughly just a million per tribe, tribe members, there’s 567 

tribes across the country all in distinct, often remote communities, 

so we think about funding for these challenges and meeting the 

housing needs, tribes really have to stretch those dollars and I 

think they have shown over the 20 years with NAHASDA that they 

have really done that. 

Since NAHASDA was enacted tribes have built 34,000 new units, 

while continuing to maintain the 70,000 units that existed prior to 

NAHASDA’s enactment. So I think tribes are doing a lot with—you 

9 

could argue sometimes not as much as they should get, not as 

much as the need would justify. 

When you look at funding generally over time, in 1998 or 1996, 

$600 million of funding, now in 2016 we are only at $654 million 

of funding, so when you count inflation into that number, it’s about 

two-thirds of the purchasing power of what tribes had in 1996. 

Still, that represents 567 tribes trying to address housing needs in 

their communities. 

So I think there is a need, there is an unmet need in Indian 

country that NAHASDA can continue to address and does address 

through the IHBG and other programs at HUD and then tribes 

have used, as Ms. Frechette said, NAHASDA money to leverage 

their funds; there are other programs, both Federal programs and 

private programs and lending institutions across the country, to 

really address the housing needs in their communities. So I think 

just generally we can say NAHASDA is working. 

The HUD needs assessment that Ms. Frechette mentioned highlighted the need even more, actually specifically recommending 

that 68,000 more units were needed to address substandard housing and overcrowded homes in Indian country. I think the rate for 

overcrowded homes in Indian country is 6 or 7 times the national 

average. I have the numbers in my written testimony. 

But when you talk about addressing housing needs, you can 

imagine a lot of these needs in Indian country are compounded by 

the nature of overcrowded homes and having these types of homes, 

kind of the maintenance and upkeep that they require in these 

communities, so with that—and I actually have been working with 

Congress the last few Congresses to reauthorize NAHASDA since 

2015. 

And the last two comments; I would like to thank the leadership 

of this committee, the Financial Services Committee, and others, 

other allies for passing the NAHASDA reauthorization each of the 

last two Congresses. We have been working with the Senate to try 

to address the issue and concern there and will continue to do so. 

I certainly appreciate H.R. 360 and for what many of the components of that bill really do address and build upon the NAHASDA 

provisions itself, so we look forward to working with you. 

A lot of the specifics are outlined in my written testimony. I 

think the one concern that we do have with H.R. 360 was the cap 

on authorization, talked about funding, capping that at $650 million without a mechanism to allow for growth and funding for these 

tribal communities is the one concern. H.R. 360 is a great bill to 

start with and I appreciate the committee’s work and will work 

with them moving forward to address that bill and other ways to 

address the housing needs in the tribal communities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walters can be found on page 77 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Walters, and we will talk 

about a nonproductive Senate later in our hearing. 

Mr. WALTERS. Sure. 

Chairman DUFFY. Dr. Malcolm, welcome. You are recognized for 

5 minutes for an opening statement. 

10 

STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY MALCOLM, ESSENTIA CLINIC 

Dr. MALCOLM. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

here. 

I look at my role, if I understand it correctly, to talk briefly about 

what we know about indoor mold exposure and what it can do to 

people’s health, and then to talk about what I have seen here as 

a medical provider in the 21 years that I have worked in the Hayward, Wisconsin, area and have worked with people coming to our 

hospital and clinics from the tribal community. 

Quick background. Before I was here, I was in the Air Force, and 

they paid for medical school, and I am very grateful for that. I 

served active duty for 7 years. The last 4 years I was in Okinawa, 

Japan, which is a hot, humid climate that’s about the level of the 

Florida Keys; certainly mold is an issue there. I was deemed the 

island allergist, so I was sent to a one-month course at the Wilford 

Hall Hospital in Texas, and then for the last 3 years I was in Okinawa, I did all the allergy testing, so I have some background in 

this. I am not a board-certified allergist, I don’t want to claim to 

be that in any way, shape or form, but that is my background that 

I come to this with. 

And in the hospital I work in the ER, I work on the floors, I work 

in the clinic, I deliver babies and take care of young children. I am 

the hospice director at certain times, so I take care of people at 

home, at the end of life, so I have a lot of exposure in all walks 

of life over the last 21 years here in Hayward. 

Now, what do we know medically about mold, and specifically indoor mold exposure? There are a lot of controversies here, but there 

are clear-cut medical problems related to mold that we understand. 

The first is infections. Most people, if they are immuno-competent, which means they have a healthy immune system, they are 

not going to get an infection from mold; but if you are immunocompromised, you can get infection from mold. 

And many, many people are immuno-compromised. You don’t 

have to be an AIDS patient to be immuno-compromised; certainly 

they are, but lots of other people are immuno-compromised. 

If you have chronic kidney disease, bad kidneys, the immune system doesn’t work well. If you are on dialysis, you are immuno-compromised. If you have bad liver disease, you are immuno-compromised. If you are a cancer patient, even if you are cured, your 

immune system isn’t right and you are immuno-compromised. And 

certainly if you are a cancer patient and you are receiving treatment, you are immuno-compromised. If you are a newborn baby, 

you are immuno-compromised. Your immune system really starts 

to get pretty healthy around 3 months of age, but from birth to 3 

months of age your immune system isn’t very good; in fact, your 

first month of life your immune system is really pretty wimpy. 

So there are a lot of people out there who are immuno-compromised—you don’t need to talk about substance issues, but if you 

use alcohol or abuse alcohol, you are immuno-compromised. 

When you look at the percentage of the population that’s 

immuno-compromised, it is a lot, and so in immuno-compromised 

people, infections from indoor mold exposure can occur, be it lung 

infections, be it sinus infections, be it bone infections, joint infecVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:03 May 15, 2018 Jkt 029454 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\29454.TXT TERI
11 

tions, be it sepsis, which can even lead to death, so there is a risk 

to the immuno-compromised population. 

For the people who, again, have a normal immune system, the 

risk of infection is negligible; but if you are immuno-compromised, 

there can be issues. 

So the first risk for indoor mold exposure is infections. The second risk is hypersensitivity reaction; this is what we see a lot of. 

Probably 20 percent of our population in this country has asthma, 

it may be very mild, it may be just exercise-induced asthma, but 

that is where your lungs are extra-reactive to irritant exposures, 

and mold is certainly one of those, so it can flare. 

Asthma can flare allergies, which may sound trivial, but there’s 

pretty profound evidence that if you are a teenage kid trying to 

study in school and your asthma is bothering you or your allergies 

are bothering you, it is harder to study, it is harder to learn, so 

there are issues with that. 

And then there are more profound hyper-sensitivity reactions. 

Something called hyper-sensitivity pneumonitis and that’s where 

you get a really severe inflammatory process in the lungs from exposure to various things, one of which can be indoor mold exposure, 

and it’s essential to treat that condition so that the mold or whatever the irritant that’s causing that hyper-sensitivity pneumonitis, 

that severe inflammatory lung process, can be removed and then 

you need long-term steroids to treat that. 

And there are people with hyper-sensitivity pneumonitis that 

even end up needing a lung transplant, so it is not just a mild 

thing that you take some Benadryl for and it goes away; this is a 

serious medical problem. 

There are other medical conditions, and they have long ugly 

names, as doctors tend to approach things, like allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, an allergic fungal sinusitis, but there are 

other medical conditions that are clearly related to indoor mold exposure. These things are generally accepted in the medical community. There are controversies about other issues that are controversial—can it cause fatigue, can it cause immune issues, that is a 

controversial area, but there is clear-cut knowledge that there are 

infections that can occur and there are hyper-sensitivity reactions 

that can occur from indoor mold exposure. 

And then the last leg of my comment lies with what I see here. 

I have handled a number of patients in the ER and the clinics and 

the hospital who come in with respiratory issues, and they tell me 

that they have substantial mold exposure in their home. I see that, 

I am in the hospital, I treat that, but it is clear that I see that at 

times in Native youth and Native adults. I can’t say specifically 

that I have seen a case of hyper-sensitivity pneumonitis, the lung 

transplant, I can’t say that, but I can actually say with certainty 

that I have seen a number of kids, and a number of adults who 

come in to see me who have been hospitalized, put on hydrous 

steroids to decrease the inflammation, and then try to contact the 

tribe to see if their house can be remediated, in terms of mold exposure, with the thought that’s probably a trigger. 

That’s most of what I had to say. I have the opportunity after 

to entertain any questions. I hope that this is helpful to the committee. 

12 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Malcolm can be found on page 55 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Dr. Malcolm. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Montano for 5 minutes for his 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MONTANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LCO 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. MONTANO. [Speaking native language.] And good morning, 

Chairman Duffy, committee members, and other Congressional 

leadership. My name is Mark Montano, I am the executive director 

of the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority, and I am an enrolled 

citizen of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. 

First and foremost, I would like to say it is an honor to be invited 

to provide testimony in regards to the reauthorization of the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 

NAHASDA, which was first passed in 1996 and last reauthorized 

some 7 years ago. 

With that said, I am optimistically enthused about the possibilities of NAHASDA being reauthorized in the current 115th Congress. 

At this time I will attempt to summarize my written testimony, 

which has been submitted, within my allocated time. 

The background of the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority: 

Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority was established in January 

1967 and operates as a tribally-designated housing entity, and by 

virtue of such, we have to adhere to all rules and requirements of 

the program. 

From approximately 1969 to currently, the Housing Authority 

has constructed a total of 554 homes, of which approximately 160 

homes were built utilizing the discontinued Mutual Help Program, 

which assisted families to become homeowners, of which today all 

but three of those homes have been conveyed to those families. 

The Housing Authority receives NAHASDA formula funding for 

343 homes, which leaves a shortfall of 54 homes that have been 

built with no annual appropriations to operate and maintain. 

This shortfall means that the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority has had to utilize its NAHASDA formula funding to operate 

and maintain all of its housing stock, thus creating a further shortage of adequate funding. 

Over the past 20 years the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority has made great strides with leveraging its NAHASDA dollars 

so address housing issues and, in fact, has been very successful in 

utilizing the low-income housing tax credit program with the IRS. 

The following projects were a direct result of those low-income 

housing tax credit efforts: LCO-1 consisted of the rehabilitation of 

24 existing homes scattered throughout the reservation: LCO-2 

consisted of the construction of 24 new rent-to-own homes in a 

newly-constructed subdivision, which included all the infrastructure needed to support the development; and LCO-3, which was 

just recently completed in approximately 2014, consisted of the rehabilitation of 24 existing homes in the K-Town and Schoolhouse 

areas. 

13 

There’s still much work that needs to be done and, in fact, the 

LCO is no different than other tribal communities, which leads me 

to the next subject matter, the condition of housing in Indian country. 

Numerous reports have been written and provided to Congress in 

regards to the deplorable conditions of housing in Indian country 

and the challenges that have been faced by tribes to address this 

issue. 

Some of those reports, which I am sure you are aware of, include 

the following, and I am certain there are others: In July of 2003 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provided a report entitled, ‘‘A 

Quiet Crisis, Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country.’’ And in January of this year HUD issued a report entitled, 

‘‘Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal 

Areas: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska 

Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs.’’ 

I would encourage you, if you have not already, to review the 

contents of those reports, which continuously report the issues 

faced in Indian country regarding housing, but more importantly, 

the inequities with funding levels. 

My comments regarding H.R. 360 are contained in my written 

testimony, but I would like to reiterate a few of the important 

areas. 

We would ask that the tribes be allowed to increase their formula for current assisted stock to the true number of housing stock 

they own and operate as low-income housing rental units; as previously stated, we are underfunded, we are not receiving the full 

funding that we need to take care of all of the homes under our 

control. 

We also encourage Congress to ask HUD to provide a report that 

would accurately state the real operation and maintenance costs, so 

that a starting point for appropriations could be identified. 

In addition, we would ask that language be included in the bill 

that would allow for inflationary and fixed-cost increases over the 

authorization time period. 

We at this time would like to offer some other recommendations 

to the committee. First, provide direct allocations from the IRS of 

the low-income housing tax credits, instead of tribes having to go 

through the State for competitive applications. 

Second, the tribes should be able to have full access to all HUD 

programs and services similar to States, public housing agencies, 

and other entities. 

Third, tribes, as well as other communities, are faced with a 

very, very serious methamphetamine epidemic and there needs to 

be Federal intervention. This issue is costing the LCO Housing Authority well in excess of $100,000 annually for clean-up and testing. 

Currently, the State of Wisconsin has no regulations in regards 

to this, including clean-up standards, so the people of Wisconsin 

are going into homes not knowing the history, and potentially becoming contaminated by this drug. 

In closing, I applaud the chairman for scheduling this hearing, 

and other Congressional leadership for attending, but I would also 

encourage this committee and other committees of the 115th Congress to have more hearings throughout Indian country. 

14 

We certainly have many more suggestions that would improve 

the housing conditions and the ability to deliver services; however, 

the information I have provided orally today and in my written testimony is the starting point to addressing the issues we face. 

In addition, I firmly believe that we can collectively address the 

needs of Indian country by being proactive and not by kicking the 

can down the road or closing our eyes to a crisis that exists; but 

more importantly, not blaming each other, and agreeing to cooperatively work to improve the lives of the first Americans of this land. 

Tribes have been the invisible people for far too long, and if anything should come out of this hearing, it is due time that the reports are done being written to Congress and a resolution is found 

to address this one important issue once and for all. 

I personally stand ready to assist my Native brothers and sisters 

in any way possible and also commit to assisting Congress with 

this endeavor. [Speaking native language.] 

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

58 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Gokee, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROSALIE GOKEE, GOVERNING BOARD 

MEMBER, LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE 

Ms. GOKEE. First of all, I would like to say good morning to everyone, all of you who have traveled here to hear the concerns regarding housing, Chairman Duffy for organizing this meeting here 

today, and also a special recognition to Representative Moore for 

taking the time to listen to our needs here by listening to me this 

morning and honoring the government-to-government relationship 

that exists. Thank you for doing that. 

The Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation was established by the 1854 

Treaty with the Chippewa. Currently, the tribe is composed of approximately 8,000 tribal members, of which 2,425 reside within the 

reservation boundaries. 

The tribe operates as a Native housing entity which has a director and a housing board of commissioners that act in an advisory 

capacity. The mission of the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority 

is to shelter and protect their people and help their community 

prosper. 

As a TDAG tribal-designated housing entity, it gives HUD the 

authority to fund our housing authority directly, those funds do not 

come to the tribe; I think it’s important to know that. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the treaty and trust responsibility for adequate housing. The tribe’s treaty reserved inherent 

rights include the right for adequate housing. 

In the Treaty of 1854 the Federal Government established the 

Lac Courte Oreilles Indian Reservation and induced the various 

bands to forego their existing homes in the seated territories by the 

promise of assistance in building new homes on the reservation. 

Despite the pivotal role of housing promises in the negotiation for 

the 1854 Treaty, many Ojibwe people have lived in substandard 

housing since the establishment of the reservation. 

Safe, decent, and adequate housing in the form of funds for 

building, repairs, and renovations, and related infrastructure is a 

treaty right and forms part of the Federal trust and fiduciary reVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:03 May 15, 2018 Jkt 029454 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\29454.TXT TERI
15 

sponsibility of the Federal Government as established in its treaties. 

As Congress continues to address the ongoing housing crisis experienced by many tribes, policymakers must consider the complete 

history of the Federal Indian housing obligation in making its decisions. 

It is concerning to me that many tribal members continue to live 

in unhealthy and substandard housing for Lac Courte Oreilles, conditions which are a direct result of inadequate funding from the 

Federal Government to adequately address the housing needs in 

our tribal communities. 

And I have to agree with you, Congressman Duffy, no one deserves to live in the conditions we saw today, no one. The real issue 

here is lack of funding to meet the housing needs of our members, 

so they no longer need to live in these conditions. 

I agree with our housing director, Mark Montano, that more 

housing needs to happen. This issue just isn’t here at Lac Courte 

Oreilles, but all across Indian country. 

As a tribal leader, quite frankly, I feel that tribal members deserve better. Funding from the housing program fulfills Congressional trust and treaty responsibilities to tribal nations. 

I strongly urge this committee to advocate for the reauthorization 

of NAHASDA that will benefit all tribal nations. [Speaking native 

language.] Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gokee can be found on page 48 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Gokee. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tortalita for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FLOYD TORTALITA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PUEBLO OF ACOMA HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. TORTALITA. [Speaking native language.] Good morning, my 

name is Floyd Tortalita, and I am from Pueblo of Acoma in New 

Mexico. Thank you for the invitation to come before the subcommittee, in this wonderful country here. 

Good morning, members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, and thank you for inviting me to testify on the Federal 

housing programs that impact families in Native American communities and reservations. I am the executive director of the Pueblo 

of Acoma Housing Authority (PAHA). PAHA serves as the TriballyDesignated Housing Entity (TDHE) of the Pueblo of Acoma. 

Under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended, tribes can designate TDHEs to 

receive and administer Indian Housing Block Grant funds under 

NAHASDA. 

There are 22 tribes in New Mexico: 19 Pueblos; the Navajo Nation; the Mescalero Apache; and the Jicarilla Apache. The majority 

of our lands and all of our housing developments are on tribal trust 

lands. This means that the Federal Government holds legal title to 

our lands for the benefit of each of our tribes. 

As you might guess, development on tribal trust lands looks 

somewhat different than development on private lands. If you are 

in New Mexico and you are wondering why there are no stores, fast 

16 

food places, or banks in certain areas, it’s because you are probably 

on the reservation. 

I would like to start my testimony by highlighting the impact 

that Federal housing programs have had on Indian lands with a 

quote from the Housing Needs Study published in January 2017: 

‘‘The most important driver of economic well-being in any area is 

the state of the local economy.’’ But many of these programs, including NAHASDA, ICDBG, BIA, USDA, VA loans, and IHS help 

many tribes develop the capabilities of sustained development of 

their own economies. 

The Pueblo Acoma is currently the largest employer in Cibola 

County. How much of that money stays within our community: 

very little. With these programs and use of NAHASDA, it brings 

tribal members back to develop economies. 

To develop these economies for us to become self-sustaining, we 

turn dollar over dollars to start making these dollars available. 

Tribes rely heavily on Federal funding to meet the housing need 

for development, developing these housing needs. 

The United States has a Federal trust responsibility to protect 

the interests of its 567 federally-recognized tribes, including our interest in providing tribal members with access to shelter and security through affordable, safe housing opportunities. 

NAHASDA was enacted in 1987 and reauthorized in 2008 to help 

fulfill the goal and address the housing crisis plaguing many Native communities. 

NAHASDA reauthorization has failed the past two Congressional 

sessions, despite widespread support, due to the inability to bring 

the bill to the Floor vote in the Senate. Consequently, housing-related issues such as overcrowding, homelessness, and incomplete 

plumbing and kitchen facilities, all have associated negative health 

outcomes, and continue to impact the quality of life of countless 

Native American families and communities. 

We would like to make the following recommendations for the 

subcommittee and Congress to consider in making NAHASDA more 

workable for tribes going forward: 

First, remove barriers to building on floodplains by allowing the 

use of NAHASDA funds on floodplains without requiring a tribe to 

be a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

NAHASDA should have language providing that if a tribe has a 

tribal flood management program or law, that the law should be 

applied in lieu of complying with the Federal Floodplain Act, which 

requires a Federal funding recipient to be a NFIP participant. 

Some State funding, including Community Development Block 

Grant funds and HOME funds, are exempt from this requirement. 

Tribes should have a similar exemption. 

Second, allow tribes to access other HUD programs, such as the 

Drug Elimination Program and Section 8 Program. NAHASDA 

combined many HUD programs into one Federal funding source 

without increasing funding; as a result, tribes can’t access programs they once had prior access to. 

Third, authorize the Department of Justice to go into tribal court 

for foreclosures and evictions of the 184 program. Currently, tribes 

are not allowed, if they are still pending on the reauthorization of 

the 184 program, HUD is now saying that we must adhere compliVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:03 May 15, 2018 Jkt 029454 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\29454.TXT TERI
17 

ance to jurisdiction of Federal court and not tribal court. We think 

that should be in tribal court. 

Fourth, incorporate similar provisions as those set forth in 

former H.R. 360, introduced by Congressman Steve Pearce during 

the 114th Congress. 

PAHA and the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico would like to support 

the reauthorization of bills like former H.R. 360, introduced by 

Congressman Pearce, and its Senate companion bill S.710, introduced by Senator John Barrasso. Congressman Pearce worked 

closely with New Mexico tribes in introducing 360. Importantly, 

360 included language that would have expedited required Federal 

approvals, authorized tribes to blend IHBG funds with IHS sanitation facilities funding and launch, a demonstration program for alternative critical provisions within NAHASDA. They would provide 

tribes with the flexibility to effectively respond to the unique 

housings of the communities. We recommend that similar provisions be included in any future NAHASDA reauthorization. 

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

64 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Tortalita, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Tribble, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an oral statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN TRIBBLE, MEMBER, LAC COURTE 

OREILLES TRIBE 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Hello, my name is John Tribble, and I am a member here of LCO. I have been involved in housing issues for over 

12 years. I have talked with many people who have concerns about 

the way housing has been handling these issues, especially with 

the mold issues inside their homes. There has been mold growth 

in my home, as well as the homes of everybody that I have talked 

to in my community. 

There have been many attempts by individuals to address this 

health issue that does not have a satisfactory solution for housing. 

There have been questions on how housing and how the former 

members now of the Tribal Governing Board have been spending 

the funds that are given to provide homes for any and all projects. 

I have questioned numerous people and I cannot obtain information on why we are not receiving any remedies or the funding needed to address the housing issues, especially the mold. 

Some people who have been involved in determining projects before have come forth and said that there has been misappropriations, misspending of those fundings, misallocating and mismanagement, and that they have evidence of this mismanagement; 

however, under nondisclosure agreements they are unable to testify 

to that fact unless subpoenaed or requested to testify before the review committee. 

I spoke with a lot of people who live in these homes, I asked 

about their health concerns, and everybody I have talked to all has 

the same health concerns and issues, such as asthma developing in 

their young children, and there’s no history of asthma in their family; the mother and grandfather’s never had asthma, but now their 

children do. 

18 

We have had elders who have been rushed to emergency rooms 

for respiratory illnesses. This is quite common, but not recognized 

because nobody speaks about it. 

Now, I understand Federal funding is always an issue with a lot 

of programs, but one of our concerns is, as Congressman Duffy has 

addressed before, how are these dollars being spent? Well, we believe that they are not being properly spent, especially to address 

these issues. 

There has been mold in these homes for many, many years. 

There have been previous projects in the past, even before Mr. 

Montano became director, and yet the mold issue has grown substantially instead of decreased. 

As you have seen in the house that you inspected this morning, 

I assure you there are many, many more just as bad, if not worse. 

I represented a group of people who started a petition because 

we were concerned about the spending of those dollars and why are 

these issues still a big concern for the communities. It’s not just 

here at LCO, I have spoken with other tribal members and other 

members of executive boards overseeing their housing committees 

and they all have the same issues. 

We would like to see that the committee and HUD administer 

some kind of accountability, such as when you send money to a 

tribe for a big project such as this and the seriousness of this issue, 

especially with the mold and health concerns, even the doctor said 

it could even lead to death, which has been proven. 

I believe that there should be some kind of field administrators 

or inspectors to go and view these projects, and make sure that the 

money is being spent correctly, especially with the mold. This is a 

really big thing, it’s still new yet, as far as the medical field, but 

the doctor said there are a lot of issues. And this is one of our big 

concerns is about how are these dollars being spent, are they being 

spent and administered correctly? We would like to see this committee and HUD form some kind of accountability, some kind of administration to oversee the spending of these dollars. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tribble can be found on page 76 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Tribble, thank you for your testimony and 

for leading the effort to bring this to my attention. I appreciate 

that. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

I do want to thank Chairman Taylor, newly-elected, for opening 

this facility up today and allowing us in, and I congratulate him 

on his election. I know we have many tribal board members here 

today and I welcome them and thank them for their participation 

as well, including Ms. Gokee, who is here testifying. 

I want to start off with Dr. Malcolm; I know he has taken time 

between rounds and clinical, I think would be the proper terminology, to come and testify for us, but he probably can’t be here for 

the full hearing. 

So to you first, Dr. Malcolm, we went to a house today where we 

were looking at 2 to 3 feet of black mold at the base of a bedroom; 

the window sills of this bedroom full of black mold; another bedroom right next to it, I didn’t even think it was being used, it was 

full of black mold; the bathroom, spots of black mold everywhere. 

19 

And in this home we had a mother, we had a very young child, a 

little over a year old, we had two young ladies and a beautiful little 

chihuahua, Taco, which we met today. 

What impact does that environment have on these kids? Can you 

tell us, with your medical profession, that kids can be raised in a 

healthy environment living in a home with conditions such as this? 

Dr. MALCOLM. There is a high risk that those children will have 

problems, that they are going to have allergic problems, they are 

going to have asthma problems. 

As people commented earlier, some people are genetically prone 

to asthma, but we also realize that sometimes it’s just your exposure, and mold is clearly—if you look at the triggers of asthma, 

there’s dust mites, there’s various pollens of trees, weeds, and 

grasses, but also mold is a big trigger of that, and that can also 

then lead to chronic life-long lung problems, so those children growing up in that environment are at health risk going forward. 

Chairman DUFFY. So your point is, this is not consequence free? 

Dr. MALCOLM. No. 

Chairman DUFFY. Having children and families live in this environment has short-term and potentially long-term implications on 

the health of those living in these homes; is that fair to say? 

Dr. MALCOLM. Absolutely. 

Chairman DUFFY. Okay. Mr. Tribble, you’ve expressed your concern about mismanagement of funds and you rallied 100-plus people to try to have this issue addressed. 

If money comes from the Federal Government in the form of 

grant money to remediate mold on the reservation, if that’s what 

happens and that money is mismanaged, who does it hurt? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. It hurts the community, especially our children. 

Chairman DUFFY. It hurts the community and the children that 

it was meant to help, right? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. This money was supposed to go to help, I believe, 53 homes; 53 homes were in the grant. And I will ask Mr. 

Montano in a second. Do you know how many homes have been remediated? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Less than ten. 

Chairman DUFFY. Now, I have asked for documentation from the 

tribe to lay it out in regard to this $800,000, but I haven’t been 

given anything. But you are a tribal member, right? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. Have you asked for transparency? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Of course, we have. 

Chairman DUFFY. Have you received it? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. No. 

Chairman DUFFY. And I want to be clear, this is not the new 

tribal government, this was the old tribal government, and it was 

to them that you asked for transparency. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. That’s correct. 

Chairman DUFFY. So to the whole panel, is it fair to say that 

there is agreement that you need more money to fix your housing 

problems? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Yes. 

20 

Chairman DUFFY. Everyone is shaking their head. Is that a 

‘‘yes?’’ [Numerous people responded, ‘‘Yes.’’] 

Chairman DUFFY. And do you all know where the money comes 

from? It’s a stupid question. It comes from the Congress, right? We 

are the ones who appropriate money to these programs. So if the 

Congress asks for documentation about a grant and a tribe doesn’t 

give the Congress that information, does it just hurt that tribe or 

does it hurt all of our tribes? Mr. Tortalita? 

Mr. TORTALITA. All of those recipients do suffer. Unfortunately, 

being on the board for NAIC for 6 years, I have visited many tribes 

within that time and some of those tribes have those issues. 

It does create issues for all tribes because those are the ones that 

stick out, but many tribes are successful. 

And I can sit here and talk about my tribe for one. 

When I took over as the executive director of the housing authority in 2009, we had 22 findings in our audit, and we had 16 findings in our HUD review. In 3 years, I turned that around to where 

we had no findings, zero. 

Chairman DUFFY. A success story. 

Mr. TORTALITA. A success story. 

Chairman DUFFY. And I don’t know if it was Ms. Frechette or 

Mr. Walters who mentioned the $500,000 grant that was turned 

into $5 million. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. A success story. 

Mr. TORTALITA. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. But when we have scenarios where money is 

mismanaged and there’s a lack of transparency, that doesn’t just 

affect that one tribe, it affects all the tribes, because when Ms. 

Moore and I go back to Washington and we say, we care about the 

money that goes to help Indian housing, to help our tribes, and we 

have to verify that this money has been spent well, and we can 

then fight for more money. But if we can’t advocate and say, this 

money has been spent in an appropriate fashion, how do I ask for 

more? 

We have a $20 trillion debt, that’s in the back of people’s minds, 

and so I am going to say, every dollar that we sent you have used 

to its best ability, to help the most people; and when we asked, you 

were transparent and you just need more. 

If Ms. Moore and Mr. Sensenbrenner wouldn’t mind, if I could 

just go for a couple of minutes, and I will then say thank you. 

Mr. Montano, you sent the grant in to HUD and you asked for 

$800,000 to remediate 53 homes; is that right? 

Mr. MONTANO. First and foremost— 

Chairman DUFFY. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONTANO. First and foremost— 

Chairman DUFFY. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONTANO. Congressman Duffy— 

Chairman DUFFY. Were there 53—did you make a request for 

$800,000 to remediate 53 homes? 

Mr. MONTANO. No, I did not. 

Chairman DUFFY. So did the tribe make that request? 

Mr. MONTANO. Yes, they did. 

21 

Chairman DUFFY. So we can play semantics and say you did, 

but, okay, the tribe made that request? 

Mr. MONTANO. Correct. 

Chairman DUFFY. And now as the director, how many—this was 

done almost 2 years ago, the money was received? 

Mr. MONTANO. The grant was awarded in September of 2015. 

Chairman DUFFY. So we are almost 2 years on. How many homes 

have been remediated? 

Mr. MONTANO. Ten homes have been remediated. We are on 

phase three with an additional six homes being worked on. 

Chairman DUFFY. Six additional homes. 

Mr. MONTANO. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. Do you recall, in our conversation in Washington, that you told me that you’d only be able to do eight homes 

with that money? And then you don’t remember—well, you do remember, what has changed; how are you able to double the number 

of homes you were going to remediate at that point, since our conversation? 

Mr. MONTANO. I do not recall that conversation. 

Chairman DUFFY. So it has always been 16 homes you were 

going to be able to do with the $800,000 grant? 

Mr. MONTANO. I think that’s a misrepresentation of the facts, 

Mr. Duffy. 

Chairman DUFFY. Okay, well, is it fair to say you indicated that 

you were going to do—that the tribe was going to do 53 homes, 

that was the grant? 

Mr. MONTANO. That’s correct. 

Chairman DUFFY. And with that specific money, the $800,000 from HUD and the $300,000 that LCO was going to put in, how 

many homes are you going to be able to do? 

Mr. MONTANO. Adding the two together, $1.2 million. 

Chairman DUFFY. Correct. 

Mr. MONTANO. I am not prepared to answer that question, really. 

Chairman DUFFY. We are 2 years on. I thought you just told me 

it was 16 homes. We are 2 years into getting this money, as Mr. 

Tribble has pointed out, and you can’t tell me how many homes are 

going to be remediated with the $1.1-, $1.2 million? 

Mr. MONTANO. Congressman Duffy, as the ICDBG grants were 

awarded out, you have to take the whole project and divide the 

$800,000 by the number of homes. So at this current time we are 

at 16 homes that the $800,000 is infusing money into. 

The housing authority has been utilizing its IHBG dollars and 

other program revenue to support the construction and this 

$800,000 is a small portion of the amount that was used for construction. 

Chairman DUFFY. I am asking you specifically about the 

$800,000, I am not talking about any other money, so— 

Mr. MONTANO. That is how the program works. 

Chairman DUFFY. So you can’t delineate that $800,000— 

Mr. MONTANO. That $800,000 would be divided by the number 

of total homes done with the project. 

Chairman DUFFY. And how many total homes will be done? 

Mr. MONTANO. We are at the point where we are looking at 

about 20 to 21 homes. 

22 

Chairman DUFFY. So it has gone from 8 to now 21 homes. I will 

come back and ask some more questions, but my time is way over. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin, from the Milwaukee area, Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 

witnesses; I have learned a great deal sitting here today. 

I want to perhaps continue with this line of questioning with Ms. 

Gokee, Mr. Montano, and Mr. Tortalita, just jump in anywhere you 

can fit in, as we say. 

It is really eerie, Mr. Chairman, that you have harked on this 

53 houses because that just happens to be almost exactly the number of houses that reappropriating NAHASDA—less than what 

they need. 

And by the way, the funds we are talking about today are not 

NAHASDA funds, they are special funds, but it is just eerie almost 

that we are talking about 53 houses and that is the exact amount 

of money that they have to use whatever funds they get to sort of 

spread over the entire stock to maintain them. Is that correct, Mr. 

Montano? 

Mr. MONTANO. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE. Okay. Now, back to the expenditure on these 

houses. One of the things that I know, from being a homeowner 

and being someone, Dr. Malcolm, who is very asthmatic, is I don’t 

see how these people can spend 5 minutes in the house, is that you 

don’t know when you are putting together a prospective scope of 

work how much the houses are going to cost until you actually tear 

the walls down. 

So if I am making a proposal for moneys and say, this is what 

it is going to cost, I don’t know whether I am going to get a little 

gallon of bleach and some Kilz and that is going to remediate the 

situation, or if I am going to have to strip it down to the studs; or 

worst-case scenario, spend $1,500 to replace each stud. Is that correct, Mr. Montano; did you find any surprises? 

Mr. MONTANO. You are on point, that is true. 

Ms. MOORE. I used to be a housing—before I became a Congresswoman, I had a real job. 

I also wanted to—Mr. Tortalita, you traveled a great deal and so 

I guess I want to talk a little bit about how difficult it is to negotiate these funds that don’t seem to have any nexus. 

For example, you talked about sanitation and funds that are restricted for one use and can’t be used for other purposes, and not 

being able to access the low-income housing tax credits, as are 

other sovereign bodies like cities and States. 

So what extent do you think that Justice Department issues, to 

what extent do you think the mismatch of law and the lack of respect for sovereignty contributes to not being able to get a very 

cost-effective project? And before I yield to you to answer, I am also 

thinking about the fact that it might be more cost-effective just to 

tear the house down, but if you do that, you sort of shoot yourself 

in the foot because you then will diminish the amount of 

NAHASDA funds to which you are eligible. 

Can you just share with us the conundrum of trying to do these 

projects? 

23 

Mr. TORTALITA. Thank you, Congresswoman Moore. I think a lot 

of times it is a lot of the red tape within the Federal Government 

itself. Many of the programs, many of the Departments that do not 

communicate with one another create a huge barrier, whether it be 

dealing with USDA, the VA, IHS, HUD. 

We will take the environmentalists, for example, which creates 

a huge hindrance. You do environmental assessments all under 

compliance with NEPA, but yet IHS will not accept an environmental done under HUD requirements, which will not be accepted 

under USDA, which will not be accepted under other programs, but 

yet we all comply to the Federal Government, so that— 

Ms. MOORE. And that adds to the cost. 

Mr. TORTALITA. —adds to the cost. 

We just recently did a project where we were not required to do 

an EA on it, but because we needed a Federal land lease on it, the 

BIA required us to do an EA to put their thumbprint on it, which 

cost us an extra $24,000 just to put their thumbprint on it and recognize their lease. 

So a lot of these issues between many of the Federal entities create issues, so there needs to be—many of these need to become 

standardized, are those issues that are there and what requirements that many of these programs that are there. But as I mentioned, there are many, many successful programs that we— 

through which is required. 

Under NAHASDA we recently completed 67 units of rehabilitation. We had mentioned the cost of new construction and rehabilitation. The average cost of construction at Acoma is $250,000 for 

a new home. We have renovated homes at approximately $65,000 

per unit, bringing traditional homes to code, many of which we 

thought didn’t have a hope of doing it, but addressing all of these 

homes—about $65,000, 67 units addressed. We have spent approximately $4.3 million in direct construction in the last 5 years, since 

2012, which is about $6.3 million of our overall NAHASDA grant, 

through administration of current units that we have, but this was 

direct construction that we had to 65 families. 

We had one individual, and I love this story, I could go on and 

on about the stories that we get with these families because many 

of them are low-income families, elderly families or families with 

disabilities. 

We recently assisted a 90-year-old woman, a widowed woman, in 

remodeling her home, so— 

Ms. MOORE. So do you do this with some of your tribal funds— 

Mr. TORTALITA. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE. —gaming funds? 

Mr. TORTALITA. No, we don’t. We are one of those tribes that 

have a gaming source, but it’s not very much. We are— 

Ms. MOORE. Do most tribes have gaming revenues enough to be 

able to do what you— 

Mr. TORTALITA. No, no, we don’t. 

Ms. MOORE. So— 

Mr. TORTALITA. No, we don’t. We don’t get enough revenue from 

our gaming enterprises to be able to assist individual families or 

into—it goes into larger part systems: infrastructure; tribal adminVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:03 May 15, 2018 Jkt 029454 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\29454.TXT TERI
24 

istration. We don’t get the large, large game dollars like some other 

tribes do, depending on location. 

But this individual, in her comments she cried when she walked 

into her new home. This was a traditional home built with rock, 

had a wood-burning stove, hand-made cabinets, but we put in a 

whole new up-to-date ceramic tile floor, a new kitchen; she cried. 

And for lack of a—in her words that she said in Acoma, she said, 

I have a home like people on the outside. 

Ms. MOORE. I do want to give Ms. Gokee and Mr. Montano an 

opportunity and maybe Mr. Tribble an opportunity to say something, too, so thank you so much for that. 

And Ms. Gokee, Mr. Montano, anything to add to the costs and 

what you have inherited, what you have found? 

Ms. GOKEE. Yes. When this grant was applied for, it did indicate 

53 homes, that is the truth, but when work started and it was discovered the extent of the mold, those numbers needed to change. 

Mr. Montano, our housing director, submitted a report to HUD 

showing that change to 23 homes; that was approved by HUD. 

They did not want to take a Band-Aid approach on these homes, 

we wanted to fix them because we believe our tribal members deserve better. 

Ms. MOORE. Well, they deserve better, but also HUD has very 

strict guidelines, so if they say you have to cut the grass in addition to getting rid of the mold, I know how they are with the strict 

code upgrades that you might not do except that these are their 

guidelines. Did you find yourself in that situation as well, Mr. 

Montano? 

Mr. MONTANO. The mold remediation grant has several components to it. The first and probably most important part of the mold 

remediation grant was that we were required to remediate and perform construction practices and install materials to prevent it from 

re-occurring again. In other words, they wanted it taken care of 

once and for all. 

The second component of that particular grant is education. We 

were required to provide tenants in the general public education 

about mold—the effects of mold, the issues that cause mold to 

grow, the general housekeeping conditions that potentially could 

cause mold to grow, and things that tenants could do to help prevent it from re-occurring after we do the remediation. 

Ms. MOORE. And you have to spend money out of the grant for 

that? 

Mr. MONTANO. Correct. So as Councilwoman Gokee had mentioned, once we began exposing the homes, the issue was far worse 

than we had expected. 

As a matter of fact, one of the homes that we had worked on 

under this project had received prior ICDBG funding to remediate 

mold, and it was not done correctly because they had a cost cap 

and they could only spend so much money on the home so, therefore, they tried to do the best that they possibly could and correct 

the issue. That home we had to deconstruct down to the studs and 

it had severe mold issues. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. My time is waning. I just wanted Mr. 

Tribble to weigh in and tell you that I think you are very brave, 

as a person who represents folks who are frustrated. I know I have 

25 

asthma and hay fever, it is in my family, and it would be untenable 

for me to live in these homes. I want to thank you for your service 

and I do—I can appreciate your frustration. 

I also was wondering if there were any discussions, among the 

hundreds of people, about the absolute lack of adequate resources 

to do them all. I know there are great expectations, but I just want 

you to know that the Federal Government has not been as generous as you might believe. 

In our current budget, for example, the Indian Housing Block 

Grant has been zeroed out. Unfortunately, in the last couple of 

days the Appropriations Committee has sort of flat-funded. And as 

you heard testimony here today, the level of funding that we have 

provided is equivalent to what the money was worth back in 1996, 

and so I just wanted you to know that we are going to work really, 

really hard, and I know that while there may have been suggestions with your fraud or your abuse, there is also a lack of funding 

that is coming from the Federal Government as well, and I just 

wanted to— 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Thank you. I am aware of a lack of funding. I have 

been doing this kind of work for quite a few years, I am an advocate for the people, advocate for the rights of the people. 

Our concern—we are well aware of the dollars that we were supposed to receive for these projects, not only for housing but for 

other projects. 

Ms. MOORE. Health, yes. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Health, schooling. Our biggest concern is, how are 

these funds being managed? If they were properly managed, maybe 

we wouldn’t be in such a dark hole, maybe we wouldn’t be this far 

in the health concerns, maybe we wouldn’t be this far in the mold. 

Like I said, there have been people who came forward to me; I 

have been extensively investigating and talking with numerous 

people, key people who were part of the finance projects, who say 

and claim that these funds were misappropriated. 

So our concern is that this cannot happen, this should not be allowed to happen. There has to be a precedent set, an example set 

that this should not be tolerated by Congress, by the people who 

are providing these funds. 

Ms. MOORE. So you should run for the council. Whoops. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Well, that’s— 

Ms. MOORE. I am leaving soon so I can get away with that. 

Thank you, I think my time has expired. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back to the Chair. The 

Chair recognizes the other gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Chairman Duffy. 

There is a government accountability law, it is a GAO report, 

that the tribes cumulatively had $1 billion from unexpended 

NAHBG funds in July of 2013. Ms. Frechette, what are the current 

levels of unexpended funds? 

Ms. FRECHETTE. The current level is 95 percent expended. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. The current level is 95 percent expended IHB— 

26 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am talking about dollars. You are doing 

apples and oranges here. You said a billion dollars in 2013. How 

many dollars now? 

Ms. FRECHETTE. I will have to check on the dollar amount and 

get back to you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. So, you don’t know. 

Now, obviously, there’s a lack of funds that are flowing down to 

get the job done here. I think that Congress has been adequate in 

providing funds, it is just that there is a billion dollars a few years 

ago that has been squirreled away someplace where it hasn’t been 

used. 

That’s a problem, and it is a problem for the three of us and our 

colleagues who have to go back and justify appropriating tax dollars from our constituents to take care of necessary programs like 

this and the money isn’t being utilized. 

Now, I guess what I have to ask is, where has this money gone, 

where is this pot of gold that’s sitting somewhere, is it the fact that 

the tribes aren’t spending it? From what I have heard from the 

other witnesses, they are spending it, maybe not in the best possible way, but they are spending it. Is it still sitting in the safe in 

your office, figuratively speaking, Ms. Frechette? Where is the billion dollars? We can do a lot of good with a billion dollars and nobody seems to know where it is. I think we ought to find out. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Yes. The funds have been obligated to the grantees, which means sitting in an account for the grantees to draw 

down. 

While I will get you the dollar amount, 95 percent of those funds 

that have been appropriated from NAHASDA have been drawn 

down by the grantees and expended. Once they draw it down, they 

have to expend it within 3 days. 

The bulk of that number that you are referring to in 2013 was 

from our one large grantee, who gets about $88 million a year; that 

was a concern of HUD’s as well. We have been working with the 

grantee to get them to spend down their funds and— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How many large grantees get $88 million 

and have it add up to a billion? Maybe we are losing some zeroes 

around here. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. They had at one time their unexpended balance, 

I believe, was around $500 million, so they are a large portion of 

the amount. 

We have been working closely with them, we have even engaged 

in an enforcement process and are currently in litigation to resolve 

the issue of expenditure. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. I think we are going to have to get 

out the bloodhounds to find out where all this money is on that. 

HUD says that 95 percent has gone to the tribes, the tribes say 

that they are getting a shortage of money and it’s unexpended, so 

we really have to solve this problem. 

What I can say is, I favor tribal sovereignty, and if the problem 

is within the tribes, then the members of the tribes are going to 

have to deal with that and fix it. And if they don’t deal with that 

and fix it, you are going to see the argument in favor of sovereignty 

infringed upon in Congress and around the country. 

27 

If the money is sitting somewhere around HUD, where nobody 

seems to know where it is, then the problem is with HUD. 

I think what I have gotten out of this hearing, as a non-committee member, is that there is money that’s there, that money is 

not being spent to the highest possible effect, according to Mr. 

Tribble’s testimony, but there’s a lot of money sloshing around 

somewhere where nobody knows what it is. And I think before we 

appropriate more than flat funding to continue this program, we 

are going to need an answer, and HUD is going to have to give us 

the answer because I can say that I am leaving this hearing more 

discouraged about the administration of this program than when I 

walked in the door back there. So thank you very much. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. The panelists are 

fine with us doing a second round. I know, Dr. Malcolm, you have 

to leave and get back to work, but thank you for coming and thank 

you for your testimony today. 

Dr. MALCOLM. You are welcome. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Chair now recognizes himself for a second 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Montano, you weren’t in office and in this position when the 

homes we are talking about today were built, were you? 

Mr. MONTANO. No, I was not. 

Chairman DUFFY. You didn’t design them, you didn’t construct 

them, you had nothing to do with what I would argue is pretty 

shoddy construction of the homes that we are talking about? 

Mr. MONTANO. That is correct. 

Chairman DUFFY. So that part, no one is putting that on you and 

you didn’t actually even write this grant, you came in after the 

grant was requested? 

Mr. MONTANO. I participated in providing some information to 

the grant so that the grant department could write the grant. 

Chairman DUFFY. And so I just—what I am trying to do is just 

get some clarity on where we are today. 

So in regard to the grant money and the additional money that 

LCO has put in for mold remediation, how many homes have been 

completed? 

Mr. MONTANO. Ten are currently completed, five more are under 

current deconstruct and reconstruct, as you have seen today, and 

the home that you walked through today is planned to begin the 

process as well. 

Chairman DUFFY. So ten homes are done, all the way done? 

Mr. MONTANO. Complete, people are living in them. 

Chairman DUFFY. And we have the next phase of five that are 

slated to be done; is that correct? 

Mr. MONTANO. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. So with the ten homes that have been completed, how much of the $1.1-, $1.2 million has been used up to this 

point? 

Mr. MONTANO. That has all been used. 

Chairman DUFFY. Okay. So there is no additional money from 

this grant left for the other five homes; is that fair to say? 

Mr. MONTANO. Yes. We are using IHBG funds to—and other program income to finance the reconstruction and continue working on 

the project. 

28 

Chairman DUFFY. So in regard to—did the $1.1- to $1.2 million 

cover all 10 homes or did that not cover all 10 homes? 

Mr. MONTANO. No, it did not. 

Dr. MALCOLM. How many homes did the $1.1-, $1.2 million cover, 

if you know? 

Mr. MONTANO. The average cost to properly remediate a home is 

dependent on several factors, one of which is, of course, the size of 

the home; we have three-bedroom homes, four-bedroom homes, and 

five-bedroom homes that remediation had to be performed on. The 

average cost is anywhere from $110,000 to upwards of $170,000, 

$180,000, depending on what it was that was found when we started opening things up. 

Chairman DUFFY. I want to be crystal clear on that, it was 

$110,000 to $170,000 a home; is that what you are saying? 

Mr. MONTANO. Correct. 

Chairman DUFFY. And on average, what’s the square footage of 

the homes that you are remediating? 

Mr. MONTANO. 1,300 to about 1,500 square feet. 

Chairman DUFFY. I have asked builders in our area who have 

said, to build a new home it’s not just to pull the sheetrock and 

bring it down to the studs and dry it and put Kilz on, fix the ductwork, brand-new kitchen, brand-new construction, 110,000 square 

foot, so if—now, you might have a different opinion on that, but I 

have talked to local builders that for 110,000 square feet you could, 

in essence, have built a brand-new home, with a brand-new kitchen 

and a brand-new basement for the cost of—and I have also asked 

about what’s the cost to remediate a 12,000 or 1,300 square foot 

home, what should that cost us, those who are in this field. 

And at the low end, it was quite consistent with your estimate 

about $20,000 at the low end, which is what I think the grant estimated, but at the high end, the information I got back from builders and experts in our area in this space was it should be $45,000 

to $60,000, so that would be well over what you, ‘‘you’’ being LCO, 

had proposed in the grant. But if it was only $60,000, which was at the high end, there are 

a lot more homes that we could remediate and a lot more children 

who wouldn’t be living in a home that is full of mold, which is my 

concern. 

And so I would ask Ms. Gokee and you, Mr. Montano, I have 

asked for documents about how this money was spent, and I know 

there has been a campaign and an election on transparency, can 

both of you commit to me today that you will provide the documentation in regard to the grant money that came from HUD, documentation specifically about how this money was spent? 

Mr. MONTANO. Congressman Duffy, first and foremost, I think 

it’s important that when we are comparing costs of construction or 

reconstruction, that there is a fair comparable, that we are comparing apples to apples and not oranges to apples. 

Now, I say that because I have no doubt that a local contractor could build a house for $100,000. I don’t know what you are getting 

for $100,000, I don’t know the construction practices that are being 

used for $100,000, I don’t know the type of furnace that’s being 

used for $100,000, I don’t know the type of interior doors, I don’t 

know the kind of insulation that is being used for $100,000. 

29 

Chairman DUFFY. These are individual, not to—I am interrupting you, but to clarify. They are building homes, licensed home 

builders building— 

Mr. MONTANO. I understand that. 

Chairman DUFFY. —homes to Wisconsin code, which is a baseline 

on how we build; furnaces, insulation, doors, building a home—by 

the way, the homes I looked at were not gold-plated homes, these 

are pretty slimmed-down basic homes. Building a basic home to 

Wisconsin code, that’s what I am referring to, so I am comparing 

apples to apples. 

Mr. MONTANO. I beg to differ with you on that, but we can debate that issue at some other point in time. 

But if a certain specification is written, and Mr. Contractor from 

the City of Hayward has that specification, gives a price on it, 

which we have gotten prices on, and they are comparable, and 

what we are doing to ensure that mold does not reoccur back in 

those homes. And I think it’s critically important that we ensure 

that it does not happen again and we are coming back and saying, 

we need more money to fix something that we should have fixed 

right in the first place. 

I also want to comment on the fact that— 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Montano, I reclaim my time. I have spoken with experts who deal with mold, at the high end, meaning it 

won’t come back, they are going to get rid of the mold in the house, 

they are going to address the venting problems, the insulation 

problems, at the high end the numbers I got back were $60,000. 

And so I can’t take up a whole lot of time because I can’t keep 

my colleagues here all day. I would stay all day. I want to know 

if you are going to answer my last question, which was to you and 

to Ms. Gokee, will you provide me the documentation in regard to 

how this money was spent, specifically, show the receipts, show the 

invoices? 

Mr. MONTANO. Congressman Duffy, I want to back up in time— 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Montano, I don’t have a lot of time right 

now and I want to ask you that question. Will you— 

Mr. MONTANO. I cannot answer that question because I don’t 

have liberty or— 

Chairman DUFFY. You don’t have— 

Mr. MONTANO. —authorization to answer that question. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Gokee, will you offer to provide those receipts, those invoices? 

Ms. GOKEE. I don’t think that there would be an issue with providing documentation to you, there’s no secret there. I know that 

there are reporting requirements that HUD has that our housing 

authority is required to meet and which has done that. I recall 

when we met you in February, Mr. Duffy, that we did provide you 

with 2 years of audits for your review. 

And also, you are making allegations here that the tribe is 

misspending money; I take offense to that. 

Chairman DUFFY. Oh, I am not— 

Ms. GOKEE. I take offense to that because you have not checked 

clearly into the facts. We invited you here to Lac Courte Oreilles— 

Chairman DUFFY. And I— 

30 

Ms. GOKEE. —on numerous occasions, you are here now; it’s 

Lumberjack Weekend, we invited you here. And out of respect for 

the government-to-government relationship, I would expect that 

our Congressman would come here and meet with us about your 

concerns, we would have been more than happy to answer all of 

your questions. 

Chairman DUFFY. And so that goes back to my question, are 

you— 

Ms. GOKEE. We will provide you the documents, as we provided 

those documents to HUD, as we are required to report. 

Now, there is no misappropriation of funds because we need to 

cover expenses first, provide documentation, and then we receive 

our reimbursement. 

There’s no misappropriation of funds— 

Chairman DUFFY. So Ms. Gokee— 

Ms. GOKEE. —the problem here is we are underfunded, that is 

it. 

Chairman DUFFY. So Ms. Gokee, if that’s the case, I have asked 

for different information than HUD has asked for. I am drilling 

down specifically into an issue that Mr. Tribble and others have 

written me about. And though you represent tribal members, so too 

do I, and this is Federal taxpayer money, and so I have an obligation to Mr. Tribble and tribal members who are living in homes 

that haven’t been remediated, that they were told would be remediated, to ask questions, see receipts, see documentation. 

And in regard to not what you provided HUD, but—and what I 

have asked the tribe to provide me and to provide Mr. Tribble and 

everybody else who was asked, are you going to provide me those 

documents? 

Ms. GOKEE. Absolutely. 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, I appreciate that, because that is 

the starting point. And I have told you, Ms. Gokee and Mr. 

Montano, I want to make sure this money was spent well. You 

show me those documents, we expose this and you can show me 

that, I am going to join Ms. Moore and we are going to go fight for 

more money, but I am not going to do that until I can answer the 

questions that Mr. Tribble has asked me and others have asked 

me, and so we can have a partnership, but it starts with transparency. 

And I appreciate Chairman Taylor for committing to making 

sure we have an inter-governmental relationship that we can build 

trust and transparency, which allows us to better fight for your 

needs. So I appreciate your willingness now, after many months of 

my request outstanding, that you are going to provide that information. 

Ms. GOKEE. So are you also saying that when we need your assistance, Congressman Duffy, we request you to come and meet 

with us, that you will also honor that government-to-government 

relationship and meet with— 

Chairman DUFFY. Absolutely. 

Ms. GOKEE. —the tribe regarding our needs in our community as 

well? 

Chairman DUFFY. Absolutely. I will ask, Ms. Gokee and to the 

panel, how many Congressional hearings have you had at the LCO 

31 

reservation? The answer is none. I have answered the call that 

tribal members had to fight for their homes, to fight for their 

health, and that’s why I have asked Ms. Moore and I have asked 

Mr. Sensenbrenner and why I have talked to everyone on Ms. 

Moore’s side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle about this 

issue that is happening at LCO, and we have been asked, when we 

come back from this hearing, to report about what we found. 

Though you have only three Members of Congress, you have a 

whole committee who cares about what’s happening here, because 

the stories I tell have both sides outraged, and so you have a Congressman who is here today holding a hearing, fighting for your 

people and that hasn’t happened yet. 

So with that, my time has expired, and I yield to the gentlelady 

from Wisconsin. 

Ms. MOORE. I guess I would ask the audience to clap for me before I speak, just in case you don’t like what I say. 

Just let me say, I want to keep the main thing, the main thing, 

I am here for a hearing on, ‘‘NAHASDA: 20 Years On,’’ so I want 

to clarify with the panel here that NAHASDA has been effective. 

Am I wrong about that, Ms. Frechette, from the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, that NAHASDA has worked? 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Yes, I think tribes, the independent study that 

was conducted and also the continual funding that NAHASDA— 

Ms. MOORE. Could you speak up a little bit. I know I am a loudmouth, but— 

Ms. FRECHETTE. I think the tribes would agree, I think that the 

independent study that I quoted earlier agrees and continual funding, as well as the number of units that have been produced and 

the leveraging and attraction of private dollars that— 

Ms. MOORE. They have been able to leverage. And, Mr. Tribble, 

would you agree that NAHASDA is very, very critical and has been 

effective? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE. Okay, so we all agree on that. And none of the funds 

that we are talking about here today that have been focused on, 

we are focusing on the importance of reauthorizing NAHASDA and 

so I just wanted to get it in the record, Mr. Chairman, that 

NAHASDA works. 

I also wanted to deal with the questions that my good friend Mr. 

Sensenbrenner raised about the unexpended funds for projects that 

are receiving over $5 million, and I guess I am going to start with 

Mr. Walters and Ms. Frechette regarding this. 

Now, the problem came in from the Navajo, who use a great deal 

of the NAHASDA funds, and they have expended the funds, but is 

it or is it not true that 95 percent of the other tribes are teenyweeny tribes and what they do is that they have obligated funds 

from previous cycles, but they have not expended them because 

they need to save up these funds in order to do a project of any 

magnitude. So it’s not that the funds are being squirreled away or 

misappropriated or fraudulently misused, these are funds that are 

not adequate from one year to the next and so they are saved and 

they are subject to Indian housing plans that move from year to 

year. 

32 

Ms. Frechette, Mr. Walters, can you share with us, give us an 

education about these obligated but not expended funds? 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Thank you. Yes, as I responded to Representative Sensenbrenner’s line of questioning, and I do have the dollar 

amounts for you, sir, $11.9 billion in IHBG funds has been awarded over the history of the program, $11.4 billion has been expended. The 2013 $1 billion level was at a point in time, has since 

been spent down, so it remains $536 million unexpended, $200 million of that is the Navajo Nation’s unexpended balance, so that’s 

about 5 percent of the grant. 

And then the $336 million unexpended is across 567 tribal grantees, so all of the money has been obligated; it is not located at 

HUD, it is available. But as you said, many of them are small 

grantees that get about $50,000 or more a year that have to bank 

the money for several years to even produce one home. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. Anything to add very quickly, Mr. Walters? 

Mr. WALTERS. Just briefly, in 2013, when that report came out, 

tribes themselves took notice as well and they took steps to try to 

address this issue through negotiated rulemaking. There is language that was developed through rulemaking where tribes are 

limited to new funds if their unobligated balance is 3 times their 

annual. So if a tribe is saving up its funds, and usually in a way 

that you describe, they save up money to actually complete a single 

project, a larger project, they will be penalized for that in the sense 

that they would not be able to get future funds from the fourth, 

fifth, sixth year until they do spend those moneys back down, so 

that would have been a direct response. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much. 

I also just wanted, Mr. Chairman, to get on the record just to 

find out, one of the discussions we are having on a bipartisan basis 

is the importance of including all indigenous people in the language, and I was wondering if you all agree that Native Hawaiians 

ought to be included in the NAHASDA package as eligible recipients of NAHASDA funds. Mr. Montano? 

Mr. MONTANO. Congresswoman Moore, I would have to say, yes, 

we could agree to that, as long as it does not further dilute the already underfunded funds that come to us. 

As native peoples and indigenous peoples of this land, the first 

Americans of this land, we respect our brothers and sisters; and if 

they happen to be Native Hawaiians, whom LCO has a very close 

relationship with due to their language immersion school, then so 

be it. But I do not think it would be right if we were to discriminate against them, but in the same sense we have to make certain 

that whatever money we are getting, we are not further diluting 

it down. 

Ms. MOORE. Yes, I get that, they are your brothers, you just don’t 

want to split the money up too much. I get that, you need more 

money. 

I am afraid that my time is going to expire, so I just want to 

make one point about stewardship over taxpayers’ funds. 

We are all taxpayers, including Indians, and we are all citizens 

of the United States, you all have dual citizenship, and I just want 

33 

to point out that when we start talking about taxpayer funds, that 

it is your tax funds as well. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully yield back to 

you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. I did not go on the 

house tour this morning. I am glad I didn’t, because I have bad hay 

fever, and if I had gone into that moldy house, I would have had 

to blame Mr. Duffy and Ms. Moore for making me cry, and I don’t 

want to have to do that, but there is a problem here and that is 

why we are here today. Ms. Frechette, I am glad, though, that you found $464 million 

since the first round of my questioning, but there still is over half 

a billion dollars that is obligated but unexpended. 

Now, maybe the Navajo are not very good at spending money, they have $200 million left in the sod, but there is a problem in 

terms of getting the money that Congress appropriates out the door 

and actually being used to do what that money was appropriated 

to be used for. 

Now, I have two questions, Ms. Frechette. First, what kind of internal procedures does your agency have to make sure that the 

money is being used once it goes out of your door. 

And second, what kind of auditing procedures do you have to 

make sure that the mess that I have heard about today, which I 

didn’t know anything about until this morning about lack of transparency in the tribe and things like that, don’t happen? 

Because when there is a dispute, as I have heard from people at 

that end of the witness table, it certainly doesn’t do any part of this 

program any good. And the question is, how do we prevent future 

disputes from happening, that end up spilling out into the Congressional offices, oversight letters, hearing unfavorable news coverage 

and the like, that’s what the bottom line of oversight has to be and 

I am hopeful that this hearing is going to solve all of these problems so that me representing that part of Wisconsin that is referred to as ‘‘down there,’’ up here, never has to hear about it 

again. So how are you going to do that? 

Ms. FRECHETTE. In regard to getting the funds out in a timely 

manner, we have several tools that we didn’t have in the past. This 

accumulative amount is over time, before my tenure at HUD. However, since that time the appropriations used to be, know your 

money, there was statutory language that allowed tribes to carry 

it over and that’s what happened. 

As Mr. Walters indicated, tribes are now mindful of the fact that 

they have a responsibility to expend that money in the manner 

that they had told HUD they would. 

The other tool is the language that was negotiated during the negotiated rulemaking with HUD, that other tribes are concerned as 

well as HUD to have more teeth to be able to go after those tribes 

that don’t expend their funds and that’s why there’s 3-times language, which provides anyone over $5 million grantee who has 3 

times their balance will forfeit that money in the future, so we 

have those tools. 

34 

In addition, we have statutory language that requires us to get 

the initial grant allocations out to the grantees within 60 days 

upon passage of the appropriations. 

And then on the programmatic level, there has been much more 

of a focus under my tenure on the performance end. We don’t want 

to be on the back end with enforcement, we want to be on the front 

end to make sure that those dollars are being used effectively in 

the community. 

One particular concern that we have heard with Navajo and 

some other tribes is the fact that new units are not being constructed and a lot of money is going into rehab. We are focused on, 

how can we get the best bang for the buck as far as—especially 

with these resources. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My question to you is, is HUD going to be 

prepared to be the performance police that says, until you perform 

you are not going to get any more money, that is the way to get 

the attention of lack of performance pretty quickly, I would submit. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Right. We have statutory and regulatory authority, we don’t have that authority in the statute of the regulations 

because it is a block grant, because it’s based on self-governance. 

If that is something that Congress would like us to do, we would 

need the authority to be able to do that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me see if those of us who believe in 

tribal self-determination, the issues that we have heard about 

down at the other end of the table should be resolved within the 

tribe, rather than spilling over either to HUD or, even worse, to 

Congress. 

I have been in this business quite a long time and I can say that 

people who have problems with Federal agencies that get in contact 

with me and with my office are basically at their wit’s end, they 

have tried everything that they can with the Federal departments 

and agencies; it is more that they haven’t gotten an adequate answer, than that they disagree with the answer. 

Most of the casework I do is not resolved favorably with the constituent, but the constituent is entitled to an answer on why the 

answer is no; and I don’t see this coming out of HUD, in terms of 

preventing disputes like this from boiling over. Please work a little 

harder. 

Ms. FRECHETTE. Thank you. And I would like to note that we 

didn’t get contacted directly from the individual who has some concerns, but we did get contacted from Chairman Duffy’s office and 

have been working over several months to be responsive, to look 

into it deeper and also to provide the information requested. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. I know Ms. Moore 

has to catch a flight out as well. I want to thank our panel for your 

testimony today, and from this point I look forward to moving forward with regard to far more transparency, which Ms. Gokee has 

committed to, and I know that the tribal government has as well, 

making sure this is a new start, to make sure we resolve the issues 

that have been brought up here today. 

Because this is about people, this is about families, this is about 

children; and that is not partisan, that’s American, and so I look 

35 

forward to this hearing being our starting point and partnership 

with our LCO tribe. 

Jimmy Edmund is here from their State Government, but also 

with our Federal Government, making sure we are partnering to 

address these problems. 

So with that, again, to our panel, thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11;15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 21, 2017 

38 


29454.001

Ranking Member Maxine Waters 

Statement for Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Hearing entitled, "NAHASDA: 20 

Years On" 

July21,2017 

I am very pleased that Chairman Duffy is holding this hearing to shine a spotlight on the 

housing needs of our Native communities, and the need to reauthorize key affordable housing 

programs for these communities. For over two decades, the Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) has served as a successful framework for 

supporting safe, decent, and affordable housing for Native Americans, while respecting tribal 

sovereignty. The programs authorized under NAHASDA are designed to be flexible and to 

provide tribes with the tools they need to overcome the unique challenges that they face when it 

comes to developing and maintaining affordable housing for its low income residents. 

The unique status of tribal lands puts traditional financing for homeownership out of 

reach for the vast majority of Native Americans hoping to own their own homes in tribal areas. 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee program (Section 184) helps these prospective homeowners by 

providing a government guarantee for traditional, 30-year fixed rate mortgages for eligible 

borrowers in tribal areas. Native American tribes also face challenges when it comes to financing 

affordable housing developments for similar reasons, as well as challenges with increased costs 

of development due to the remoteness of many tribal areas. The Native American Housing Block 

Grant (NAHBG) provides tribes with a flexible source of funding that can be used for a wide 

range of affordable housing activities, as well as associated infrastructure and services. 

Additionally, the Title VI Loan Guarantee program (Title VI) allows tribes that receive NAHBG 

fi.mds to pledge future NAHBG amounts as collateral to leverage private financing to support 

their NAHBG projects. 

NAHASDA was amended in 2000 to provide assistance to Native Hawaiians, who face 

similar challenges when it comes to affordable housing. This was in line with Congress' 

recognition that it has a "unique trust responsibility to promote the welfare of the aboriginal, 

indigenous people of the State [of Hawaii]," who were displaced by European and American 

settlement, beginning in the colonial era through the annexation of Ilawaii. 1 The 2000 

amendment to NAHASDA provided for the authorization of the Native Hawaiian Housing Block 

Grant (NHHBG) program and the Section 184A Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee program 

(Section 184A), which provide assistance to Native Hawaiians living on Hawaiian trust lands, 

similar to the assistance provided under NAHBG and Section 184. 

A recent report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (BUD's) 

Office of Policy and Development Research (PD&R) found that these programs are achieving 

their intended goals, and that tribes have demonstrated that they have the capacity to effectively 

1 Hawaiian Homes commission Act of 1920 
39 


29454.002

administer these funds.L for example, since its inception, NAHBG funding has been used to 

build or acquire about 38,570 affordable housing units, and rehabilitate about 83,079 affordable 

housing units; Title VI funding has been used to build, rehabilitate, or install infrastructure 

benefitting more than 3,100 families.3 Despite the success of the NAHASDA framework, 

underfunding has limited the reach of these programs. For example, the NAHBG program has 

been appropriated about the same level of funding every year since its inception, but as the HUD 

PD&R report states, "it is clear that the amount of federal housing assistance provided in Indian 

Country to this point ha~ not been sufficient to meet the need" and that "the flow of IHBG 

funding is now trending down in relation to this need in real terms.''4 

Further, Congress has failed to reauthorize NAHASDA programs in a timely manner. I 

have been a strong supporter of the reauthorization ofNAHASDA programs, including robust 

funding for these programs. However, the bill that was introduced by Representative Steve 

Pearce in the 114tl' Congress- the "Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Reauthorization Act of2015" (H.R. 360)- includes harmful provisions that I 

cannot support. First, this bill would eliminate the requirement that households living in 

NAHBG- funded housing ean only be charged a maximum of 30 percent of their adjusted 

income for rent. This requirement, often referred to as the "Brooke rule," is a longstanding policy 

in federal housing programs and is widely considered the benchmark for housing affordability. 

The Brooke rule was enacted in 1969, and has been a requirement under NAHASDA since its 

inception. H.R. 360 would eliminate this key requirement that ensures affordability for low 

income residents, and it would do so without any limitations or hardship exemptions. This could 

have a devastating impact on low income Native residents, including children, families, and 

seniors. Eliminating the Brooke rule would seriously compromise one of the central goals of 

NAHASDA, which is to provide affordable housing for low income Native communities. 

Second, H.R. 360 would fail to ensure that the Cherokee Freedmen remain beneficiaries 

ofNAHASDA programs. The Cherokee Freedmen are the descendants offormer AfricanAmerican slaves of the Cherokees, or of free African-Americans who intennarried with 

Cherokees. In 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed a treaty with the U.S., promising to grant the 

Cherokee Freedmen with "all the rights" of native Cherokees. However, dne to subsequent 

efforts by the Cherokee Nation to expel the Freedmen from its citizenry and deny them the rights 

thereof, a group of the Freedmen pursued litigation, which is currently ongoing. The Freedmen 

are currently protected by a temporary court order reinstating the freedmen as citizens, but their 

fate could change based on the final outcome of this litigation. l believe that Congress has an 

obligation to ensure that the Freedmen are protected, which is why I have supported a provision 

that would make NAHASDA funding for the Cherokee Nation contingent upon their full 

compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and full recognition of the Freedmen as citizens of the 

Cherokee Nation. 

2 HUD PD&R, "Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas," January 2017. 3 HUD, "Report to Congress: Native American Housing Assistance and Self: Determination Act," Fiscal Year 2016 4 HUD PD&R, "Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas," January 2017. 
40 


29454.003

Lastly, it is unclear whether the version of this bill that may be introduced this Congress 

will include the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian programs. I continue to believe that the 

Native Hawaiian programs are an important part of NAHASDA and must be included in a 

reauthorization bill moving forward. To do otherwise would be to forget and undermine the 

historical displacement and mistreatment of Native Hawaiians, as well as the challenges they 

continue to face as a result of this history, including the challenges they face when it comes to 

affordable housing. 

For these reasons, I opposed H.R. 360 last Congress, and will continue to oppose the 

same or similar legislation reintroduced this Congress if key changes are not made to address 

these concerns. 
41 


29454.004

Written Testimony of Heidi Frechette 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American Programs 

Office of Public and Indian '" • ...,,, .. ,,, .. ~;;; 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Field before the United States Honse Committee on 

Financial Services, and Insurance Subcommittee 

"NAHASDA: 20 Years On" 

2017 
42 


29454.005

Introduction 

Thank you, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss the programs administered by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, authorized by the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). 

As HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Native American Programs, I have had 

the opportunity to visit Native communities to learn first-hand about the issues and challenges 

the tribes face, and to hear directly from tribal leaders on what we need to do to strengthen and 

improve HUD's policies and programs for Native Americans. Far too many Native American 

communities struggle with severely overcrowded housing, affordable housing shortages, 

substandard living conditions, and significant barriers to economic opportunity. 

Today, one out of every four Native Americans lives in poverty- including more than 

one-third of all Native American children. Far too many families live in unacceptable 

circumstances and face a future that lacks educational and economic opportunity. In the last 

15 years (2003-20 17), the number of low-income families in the Indian Housing Block Grant 

(IHBG) formula areas grew by 46 percent and now exceeds 327,000 families. The number of 

overcrowded households, or households without adequate kitchens or plumbing, grew by 

24 percent to over 113,000 families. Finally, the number offamilies with severe housing costs 

grew by 60 percent to over 67,000 families. 

To put these numbers in greater perspective, American Indian and Alaska Native people 

living in tribal areas in 2006-2010 had a poverty rate and an unemployment rate that were 

approximately twice as high as those rates for non-Indians nationally. American Indian and 

Alaska Native people in large tribal areas were more than 8 times as likely to live in housing that 

was overcrowded, and more than 6 times as likely to live in housing that did not have adequate 

plumbing facilities than the national average. 

HUD Native American Programs 

In my capacity as DAS, I oversee four federal programs that support Native American 

communities: the Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program, the Indian 

Housing Loan Guarantee (Section 184) program, the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) 

program and the Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee (Title VI) program. 

ICDBG Program. In 1977, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 was 

amended to set aside competitively awarded funding for American Indian tribes within the 

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program. The statutory Indian CDBG, or 

ICDBG, is a set-aside within the annual funding for the CDBG program. 

In FY 2016, the ICDBG program funded the construction of 13 community buildings, 

including a Head Start Center for the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe in Oklahoma; the rehabilitation 

of 315 affordable housing units, and created 30 jobs as reported by grantees. In the last 5 years 

(2012-2016) ICDBG has funded the construction of 159 community buildings, the substantial 

rehabilitation of almost 3,800 affordable housing units, and the creation of 922 jobs. 

1 
43 


29454.006

Tribes across Wisconsin have used ICDBG funds to support their communities including: 

garnering much needed utility savings by developing and retrofitting affordable units with 

renewable energy infrastructure; developing community facilities that target support and care for 

tribal elders and tribal youth; and ensuring the health and safety of their communities with 

improvements like potable water infrastructure. 

Section 184 Program. The Section 184 program was authorized by the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1992, as amended. Since its inception, the program has 

guaranteed more than 38,000 mortgage loans, with loan guarantee authority of more than 

$6 billion. The program is the primary vehicle to access mortgage capital in Indian communities 

by providing access to market-rate, private mortgage capital to qualified Native American 

families. In addition to individual home loans, tribes and tribally designated housing entities 

(TDHE) are eligible borrowers. As borrowers, tribes and TDHEs can finance and develop new 

rental housing or create homeownership opportunities for tribal members through lease purchase 

programs. 

As of June 30, 2017, the program had guaranteed a cumulative total of38,565 loans with 

a principal balance of more than $6.4 billion. In January 2017, as part of the congressionally 

mandated Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs, 

HUD published, Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land: A Report from the Assessment of American 

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. The report found that the Section 

184 program successfully eliminates the functional market barrier to private lending presented by 

tribal trust land. 

NAHASDA Programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act (NAHASDA) is the statute that authorizes the Indian Housing Block Grant 

(IHBG) program and the Title VI loan guarantee program. 

NAHASDA supports the government-to-government relationship between the Federal 

Government and tribal governments, established by long-standing treaties, court decisions, 

statutes, Executive Orders and the United States Constitution. NAHASDA recognizes the 

importance of tribal sovereignty and is designed to provide flexibility and local control, so that 

each tribe can decide how best to address its unique housing needs and economic priorities. 

The IHBG program is the single largest source of federal funding for housing in Indian 

Country. lf-IBG funds are distributed annually, by formula, to eligible American Indian tribes or 

their tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs), to provide a range of affordable housing 

activities that primarily benefit low-income Indian families living on Indian reservations or in 

other Indian areas. 

In fiscal year 2016, tribes built or acquired 563 affordable housing units using IHBG 

funds, and about 5,400 units were substantially rehabilitated. In addition, tribes operated, 

maintained, and renovated about 43,000 units of housing developed under the U.S. Housing Act 

of 1937. Since the program's first year of funding in 1998, through fiscal year 2016, recipients 

built or acquired more than 38,000 units of affordable housing, and rehabilitated about 85,000 

units. These outputs represent some of the most important and consistent uses of program funds, 

2 
44 


29454.007

but they do not reflect the entire scope of program activity. For example, since 2013, tribes have 

used IHBG funds to purchase almost 1,300 acres ofland to develop affordable housing, and have 

provided down payment or closing cost assistance to more than 3,200 families. 

The Title VI Loan Guarantee Program, or Title VI program, promotes affordable housing 

opportunities by leveraging private capital with IHBG funds. Under Title VI, a tribe or TDHE 

can use IHBG funds to leverage private financing to fund affordable housing activities, so that it 

can undertake larger affordable housing projects. HUD guarantees 95 percent of the principal 

and interest on the loan, and tribes pledge a portion of their annual IHBG grant as payment and 

security for the loan. Title VI projects often use multiple sources of funding, span several years, 

and include infrastructure development. From the inception of the Title VI program in 2000 

through June 30,2017, HUD has guaranteed a total of98loans, for a total of$238.5 million. 

Approximately 3,244 affordable units are associated with these loans. 

The recently published Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal 

Areas, the product of a congressionally mandated, multi-year study of housing needs and 

conditions in Indian Country concluded, " ... tribes have demonstrated the capacity to construct 

and rehabilitate housing for low-income families at substantial levels under the NAHASDA 

framework." Since 1998, under NAHASDA, tribes have not only produced more housing units 

per year, but they have produced better housing-housing that is tailored for local conditions, 

customs, and climates. Tribes also use the flexible block grant in many different and innovative 

ways to address unique local needs, such as assisting college students with housing, counseling 

prospective homeowners, providing self-sufficiency training to residents, and maintaining 

critical community infrastructure. 

!IUD oversight and accountability 

In managing its Native American programs, HUD implements a risk-based oversight 

modeL This model focuses the Department's monitoring resources on the review of tribes and 

TDHEs that are at greatest risk of failing to accomplish program goals and providing affordable 

housing. Every year, BUD conducts a risk assessment that takes into account the size of a tribe 

or THDE's grant(s), level of recent monitoring and overall performance, including compliance 

with regulatory and statutory requirements. Tribes arc ranked according to risk, and then the 

Department~ based on available staffing and travel resources -develops a plan to conduct site 

visits to as many tribes and TDHEs as possible, with the highest risk tribes/TDHEs being a 

priority. 

In 2016 HUD conducted on-site monitoring of62 grants to tribes and TDHEs. On-site 

monitoring of grantees has decreased in recent years due to lower ONAP staffing levels. After 

each monitoring review, HUD produces a report identifying any program weaknesses or 

violations. The Department then works with the grantee to resolve any violations and provides 

technical assistance, if available, to strengthen program weaknesses. If necessary, HUD takes 

action to pursue a three-part enforcement process to resolve program violations. Fortunately, 

when the Department has identified an issue with program compliance, tribes and TDHEs are 

typically very responsive, and most agree to voluntarily implement a plan to comply with 

program requirements rather than be placed into the enforcement process. 

3 
45 


29454.008

In the case of the ICDBG program, grantee progress on completion of specific, 

previously funded projects, such as disaster mitigation, affordable housing infrastructure, or 

community facility construction, is also monitored through the Department's review of required 

annual status reports and audits, in addition to on-site monitoring consistent with HUD's annual 

risk-based monitoring plan. 

NAHASDA Reauthorization 

Tribes have made great strides under the self-detennination framework established by 

NAHASDA and HUD looks forward to working with Congress on reauthorization of the 

legislation. It is clear that the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 360) was developed in the spirit of continued support for 

streamlined program rules and regulations that allow for ease of administration, more local 

control, and program flexibility-without Federal Government involvement in day-to-day 

activities. 

The major elements of the bill include I) streamlining the environmental review process, 

2) removal of Section 3 employment requirements, 3) amending maximum rent requirements, 4) 

allowing coordination of multi-agency funding, 5) establishing parameters for timely expenditure 

ofiHBG funding, 6) permanently authorizing the Tribal BUD-Department ofVeterans Affairs 

Supportive Housing (Tribal HUD-V ASH) demonstration program, 7) authorizing an 

appropriations and loan limitation for the Section 184 program through 2019, and 8) creating a 

demonstration program designed to allow tribes to partner with private investors and pledge their 

annual block grants to attract private capital. In 2015, concerns were raised on some provisions 

ofH.R. 360, and we look forward to working with the Congress to address those concerns. 

Streamlining the Environmental Review Process 

H.R. 360 allows for consolidation of the environmental review requirements for projects 

that have multiple Federal funding sources. Since 2014, HUD has led a workgroup of several 

Federal agencies to develop a coordinated environmental review process for housing and 

housing-related infrastructure in Indian Country, as directed by the Senate Appropriations 

Committee. After robust tribal consultation on environmental streamlining, HUD issued a Final 

Report on the workgroup's activities in December 2015. The Final Report made several 

recommendations, including measures that could be taken to coordinate Federal agencies' 

environmental review processes within existing frameworks and processes. We look forward to 

working with Congress to strengthen the coordination provisions in H.R. 360. The workgroup 

continues to meet to implement the recommendations of the Final Report. HUD is committed to 

streamlining environmental review requirements and looks forward to working with Congress to 

ensure any statutory changes consider the findings of the working group and the extensive tribal 

input received regarding environmental streamlining. 

Removal of Section 3 Employment Requirements 

H.R. 360 amends NAHASDA to remove the obligation for tribes and tribally designated 

housing entities (THDEs) to comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act 

of 1968. Section 3 requires employment of low-income residents in connection with projects 

and activities in their neighborhoods. HUD does not support the elimination of Section 3 

requirements as it supports employment opportunities for low-income individuals. 

4 
46 


29454.009

Amending Maximum Rent Requirements 

H. R. 360 amends the maximum rent requirements for families residing in NAHASDAassisted housing. Currently, NAHASDA provides that the rent or homebuyer payment for any 

low-income family residing in a NAHASDA assisted unit cannot exceed 30 percent of the 

family's monthly adjusted income. The bill provides that tribes that adopt their own written 

policies governing maximum rents and homebuyer payments may be exempt from this 

requirement. HUD acknowledges there may be some instances where the maximum rent 

requirements may be revised and looks forward to working with Congress on this important 

provision. 

Coordination of Multi-Agency Funding 

Multiple Federal agencies provide funding for water and sewer infrastructure for Indian 

homes and communities, which requires significant coordination with Indian tribes and makes it 

particularly challenging for tribes to leverage Federal and other resources to develop affordable 

housing for Native American families. H.R. 360 would lift a prohibition in current law on 

combining Indian Health Service funding for water and sanitation infrastructure with Il-IBG 

funds for construction and rehabilitation of low income housing. HUD would like to work with 

Congress and other Federal agencies to find the best way to address this issue. 

Timely Expenditure of JHBG Funding 

H.R. 360 adds a new provision to NAHASDA that decreases the annual IHBG funding 

for tribes with a large unexpended IHBG funds balance. This provision ofH.R. 360 is no longer 

necessary because HUD recently revised its program regulations to include a requirement that is 

substantially similar to this provision. In December 2016, following three years of extensive 

negotiated rulemaking with Indian tribes, BUD published a final rule that provided that any tribe 

receiving $5 million or more in annual IHBG funding, and that has more than three years' worth 

of unexpended IHBG funding, will experience a reduction in its IHBG grant in that fiscal year. 

This regulation will take effect in fiscal year 2018. In the meantime, appropriations bills for 

fiscal years 2016 and 2017 have included similar provisions. In those years, no tribes were 

subject to a grant reduction, which is an indicator that tribes have been spending their funds 

timely and not accumulating large balances. Given that this issue has been addressed through 

regulatory means, and the annual appropriations acts have included this type of provision in 

recent years, a statutory change to NAHASDA is not warranted at this time. If Congress would 

like to pursue a statutory change, HUD recommends language that would codify the final rule. 

Tribal HUD-VASH Demonstration program 

H.R. 360 would establish the Tribal HUD-VASH demonstration program as a permanent 

program. As of July 19, 2017, the Tribal HOD-VASH demonstration program had housed and is 

providing case management to 126 veterans in tribal areas who were homeless or at-risk of 

becoming homeless. An additional 96 Native American veterans are in case management with 

VA and may soon receive housing assistance under this program. Tribal HUD-V ASH is an 

offshoot of the standard HOD-V ASH program, which has been successful in many communities 

across the country but was unable to reach eligible Native American veterans living on tribal 

lands, largely because tribes and TDHEs were not eligible to administer the program. HUD is 

5 
47 


29454.010

committed to serving this population and looks forward to working with Congress to ensure the 

program considers the successes and challenges of the demonstration program. 

Setting Loan Limitation/or Section 184 Program 

If.R. 360 authorizes an annual loan limitation of$976,000,000. Loan commitments 

under this program fluctuate based on borrower demand and other factors, which necessitates an 

annual reevaluation of the loan limitation. Therefore, the Department recommends retaining the 

existing statutory language, which ties the authorized loan limitation to the amount provided in 

appropriations acts. 

Privatization Demonstration Program 

H.R. 360 creates a demonstration program that significantly alters the manner in which 

NAHASDA funds may be used. The bill allows for these funds to be pledged to a private 

investor as a guarantee for the investor's development of tribal housing. The purpose of the 

demonstration program appears to allow for more private sector participation and attract more 

private capital to Indian housing development. HUD is concerned about implementing this 

concept as it is currently proposed in H.R. 360. HUD looks forward to working with Congress to 

develop ways to attract private capital for Indian housing while protecting housing affordability 

and housing resources for Native American communities. 

In conclusion, HUD's Indian Housing programs are all successful examples of federal 

programs that provide local choice, under streamlined governmental requirements, and leverage 

private market investment while respecting tribal self-governance. Thank you again for this 

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

6 
48 


29454.011

Prepared Statement of Rosalie Gokee, Council Member 

Lac Courte Oreillcs Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

to the 

U.S. Honse Financial Services Committee, Housing and Insurance Subcommittee 

Field Hearing on "NAHASDA: 20 years On" 

July 21,2017 

Boozhoo everyone. My name is Rosalie Gokee, and I am a Council Member on the 

Governing Board of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin. l would like to say miigwech to Chairman Duffy and committee members for 

coming to Lac Courte Oreilles to hold this hearing in regards to NAHASDA. 

Background on the Lac Courte Oreilles Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

The Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation was established by the 1854 Treaty with the 

Chippewa, an agreement between the United States and the Mississippi and Lake Superior Bands 

of the Ojibwe Tribe, 10 Stat. 1109, Sept. 30, 1854. On March I, 1873, the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior transmitted the selections of land for the Lac Courte Oreilles 

Reservation in fulfillment of the 1854 Treaty. Currently the Tribe is composed of approximately 

8000 members of which 2,425 reside within the reservation boundaries. 

The Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is organized pursuant 

to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. 461 et. seq. The Lac Courte 

Oreilles Tribal Governing Board is the governing body of the Tribe pursuant to Article III, §I of 

the Tribe's Constitution. The Tribe's seven-member council is elected by popular vote of the 

membership. The chief officer, the Tribal Chairman, is selected from among the council 

members pursuant to Article III, § 3 of the Lac Courte Orcilles Constitution. 

The Tribe was organized pursuant to the IRA I Lac Courtc Orcillcs Constitution in 1966 for the 

express purpose to conserve tribal property, develop its human and natural resources, enjoy the 

rights of self-government and improve the general quality of life for its membership. The Lac 

Courte Oreilles Tribal Government functions similarly to the U.S. Government in both range of 

services and obligation to its citizens: 

Elected Government Leadership 

• Administrative Infrastructure 

Law, Judiciary Process, Enforcement 

Fiscal Management- Financial Controls 

• Housing, Land Use, Development 

• Public Utilities Roads, Water, Sewer 

• Health Care 

• Education 

• Economic Development 

Page I of7 
49 


29454.012

• Retirement, Pension and Insurance Administration 

• Social Services 

• Environmental Protection 

Culture and Art 

• Public Safety Services- Law Enforcement, Conservation Wardens, Fire 

Department 

• Intergovernmental Agreements 

The Tribe operates a tribally-designated housing entity which has a Director, and a 

Housing Board of Commissioners that act in an advisory capacity. The mission of the Lac Courte 

Oreilles Housing Authority is to shelter and protect their people, and help their community prosper. 

Treaty and Trust Responsibility for Adequate Housing 

In the Treaties of 1825, 1826, 1837, 1842, 1847 and 1854, the tribes reserved inherent 

rights including, the right to engage in traditional customs and practices, the right to selfgovernment, the right to hunt, fish and gather in the areas ceded to the United States (ceded 

territories), and the right for adequate housing. These rights are not concepts that can be given or 

bestowed upon a people at the whims of policy. The Creator bestowed cultural distinctiveness or 

the concept of sovereignty upon the Ojibwe people, and the people have held this notion since 

antiquity. This is embedded within its Treaties with the federal government. (See: Treaty with the 

Chippewa, 7 Stat. 591 (1842), Article II: The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the 

ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy. The usual privileges of occupancy 

have been defined as - aboriginal rights, Indian rights, customary rights, usufructuary rights, or 

permissive occupancy and have uniformly been found to include all inherent rights including the 

right to adequate housing. Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt (LCO 1), 700 F. 2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983); 

Mille Lacs Band v. State of Minnesota (Mille Lacs II), 861 F. Supp. 784, 840 (D. Minn. 1994); 

Shoshone v. United States, 299 U.S. 476, 496 (1937); United States v. Minnesota, 466 F. Supp. 

1382, 1385 (D. Minn. 1977); White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona v. U.S., 26 Cl. Ct. 446, 

464 (July 14, 1992) (holding that under a fair and honorable dealings analysis the treaty gives 

rise to a federal obligation to provide food, clothing, housing, health care, and education)). 

In the Treaty of 1854, the federal government established the Lac Courtc Orcilles Indian 

Reservation, and induced the various Bands to forego their existing homes in the ceded 

territories by the promise of assistance in building new ones on the reservation. Despite the 

pivotal role of housing promises in the negotiations for the 1854 Treaty, the federal government 

has never successfully provided housing assistance to the Ojibwe Bands. Many Ojibwe people 

have lived in substandard housing since the establishment of the reservations in the 1854 Treaty. 

For over one hundred years, the federal government has recognized that housing conditions in 

Indian Country threaten Indian peoples' health and their ability to educate their children. The 

federal government, however, has failed to adhere to its treaty promises by not providing 

adequate housing to the Ojibwe Bands. 

Safe, decent, and adequate housing in the form of funds for building, repairs, renovations, 

and related infrastructure is a treaty right, and forms part of the federal trust and fiduciary 

responsibility of the federal government as established in its Treaties. This principle is expressly 

Page 2 of7 
50 


29454.013

recognized in 25 U.S.C. § 4101 in which Congress found that: (1) the Federal Government has a 

responsibility to promote the general welfare of the Nation; (a) by using Federal resources to aid 

families and individuals seeking affordable homes in safe and healthy environments and, in 

particular, assisting responsible, deserving citizens who cannot provide fully for themselves 

because of temporary circumstances or factors beyond their control, (b) by working to ensure a 

thriving national economy and a strong private housing market, and (c) by developing effective 

partnerships among the Federal Government, State, tribal, and local governments, and private 

entities that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering the development of a healthy 

marketplace and allow families to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day 

activities; (2) there exists a unique relationship between the Government of the United States and 

the governments of Indian tribes and a unique Federal responsibility to Indian people; (3) the 

Constitution of the United States invests the Congress with plenary power over the field of 

Indian affairs, and through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Indian tribes, the United 

States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and support Indian tribes and Indian 

people; (4) the Congress, through treaties, statutes, and the general course of dealing with Indian 

tribes, has assumed a trust responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and 

for working with tribes and their members to improve their housing conditions and 

socioeconomic status so that they are able to take greater responsibility for their own economic 

condition; (5) providing affordable homes in safe and healthy environments is an essential 

element in the special role of the United States in helping tribes and their members to improve 

their housing conditions and socioeconomic status; (6) the need for affordable homes in safe and 

healthy environments on Indian reservations, in Indian communities, and in Native Alaskan 

villages is acute and the Federal Government shall work not only to provide housing assistance, 

but also, to the extent practicable, to assist in the development of private housing finance 

mechanisms on Indian lands to achieve the goals of economic self-sufficiency and selfdetermination for tribes and their members; and (7) Federal assistance to meet these 

responsibilities shall be provided in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian selfdetermination and tribal self:governance by making such assistance available directly to the 

Indian tribes or tribally designated entities under authorities similar to those accorded Indian 

tribes in Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.). 

Historical records reveal a persistent but ultimately ineffective effort on the part of the 

federal government to improve housing conditions for tribes. These same records suggest that 

Congress's willingness to dedicate resources to Indian housing has been, at best, insufficient and 

haphazard. As Congress continues to address the ongoing housing crisis experienced by many 

tribes, policymakers must consider the complete history of the federal Indian housing obligation. 

See: A Discovery of Sorts: Reexamining the Origins of the Federal Indian Housing Obligation, 

18 Harv. BlackLetterL.J. 211,211-12 (2002). 

Profile of Indian Country 

There are 567 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United States. Despite progress 

over the last few decades, many tribal communities continue to suffer from some of the highest 

unemployment and poverty rates in the United States. Historically, Native Americans in the 

United States have experienced higher rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes 

than other demographics. 

Page3 of7 
51 


29454.014

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in the 2015 American Community Survey that 

American Indians and Alaska Natives were almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of 

the population-26.6 percent compared with 14.7 percent The median income for an American 

Indian Alaska Native household is 31% less than the national average ($38,530 versus $55,775) 

In addition, overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness are far more common 

in Native American communities. In January of this year, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) published an updated housing needs assessment According to the 

assessment, 5.6 percent of homes on Native American lands lacked complete plumbing and 6.6 

percent lacked complete kitchens. These are nearly four times than the national average, which 

saw rates of 1.3 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. The assessment found that 12 percent of 

tribal homes lacked sufficient heating. 

The assessment also highlighted the issue of overcrowded homes in Indian Country, 

finding that 15.9 percent of tribal homes were overcrowded, compared to only 2.2 percent of 

homes nationally. The assessment concluded that to alleviate the substandard and overcrowded 

homes in Indian Country, 68,000 new units need to be huilt. 

Since NAHASDA was enacted, tribes have built over 37,000 new units according to 

HUD. However, as the IHBG appropriations have remained level for a number of years, inflation 

has diminished the purchasing power of those dollars, and new unit construction has diminished 

as tribes focus their efforts on unit rehabilitation. While averaging over 2,400 new unit 

construction between FY2007 and 2010, new unit construction has dropped in recent years with 

only 2,000 new units between 2011 and 2014, and HUD estimating less than 1,000 new units in 

future years as tribes maintain existing housing stock. 

NAHASDA Reauthorization Efforts 

The last NAHASDA reauthorization was enacted in 2008, and that authorization expired 

at the end of fiscal year 2013. This is the fourth year now that the program has been left 

unauthorized, and our membership continues to grow more concerned as discussions m 

Washington, D.C. focus on cutting spending and eliminating unauthorized programs. 

While NAHASDA may be currently unauthorized, the United States' trust and treaty 

responsibilities towards Native peoples remain and will not go away. The members of this 

Committee know these commitments well and Lac Courte Oreilles is very appreciative of all 

your efforts in supporting tribal housing programs and tribal self-determination. 

We recognize the leadership that the House and the Financial Services Committee has 

shown by passing a NAHASDA reauthorization in both the ll31

h and 1141h Congress. We look 

forward to working with you this year to again work towards finalizing a reauthorization that can 

be signed into law. 

H.R. 360 -1141

h Congress (2015-2016) 

Page 4 of7 
52 


29454.015

The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe strongly supports the re-authorization of NAHASDA, and we 

supported H.R. 360 !14th Congress (2015-2016), with only one primary concern. We 

understand the rules of the House of Representatives normally require authorizations to include a 

specific total amount, rather than "such sums as necessary" language. Accordingly, H.R. 360 

would cap the authorization of NAHASDA at $650 million dollars per year. Since NAHASDA 

was enacted 20 years ago, tribal programs have received between $600 and $650 million 

annually. However, when factoring for inflation, funding of $650 million only provides tribal 

housing programs about 2/3 in the purchasing power they received 20 years ago. In addition to 

this the Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe would ask that tribes be allowed to increase their FCAS to the 

true number of housing stock they own and operate as low income housing rental units. We also 

encourage Congress to ask HUD to provide a report that would accurately state the real operation 

and maintenance costs so that a starting appropriations number could be identified. 

The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe would request language that allows for inflationary and fixed 

costs increases over the authorization time period. We believe the increase in authority and 

appropriations is justified as Indian Country continues to see rates of substandard housing and 

overcrowded homes well in excess of the national average. A HUD needs assessment published 

in January of this year inaccurately indicated that 68,000 new units are needed in Indian Country 

but actually that number is closer to a published HUD ONAP shortage number of 290,000 units. 

As the ability of tribes to develop new housing units has diminished in the last few years due to 

inflation, the problem cannot be solved by limiting funding to current levels. 

Despite that primary concern, H.R. 360 largely improved and built upon existing NAHASDA 

provisions. Title I of the bill placed deadlines on HUD to act upon waiver requests, and included 

language that would greatly simplify NEPA reviews for tribal projects. Because tribal projects 

routinely combine multiple federal sources of funding, compliance with multiple environmental 

review processes wastes time and resources, so any effort to reduce those burdens, while still 

complying with the spirit ofNEPA is appreciated in Indian Country. Title I also required a study 

to streamline Indian Housing Plans, and allow for multi-year housing plans. This provision 

builds upon self-determination policies and is in line with other successful self-governance 

policies used by the Bureau oflndian Affairs and Indian Health Service. 

Title II of H.R. 360 included multiple provisions that provided flexibility to tribal housing 

programs. This includes providing tribes a greater ability to usc Native-owned companies in 

construction, which helps spur job creation in these communities as welL Another provision 

allowed tribes more flexibility in determining minimum rent requirements, recognizing tribes' 

rights to self-governance. Title II also provided greater flexibility for converting a tribal family 

from renter to a home buyer, and other helpful leasing provisions. Finally, Title II provided tribal 

housing programs access to sanitation facilities funding from the Indian Health Service. 

Title III contains the 5-year reauthorization and incorporated the 3x language developed through 

negotiated rulemaking into the NAHASDA statute. The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe does not 

believe that is necessary, as negotiated rulemaking allows for periodic updates to the rules as 

needed to address new circumstances. While Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe does not believe it is 

needed, we do appreciate Congress simply adopting the current policy as decided through 

negotiated rulemaking with tribes. 

Page 5 of7 
53 


29454.016

Title IV streamlined the audit process by ensuring that HUD is timely in its communications 

with tribes who are working to correct insufficiencies found in their programs. 

Title V included language making the tribal HUD-V ASH program permanent, which the 

LCOHA supports. A bipartisan bill in the Senate, S. 1333 1151

h Congress (2017- 2018); TribalBUD V ASH Act of 2017, includes some additional language that would address a few of the 

problems identified in the demonstration phase of tribal HUD-V ASH implementation. Title V 

also included a reauthorization of the 184 loan guarantee program. 

Title VII of H.R. 360 would establish a demonstration project providing Tribes a new method of 

leveraging their NAHASDA funding with private investment. We believe any efforts to expand 

access to capital and getting new private investments in Indian Country is worth looking into and 

tribes who are willing to utilize the demonstration program should have that option. 

Additionally, the Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe would encourage Congress to further amend 

NAHASDA to allow for Tribal Housing programs to have full access to all of the services 

provided by Federal Supply Sources, which is not the case with the current language, similar to 

other Tribal programs. The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe would also ask that any provisions related 

to compliance with Davis Bacon labor standards be waived for expenditures related to 

NAHASDA funds. 

Concerns with the Administration's FY 2018 Budget Proposal 

While the signing statement could be dismissed as not fully understanding the 

background of federal Indian law, the Administration's FY 2018 funding proposals is much more 

concerning. In short, the Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe believes that the budget, if enacted, would 

devastate tribal housing programs across the country. 

The budget provides substantial cuts or completely eliminates the Community 

Development Block Grant at JIUD, the CDFI Fund at Treasury, and Rural Development 

programs at the USDA. 

The proposed budget would also cut the Indian Housing Block Grant to $600 million, 

which is essentially the same level of funding tribal housing programs received in 1996. 

However adjusting for inflation, the proposal represents a cut of about one-third compared to 

1996 funding levels. 

The HUD tribal housing needs assessment released in January showed that tribes have 

rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes well in excess of the national average. The 

report indicated that 68,000 new units arc needed in Indian Country. As the ability of tribes to 

develop new housing units has diminished in the last few years due to inflation, the problem 

cannot be compounded by the severe program funding cuts proposed in the Administration's FY 

20\8 budget. 

Page 6 of7 
54 


29454.017

The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe asks that members of this Committee, particularly those 

who also sit on the Appropriations Committee, support adequate funding of the Indian Housing 

Block Grant and other tribal housing programs. Funding the lHBG at $900 million would 

provide tribes relatively the same purchasing power it had in 1996 and the Lac Courte Oreilles 

Tribe requests no less than $700 million for FY 2018. Congress should also reject the proposed 

cuts to the other programs listed above, as they provide tribes additional resources for their 

housing programs. Funding tribal housing programs not only fulfills Congressional trust and 

treaty responsibilities, but does so in a way that spurs economic development, creates jobs and 

builds credit in tribal communities. 

Page 7 of7 
55 


29454.018

Jul/19/2017 12:51:59 PM Essentie Health Hayward 715 834-5558 315 

tr. ~~~ MA-t-('c\ W\ {!) 

GJ 

-----

C-lk,e- ~!N'tMrv>n (ol\trt ) r~o~v-~-~ed 41q01 

v 1\W\(0\ S:chc()l - ~~ ~'V1J ~hcol ~.P rltt.vfv:t I r"'"VI~~ s/,qee 

?) /l-t~-~t !1~1 '" t1"- [1\~ A,r :w-ee. A~ 'l +;;,.,, ~ ~;..,,~Me J1c'l-e.J 

0 19a6- l"'ql Tr-AV'~ A.f:/5 a.+- ' ~ ,qql - 1qqs- ~~ A.'f:/S, QJl\NtJ-.<.,4 rr~rw) 

(~r..rtO'I 01$ bc..l.t! Alkrpt- l'i'qt.-11q5" 

~~~+ +,..;,,1 a~ w.\~ f!..JI tfud1 ~r 

l.N ~I>N /lNtOA-10, "R-1~ IN l'i''fl '> 

§ iQ"".I'l ~ci-tCQ. ~~~t;:;c•N "'t Uif.~rN!RS:> k~it- t1')cMvllt4-L ;/Pq~NJ..L b- a+ n .. l.,.th Ct ... ~-, f ~~.f.._q Ch~·,c. /{J..'f~~vft.{?Jj ..fft,VV'\. 

1

qq(g ~ '11-t ~~~+- cf,vv-Q.. "'F"vt~ 5'ccre ?£t~cltC€ 'W 

\f>ltk,clt obs:ieVu.~, ~~.,.v.:c>, ad ... r·f- rW.o!tcovt' .t rr·c.C.t~ ~,(:,~ ~ ~ z. c·ov€ ~v- .co.'h.eA'k ~.. '"' ~ d,·,,(: ) f/2 ., 

hc"r ;\-.. \ b- AJ H- (i,,.,v-~ '1 lAcvv-t \ , 

.~'1-sc D"'~ct~ - ~lllw-rer (c""t 1 1-1-a~~~~ 11\tJ,,,.( 4dv·~ - (.1\J~w ~ co~ r AIIIIK-"4 ~uvl'i' t1'ltr!lw! t4.}.N.cr 

- Pr<'tllp~ "+ 'ff-e (;l.,.J ~f' {\'\llJ ffhuitc•l fchech 

~-1-..r P~~ch<o o:J,.,,,....1 ~,Nf"t>v1 ,fij O.J"' 17-., .11M. 
56 


29454.019

Jul/19/2017 12:51:59 PM Essentia Health Hayward 715 634-5558 4/5 

~~ @ ~ {(OLf of rW\JG'L (IV\tioiJ •.--! rlv.MIW {J,{.f..CJ.~. (tt.~Oorfi. Mcul t'i.f'ott/2?) 

(l) Pl'oJev h.t.)t\r. •HviiS •rucfv.tk. ,;uRo-itc!V), h'lp-et~.~.x.lw.ty J1;.0/'dtx, 

iof.•c./ ,rr.-1,..,+ -e~t'ts ..fr-ewt 1f-t, r ~- p00d VIc{§ 

@ P•w~~ ,'1'-t~uc.! tS>w> ,n~t·/Vtd..t. -£1, j~ > AJ&ttA~!l ~ d 

1>'1'1"'''"1'{ c-'I.;..Wv"' ~<"r.fW~cf•cA. 

(]) To pa:\.~ie 1 (Yiold ~~ r.reeo{ ! ""'~'C. Ytt'1 > 

i) l'e\c,i\\1€.. ~~"',.."o{,.J., >b :> ~cwt 

ii) TeWip c;c,-Cfoc F 

;,·,) Ot~Cii't'- ~"'"'tW- 0tS Q .J.;v~i~W~t h~ lllpo-"' !f.ih,ch ~ frcw. 

{ ••oaJ, ~·(ltr 1 c""p.<'f- 1 '"') , p\""'ts1 F" ~"' ,_>) 

( ... s"'~\11 ql'<w •vi"-~ ~.r 1S "'"W o1~"""/'e o-) 

(b,A\.{w\J- }"?In hv>m•J• </.,1) 

GJ "J:N;=b:C \:r:.tuv ~ 

a) il'lc>i- f;,..,~· ( ......... o•) o;"t /l)cr P"''l1."1~"(. -/-eJ I!Nli'Y!Wii0(""'{"'1e..,'{- hv.w.N>· 

G-l-<rhuvs ,vel"'~ c/eJIY\~~flk'1k~1 I.J,,s+url"'>v"'"' f?larl-o."""'lc.e> 1 

Cr'\l)w cocc"~J t- G,cc••1•o• .f-~< ~ . 

v} :r""''"'"'IM"UW1f"(!l::<n'tt?.O ,,..,oJ,v.ol"'"'l5 ( JJ.J:v pk, c""'u.r f'A+""-k, 

pc>r.n'\-S 0/1) IW\MOI"O~~~/'L'<;..,.Ve ~W.J/l('aitO<-> -l-e. ~'l!fhf- fN,j-

~~\(<>l Co,..,cJ,'i.cN I pcAWt'l--1 IN•tl, p(l.o.r~ Co.Ao/.i'c/ko( d~e,/u;.ft> 1 ~·pl.u. v.•TI.. S't.,b.;').~,d·AI <>I c.~~ I lA~l ~v..botNS) aJ'{J 

(1-1- r•~\C. ~r opp~ri-cvv•S~• C. IN-Ac'k.~>'-S w•'f1n -Rwri, 

( Ca;v ,,kef· .~~l'\1''1 t!N'i 0'/lW c;'lc;'Jewt or Cew b.t.ca~ 

vf,<,S~VV!"'-t'l{.to{ ""'-q ~t\c:{ .fe, -Pvw1t./ S'-ff't >) 

~ 
57 


29454.020

Jul/19/2017 12:51:59 PM Essentia Health Hayward 715 634-5558 

fipo>w-e. eq• >:eS po.~f ·'1-el f<N·fN.k 

r~sfot\$-e. I ['tt,.tA l'h"1 '"' lAJ'PI .. ww'{\Q)i-toN 

t) A-:_1!'_~ 

~)AI~,c. 

av a bJJt~/'V¥Jal tl'li!WIIV\.i'e 

;\.,. S:'j oN\ (>'feWI ) o 

5/5 

t..J) fhle r 1 G f? rwvcho ptA ({Ill o. ./( r::i 1 

$ { MPII-) 

Ji-tfi¥'"'"J'j (tiYicf.·\Otv .f.c.. t~4f!:U' 1 ,/1111) rrv -~ f,,wJJ' tNw"1f· 

~c.....w.-1- ep ''""l.tf oP. eo..'1 ~ , /2ev-IF1 ;111a I 1< r.!..t. , 

(r>N cow;h fll~ brew.~'•">h 0/ ei!IN /:,{-'«>{'/ ,ll'llllCctAS: r.iV1 S 

t:.\',.,o.b>l.\"1 c.eL~o, ,:.; \,...c\nt'1A>A,.tt, wf 1.\l'o.~~'("""'\ Jh."'rf!..J\'1n,.. i C D f i- 1 ~ 1 (2' J < \ ' ·~rrc. F~I2P.;-...: s) ~' (A-F!l>; - . '-•· 

Chrc...•C ,,, .. s c;:'/,~~111'1) wl .;\JMal p·kwa>,'s 

Tf€~t- ""/ ~IIA<O(or+•cc•d/S' J- >""1-li"J ~ !f>Meve 

a1W..1 I C 1\111/l (C!I\ s 

wk~t- ~dl'c"'l (S>wi's pa.f.w;..,.,{('( ~ (.,-kcA '>Jo 

fJidc/1 0i- re>W'e ~ .. ·~ .L hwve SeeN of cW 

\oral c(, .. :c. w..d ho>f·'\-cl 0\]lf +\-e \uc, \r ·v (b ~~ . 
58 


29454.021

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 

MARK F. MONTANO 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAC COURTE OREILLES HOUSING AUTHORITY 

LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA 

HAYWARD, WI 

TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

JULY 21,2017 

FIELD HEARING: NAHASDA: 20 Years On 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Duffy, Committee members and other Congressional leadership. My 

name is Mark Montano and I have been the Executive Director of the Lac Courte Oreilles 

Housing Authority for nearly 4 years. I am an enrolled citizen of the Red Cliff Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa. It is an honor to be invited to provide testimony in regards to the 

reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA). I am optimistically enthused about the possibilities ofNAHASDA being 

reauthorized and will offer some suggestions to improve the delivery of housing services to 

Tribal Members. 

Background on the Lac Courte Oreilles Housing Authority 

The LCOHA was established in January 1967 shortly after the establishment of an effort to 

address housing in Indian Country. The Lac Courte Orcilles Housing Authority (LCOHA) is a 

Tribally Designated Housing Entity and by virtue of this designation receives direct NAHASDA 

funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is required to comply 

with all rules and requirements of the program. After the establishment of the LCOHA the 

Tribe, through the Housing Authority, began to construct homes utilizing funding provided by 

HUD. From 1971 to the current time the LCOHA has constructed a total of 554 homes. 

Approximately 160 homes were built utilizing the discontinued mutual help program which 

assisted families to become homeowners of which to date all but 3 homes have been conveyed. 

The LCOHA currently receives NAHASDA formula funding for 343 homes which leaves a 

shortfall of 54 homes that have been built with no annual appropriations to operate and maintain. 

This shortfall means that the LCOHA has had to utilize its NAHASDA formula funding to 

operate and maintain all of its housing stock thus creating a further shortage of adequate funding. 

The LCOHA currently receives an annual average appropriation for its Formula Current Assisted 

Stock of$2.7 million which has been relatively stagnant since the passage ofNAHASDA. This 

issue alone causes the LCOHA difficulty due to the previous mentioned FCAS versus total actual 

Pagelof6 
59 


29454.022

housing stock. I will address this issue in greater detail later in my testimony when addressing 

specifically H.R. 360. 

Over the past 20 years the LCOHA has made great strides with leveraging its NAHASDA 

dollars to address housing issues and in fact has been very successful in utilizing the Low 

Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program with the IRS. The following projects were a 

direct result of those LIHTC efforts; 

• LCO LIHTC #l 

Project consisted of the rehabilitation of 24 existing homes scattered throughout the 

reservation. 

• LCO LIHTC #2 

Project consisted of the construction of24 new rent to own homes in a newly created 

subdivision which included all of the infrastructure needed to support the development. 

• LCO LIHTC #3 

Project consisted of the rehabilitation of24 homes in the K-Town and Schoolhouse areas. 

Conditions of Housing in Indian Country 

Numerous reports have been written and provided to Congress in regards to the deplorable 

conditions of housing in indian Country and the challenges that have been faced by Tribes to 

address this issue. The following reports, along with others, have been provided to Congress and 

l have taken excerpts from those reports that directly relate to the subject matter of my 

testimony; 

• July 2003 US Commission on Civil Rights A Quiet Crisis, Federal Funding and 

Unmet Needs in Indian Country 

"This study reveals that federal funding directed to Native Americans through programs 

at these agencies has not been sufficient to address the basic and very urgent needs of 

indigenous peoples. Among the myriad unmet needs are: health care, education, public 

safety, housing, and rural development. The Commission finds that significant disparities 

in federal funding exist between Native Americans and other groups in our nation, as 

well as the general population. Among immediate requirements for increased funding are: 

infrastructure development, without which tribal governments cannot properly deliver 

services; tribal courts, which preserve order in tribal communities, provide for restitution 

of wrongs, and lend strength and validity to other tribal institutions; and tribal priority 

allocations, which permit tribes to pursue their own priorities and allow tribal 

governments to respond to the needs of their citizens. The Commission recommends that 

all federal agencies administering Native American programs identify and regularly 

assess unmet needs based on their authority. The federal government, through laws, 

treaties, and policies established over hundreds of years, is obligated to ensure that 

funding is adequate to meet these needs. Moreover, the government must work diligently 

to elevate the standard of living among Native Americans to that of other Americans by 

ensuring that federal agencies create attainable resource-driven goals toward this end." 

Page 2of6 
60 


29454.023

"The federal government has a long-established special relationship with Native 

Americans characterized by their status as governmentally independent entities, 

dependent on the United States for support and protection. In exchange for land and in 

compensation for forced removal from their original homelands, the government 

promised through laws, treaties, and pledges to support and protect Native Americans. 

However, funding for programs associated with those promises has fallen short, and 

Native peoples continue to suffer the consequences of a discriminatory history. Federal 

efforts to raise Native American living conditions to the standards of others have long 

been in motion, but Native Americans still suffer higher rates of poverty, poor 

educational achievement, substandard housing, and higher rates of disease and illness. 

Native Americans continue to rank at or ncar the bottom of nearly every social, health, 

and economic indicator. Small in numbers and relatively poor, Native Americans often 

have had a difficult time ensuring fair and equal treatment on their own. Unfortunately, 

relying on the goodwill of the nation to honor its obligation to Native Americans clearly 

has not resulted in desired outcomes. Its small size and geographic apartness from the rest 

of American society induces some to designate the Native American population the 

''invisible minority." To many, the government's promises to Native Americans go 

largely unfulfilled. Thus, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, through this report. gives 

voice to a quiet crisis." 

January 19, 2017; Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal 

Areas: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and 

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs 

'The centerpiece of the assessment of American Indian and Alaska Native (AlAN) 

housing conditions is the first ever national survey of American Indian and Alaska Native 

households in tribal areas. This survey sampled 1,340 AlAN households from 38 tribal 

areas and achieved a response rate of 60 percent. The survey offers information not 

available in existing census data sources, including estimates of electrical and heating 

problems, physical conditions problems, and the extent of''doubling up" among AlAN 

households in tribal areas, The report contextualizes data from the household survey with 

information on demographic, social, and economic conditions and regional and historical 

comparisons based on the 2000 and 20 I 0 decennial censuses and the 2006-10 American 

Community Survey (ACS). Analyses show that housing conditions are substantially 

worse among AlAN households than among all U.S. households, with overcrowding in 

tribal areas being especially severe. Findings from a survey of 110 tribally designated 

housing entities, site visits to 22 tribal areas, and data on housing production before and 

after enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act 

of 1996 (NAHASDA) show that tribes have produced and maintained low- income 

housing much more effectively since the passage ofNAHASDA Nominal dollars for the 

Indian Housing Block Grant have not been increased since 1996, however, leading to a 

substantial decrease in buying power. Limited funding is a key constraint for many tribes 

who could increase their rate of housing production ifthey had more funding." 

Page 3 of6 
61 


29454.024

The above referenced passages from reports is a clear indication that there is a lot of work that 

needs to be done in Indian Country regarding improving the living conditions but most 

particularly as it relates to housing conditions and the mechanisms used to provide funding. 

Comments on H.R. 360 -ll41

h Congress (2015- 2016) 

The LCOHA supports the re-authorization ofNAHASDA, and we previously supported H.R. 

360 II4'h Congress (2015- 2016), with only one primary concern. We understand the rules of 

the House of Representatives normally require authorizations to include a specific total amount, 

rather than "such sums as necessary" language. Accordingly, 1-LR. 360 would cap the 

authorization ofNAHASDA at $650 million dollars per year. Since NAHASDA was enacted 20 

years ago, tribal programs have received between $600 and $650 million annually. However, 

when factoring for inflation, funding of$650 million only provides tribal housing programs 

about 2/3 in the purchasing power they received 20 years ago. In addition to this the LCOHA 

would ask that tribes be allowed to increase their FCAS to the true number of housing stock they 

own and operate as low income housing rental units. We also encourage Congress to ask HUD 

to provide a report that would accurately state the real operation and maintenance costs so that a 

starting appropriations number could be identified. 

The LCOHA would request language that allows for inflationary and fixed costs increases over 

the authorization time period. We believe the increase in authority and appropriations is justified 

as Indian Country continues to see rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes well in 

excess of the national average. A HUD needs assessment published in January of this year 

inaccurately indicated that 68,000 new units are needed in Indian Country but actually that 

number is closer to a published HUD ONAP shortage number of 290,000 units. As the ability of 

tribes to develop new housing units has diminished in the last few years due to inflation, the 

problem cannot be solved by limiting funding to current levels. 

Despite that primary concern, H.R. 360 largely improved and built upon existing NAHASDA 

provisions. Title I of the bill placed deadlines on HUD to act upon waiver requests, and included 

language that would greatly simplify NEP A reviews for tribal projects. Because tribal projects 

routinely combine multiple federal sources of funding, compliance with multiple environmental 

review processes wastes time and resources, so any effort to reduce those burdens, while still 

complying with the spirit ofNEPA is appreciated in Indian Country. Title I also required a study 

to streamline Indian Housing Plans, and allow for multi-year housing plans. This provision 

builds upon self-determination policies and is in line with other successful self-governance 

policies used by the Bureau oflndian Affairs and Indian Health Service. 

Title II ofH.R. 360 included multiple provisions that provided flexibility to tribal housing 

programs. This includes providing tribes a greater ability to use Native-owned companies in 

construction, which helps spur job creation in these communities as well. Another provision 

allowed tribes more flexibility in determining minimum rent requirements, recognizing tribes' 

rights to self-governance. Title II also provided greater flexibility for converting a tribal family 

from renter to a home buyer, and other helpful leasing provisions. Finally, Title II provided tribal 

housing programs access to sanitation facilities funding from the Indian Health Service. 

Page 4 of6 
62 


29454.025

Title III contains the 5-year reauthorization and incorporated the 3x language developed through 

negotiated rulemaking into the NAHASDA statute. The LCOHA does not believe that is 

necessary, as negotiated rulemaking allows for periodic updates to the rules as needed to address 

new circumstances. While LCOHA does not believe it is needed, we do appreciate Congress 

simply adopting the current policy as decided through negotiated rulemaking with tribes. 

Title IV streamlined the audit process by ensuring that HUD is timely in its communications 

with tribes who are working to correct insufficiencies found in their programs. 

Title V included language making the tribal HUD-V ASH program permanent, which the 

LCOHA supports. A bipartisan bill in the Senate, S. 1333 1 15th Congress (2017- 20 18); TribalBUD V ASH Act of 2017, includes some additional language that would address a few of the 

problems identified in the demonstration phase of tribal HUD-V ASH implementation. Title V 

also included a reauthorization of the 184 loan guarantee program. 

Title VII ofH.R. 360 would establish a demonstration project providing Tribes a new method of 

leveraging their NAHASDA funding with private investment. We believe any efforts to expand 

access to capital and getting new private investments in Indian Country is worth looking into and 

tribes who are willing to utilize the demonstration program should have that option. 

Additionally, the LCOHA would encourage Congress to further amend NAHASDA to allow for 

Tribal Housing programs to have full access to all of the services provided by Federal Supply 

Sources, which is not the case with the current language, similar to other Tribal programs. The 

LCOHA would also ask that any provisions related to compliance with Davis Bacon labor 

standards be waived for expenditures related to NAHASDA funds. 

Other Recommendations 

The LCOHA additionally offers the following recommendations and observations; 

• There should be a study done immediately that determines the actual financial need of 

Tribal housing. 

Direct allocations from the IRS of Low Income Housing Tax Credits instead of Tribes 

having to go through the state for competitive applications. 

• Tribes should be able to have full access to all HUD programs and services similar to 

States, Public Housing agencies and other entities. 

• Tribal Housing Authorities should have access to all financial information data clearing 

houses related to applicants and current tenants for the purpose of properly calculating 

rent. 

• Tribes are faced with a serious methamphetamine epidemic and there needs to be federal 

intervention. This issue is costing the LCOHA in excess of$100,000 annually for 

cleanup and testing. Currently the State of Wisconsin has no regulations in regards to 

this including cleanup standards and by such the people of Wisconsin are going into 

homes not knowing the history and potentially becoming contaminated by this drug. 

Further, I would also ask that provisions be included in NAHASDA that results in 

immediate eviction of those causing the contamination and tie existing law about 

Page 5 of6 
63 


29454.026

exclusion in federally assisted housing for convictions. In addition it may be advisable to 

restrict those that are found to contribute to the contamination of the houses from 

federally assisted housing. 

• Training and credentialing of staff for the inspection of houses and possibly a central 

repository of that information for Tribal housing. 

Conclusion 

I applaud the Committee for scheduling this hearing and would further encourage the committee 

to have other hearings throughout Indian Country. We certainly have many more suggestions 

that would or could improve the housing conditions and the ability to deliver services however 

the infonnation contained in this testimony will certainly begin addressing the issues we face. In 

addition, I firmly believe that we can collectively address the needs offndian Country by being 

proactive and not by "kicking the can down the road" or closing our eyes to a crisis that exists 

but more importantly not blaming each other and agree to cooperatively work to improve the 

lives of the First Americans of this land. Tribes have been the invisible people for far too long 

and if anything should come out of this hearing it is due time that the reports are done being 

written to Congress and a resolution is found to address this one important issue once and for all. 

I personally stand ready to assist my native brothers and sisters anyway possible and also commit 

to assisting Congress with this endeavor. Mii iw and Miigwech 

Page 6 of6 
64 


29454.027

Testimony of Floyd Tortalita, Executive Director 

Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority, Pueblo of Acoma 

Field Hearing on "NAHASDA: 20 Years On" 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Finance Services 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

July 21, 2017 

Introduction 

Good morning members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify on federal housing programs that impact families in Native American communities 

and reservations. I am the Executive Director of the Pueblo of Acoma Housing Authority (P AHA). 

PABA serves as the Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) of the Pueblo of Acoma. Under 

the Native American Housing Assistance and Selt~Detennination Act of 1996, as amended 

(NAHASDA), tribes can designate TDHEs to receive and administer Indian Housing Block Grant 

(IHBG) funds under NAHASDA. 

There are 22 tribes in New Mexico - the 19 Pueblos, the Navajo Nation, the Mescalero Apache 

Tribe, and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. The majority of our lands, and all of our housing 

development, are on tribal trust lands. This means that the federal government holds legal title to 

our lands for the benefit of each of our tribes. As you might guess, development on tribal trust 

lands looks somewhat different than development on private lands. If you are in New Mexico. if 

you are wondering why there are no stores or fast food places or banks in a certain area, it might 

be because you are traveling through an Indian reservation. 

Beneficial Contribution of Federal Housing Programs to Tribal Economic Development 

I would like to start my testimony by highlighting the impact that federal housing programs have 

had on Indian lands with a quote from the HUD !lousing Needs Study published in January 2017, 

which I encourage each of you to read: "The most important dril•er of economic well-being (and 

the ability to improve housing condi!ions) in any area is the state oft he local economy:" 

Federal housing programs contribute to the local economy of Native communities. They enable 

tribes to develop a strong tribal infrastructure that fosters job grov.th. community investment, 

equity for homebuyers, and the diversification of local economic opportunities. Access to reliable 

affordable housing also provides financial benefits to individuals and families by enabling 

homeowners to focus their financial resources on essential needs like education, food, and 

healthcare. as well as on investments in their community through an increased purchasing power. 

In Acoma Pueblo, these programs have contributed to the construction of81 homes for low income 

families, and we are in the process of developing an additional30 single-family homes for our low 

' Ofiice of Policy Development Research. llmt5ing Need> o/Americanlndians and Alaska Natives in 7i-ibal Areas: 

A Reportfi·om the Assessment r?f American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Ha,waiian Housing Need'), U$. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development at 39 (January 2017). 

Page I of/2 
65 


29454.028

income families. Moreover, statewide. over 100 homes have been built for Native families under 

the Section 184 Home Loan Program. 

Indian tribes rely heavily on federal funding to meet their housing development needs. Critical 

programs include the Indian Housing Block Grant (THBG), Indian Community Development 

Block Grant (ICDBG). Housing Improvement Program (HIP) in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Section 502 and 504 loans and grants in the USDA, and wastewater and water infrastructure 

development programs at the Indian Health Service (lHS) and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Both USDA and Veterans Affairs are starting to get aggressive in entering into Memorandums of 

Agreements with Indian Tribes. We welcome this opportunity to obtain home loans to build homes 

under USDA low income programs and the Veterans Affairs Native American Direct Loan 

Program. More and more tribes, including Acoma, arc utilizing Low Income Housing Tax Credits 

(LIHTC) to develop housing. These tunds are leveraged with other funding sources. PAHA, like 

the majority ofTDHES that rely on annua!JHBG and other federal funds for housing development, 

is an expert in leveraging funds to build housing and the required infrastructure that housing 

development requires. 

The importance of federal funding for housing and economic development cannot be overstated. 

even for tribal communities that are able to offer gaming as a source of additional revenue. Of the 

22 tribes in New Mexico. J 5 of them are gaming tribes, ranging from small to large scale gaming. 

All New Mexico tribes use gaming funds towards tribal govcmment operations, community 

development and economic development. However, only two or three tribes have enough gaming 

revenue left over to contribute towards housing development. and only one tribe is able to provide 

regular per capita distributions to its tribal members. This is consistent with a study conducted by 

the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development that found a disproportionately 

large share of casino revenue in Indian country accrued to tribes representing a small share of the 

Indian population and that gaming had only a limited effect on the economic fortunes of 

households among large tribes remote from customer markets.2 I include this discussion in my 

testimony to address any misconceptions that may exist regarding the wealth oflndian tribes. 

Every tribe and TDHE's goal is to bring about economic development. We know this starts with 

housing development: it promotes job growth, an infusion of dollars into the local economy, and 

greater financial security for our people, which in tum leads to greater family stability, positive 

health outcomes, and investment in the community. There will always be a need for housing on 

Native American reservations. Unlike mainstream America, the majority of Native Americans do 

not desire to live anywhere else. The tribes in New Mexico maintain centuries old traditions, and 

the ties we have to our lands and our way of life means we consistently strive to find the balance 

between living our way of life and bringing economic prosperity to our tribes. The spiritual 

connection we have to our lands ensures that even those of us that leave to go to school or to join 

the armed forces or to work, eventually come home. 

The following is a snapshot of housing conditions and housing development on the Pueblo of 

Acoma. You will see this similar type of snapshot on most Indian Reservations. Every tribes' 

'The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. The Srate o{the Native Nations: Conditions 

under U.S. Policies (){Sei{-De!erminulion at 148 (2007). 

Page 2 <>{ 12 
66 


29454.029

snapshot includes the use of federal funds. The majority of my generation grew up in HUDassisted homes. These homes were the first homes on our reservations that had electricity and 

running water. 

A Snapshot of Acoma Pueblo 

Traditional Name- Ako-me. meaning "People of the White Rock"'. 

Language spoken Keres3 

Tribal Enrollment - 4.8! 9.4 

American Indian/Alaska Native population- 4.762.5 

Location- sixty miles west of Albuquerque in Cibola County. 

Land base - 595 square miles, the majority in tribal trust status. Approximately 300 acres are 

allotted lands held individually by Acoma Indians. 

Government - Tribal Council made up of past Governors and a Governor. The Governor is 

appointed annually by traditional leaders of the Pueblo. 

Economic base- Pueblo government, including its various entities, is the largest employer on the 

Pueblo. Over the last 18 years, the Sky City Casino and Hotel, has contributed to community 

development. There is one gas station. one fast food restaurant, and one small grocery store. 

Residents go into nearby Grants, approximately !0 miles away. or 60 miles into Albuquerque to 

do their grocery and other shopping. 

Housing Conditions in Acoma Pueblo 

Acoma has approximately 803 occupied housing units(' 247 households reside in overcrowded 

conditions.' 399 or 49% of Acoma's households are low-income, with 16% falling below 30% of 

the national median income.R Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Acoma children live in poverty.9 

Acoma's housing shortage of317 units does not include families above 80% of the median income. 

The biggest challenge to housing development in Acoma Pueblo is the lack of water and water 

sewer infrastructure. We know we are not unique in this challenge. 

'A dialect spoken by the Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, Zia, Cochiti, Santo Domingo. Santa Ana and San Felipe. 4 HUD FY20 17 IHBG Estimate Allocation data. 5 HUD FY20!7 IHBG Estimate Allocation data. 

"20 I 0 U.S. Census. 7 HUD FY2017 IHBG Estimate Allocation data. 

'!d. 

'Native American KIDS COUNT 2012 Special Report Snapshots from the American Community Survey and other 

data sources. 
67 


29454.030

Funding for Acoma's Housing Needs 

The primary source of funding for housing development on the Acoma Pueblo is IHBG funding 

under NAHASDA. PAllA administers the IHBG funding. PABA maintains 81 homeowncrship 

and rental units, all built with 1!-IBG and other BUD administered funding. The following table 

shows Acoma's housing need and IJ·!BG funding in the last five years: 

l11e cost of constructing new homes is very expensive at present in Acoma. This is due, in part, 

to the remoteness of our Pueblo and the lack of an adequate utilities infrastructure to support 

housing development. As a result, P AHA is currently focusing on the rehabilitation of existing 

housing units as the most effective way to use our limited IHBG funds. 

From 2012 to 2016, PABA completed 67 rehabilitation projects by leveraging its IHBG fimds with 

other federal and state resources, including ICDBG funds and New Mexico Mmtgage Finance 

Authority (MFA) funds. Even then, PAHA's waiting list for homes in need of rehabilitation is 50 

homes. In 2012 -2014, PABA used ICDBG funds to rehabilitate 21 homes for low- and moderateincome elderly and disabled tribal members and their families. The Pueblo received !CDBG 

funding in FY 2015 for four (4) new housing units. 

On November 22, 2016, HUD revised the IHBG funding formula in negotiations with Indian tribes 

to address the timely expenditure of!HJ3G funds. Tribes agreed to the internal recapture of funds 

received by tribes whose annual allocation is $5 million or more and has unexpended funds greater 

than the sum of the prior 3 years allocations, and allowing for redistribution of the funds to other 

tribes. This will ensure that IHBG funds are timely expended for affordable housing. This new 

rule is found at 24 CFR Part 1000.342. 

While tribes primarily rely on IHBG funding for housing development, Title VI ofNAHASDA 

also provides an important source loan guarantees for tribes and their TDHEs. The Title VI 

Program guarantees repayment of 95% of unpaid principal and interest due on tribal/TDHE 

obligations. Title VI allows tribes and TDHEs that are in need of additional funds to boiTow funds 

for eligible affordable housing activities. Recipients can usc the funds to leverage their IBBG 

funds by pledging future IBBGs to HUD for a guanmtee on notes and other obligations. Title VI 

is an excellent funding source for infrastructure development that would otherwise take several 

years to complete. 

Acoma also utilizes housing resources at other federal agencies beyond BUD to serve the needs 

of our community. For example, to address the lack of water and wastewater systems. in FYs 2012 

Page~ of 12 
68 


29454.031

and 2013, Acoma built a water and wastewater system with $1,034,895 of IHS Facilities 

Construction funds. In 2015 PAHA used its IHBG funds to construct a sewer main extension to 

serve housing needs. PAHA plans to usc its FY 2017 allocation of $1.1 million to rehabilitate 15 

dilapidated homes. Acoma also plans to utilize USDA preservation grant programs to restore 

traditional homes in need of rehabilitation and restoration and is developing 30 homes under the 

LIHTC program. 

NAHASDA NEEDS TO BE REAUTHORIZED 

The United States has a federal trust responsibility to protect the interests of its 567 federallyrecognized tribes, including our interest in providing tribal members with access to shelter and 

security through affordable. safe housing opportunities. NAHASDA was enacted in 1997 and 

reauthorization in 2008 (through FY 2013) to help fulfill this goal and address the housing crisis 

plaguing many Native communities. l1 has since made tremendous strides in addressing the 

housing crisis that plagues many Native communities: however, there is much work that remains 

to be done. NAHASDA reauthorization has failed in the last two Congressional session, despite 

widespread support, due to an inability to bring the bill to a floor vote in the Senate. Consequently, 

housing-related issues such as overcrowding, homelessness, incomplete plumbing and kitchen 

facilities, and a myriad of associated negative health outcomes continue to impact the quality of 

life of countless Native families and communities across the country. 

PABA and the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico would support a reauthorization bill like the former 

H.R. 360, introduced by Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) and its Senate companion bill, S. 710, 

introduced by Senator Jolm Barrasso (R-WY) during the !14th Congress. Congressman Pearce 

worked closely with the NM tribes in introducing H.R. 360. Importantly, H.R. 360 included 

language that would have expedited required federal approvals, authorize tribes to blend II-lBG 

funds with IHS sanitation facilities funding, launched a demonstration program for alternative 

private housing development, and encouraged the timely expenditure of IHBG funds. These are 

critical provisions for NAHASDA reauthorization because they would provide tribes with the 

flexibility to effectively respond to the unique housing needs of their communities. We recommend 

that similar provisions be included in any future NAHASDA reauthorization. 

We would also like to make the following recommendations for this Subcommittee and Congress 

to consider in making NAHASDA more workable for tribes going forward: 

I. Remove barriers to building on floodplains by allowing the use of NAHASDA funds on 

floodplains \Vithout requiring a tribe to be a member of the National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFJP). NAHASDA should have language providing that if a tribe has a tribal 

flood management program or law, that law should be applied in lieu of complying with 

the federal Flood Protection Act, which requires a federal funding recipient to be a NFIP 

participant. Some state funding, including Community Development Block Grant funds 

and HOME funds, are exempt fl·om this requirement. Tribes should have a similar 

exemption. 

2. Allow tribes to access other HUD programs such as the Drug Elimination Program and 

Section 8 Program. NAHASDA combined many HUD programs into one funding source 

Page 5 of!] 
69 


29454.032

without increasing funding. As a result tribes can't access programs they used to be able 

to access prior to NAHASDA. 

3. Authorize the Department of Justice to go into tribal court for !lJreclosure.s and evictions 

on tribal trust lands under the Section 184 Home Loan Program. As a result of DOTs 

position that it does not have the authority to, or is not required to, file a foreclosure action 

in tribal court, IIUD has halted the approval of tribes' participation in the Section I 84 

Home Loan Program until such time that DOJ arrives at a solution. This issue remains 

unaddressed for over one year. In the meantime, tribes' applications for approval to 

participate in the Section 184 Program sit at the HUD Loan Guarantee Office. 

4. Incorporate similar provisions as those set forth in former H.R. 360, introduced by 

Congressman Pearce during the !14th Congress and discussed immediately above. 

National Housing Study on American Indians/Alaska Natives (AlAN) in Tribal Areas 

In January 2017, HUD conducted a congressionally-mandated survey of the housing conditions 

and needs of American Indian/Alaska Native (AlAN) households in tribal communitiesw !IUD 

concluded that the housing needs of AlAN remain desperate. Key findings of the survey included 

the following alarming statistics and observations: 

• 23% of all ATANs live in housing with a physical condition problem compared with 

5% of all U.S. households. 

• Between 42.000- 85.000 AlAN persons are homeless. as represented by overcrowded 

families. This represents 16% of all AlA;.! compared with 2% of all U.S. households. 

• Tribes have produced housing more quickly with IHBG funding under NAHASDA 

than prior to, despite the fact that the buying power of JHBG money has been eroded 

by inflation since 1998, when NAHASDA was introduced. 11 

• IHBG funding is the centml vehicle for providing housing assistance, and yet it is 

inadequate. Tribes recognize that there is a need to leverage IHBG funding. 

• From 1998--2014, an average of$667 million annually has been appropriated. 

• lnf1ation has eroded the dollar value. $637 million in 2014 represented only 

$440 million in 1998 purchasing power. 

• More funding w1der NAIIASDA is needed to foster economic development and 

housing improvement 

The HUD survey also included a detailed assessment of the housing conditions and needs of AlAN 

individuals and families residing on tribal lands. HUD found that the physical condition of homes 

in tribal areas is more severe than that of all U.S. households, with 34%, of AlAN households had 

10 Office of Policy Development Research. Housing Need< ojAmerican!ndians and Alaska Natives in 1i·ihal Areas: 

A Repurtji·om the Assessment (~f American Indian. A/a.t.,·ka Natil'e, and Natire flawaiian Housing Needs. U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development at 39 (January 2017), arai/ahle at 

\VW2:v.hudgser.uov/portal!.m!.QJi91tiQll5/HNAJHo~_2jng_Nee~]tmL 

11 Public Law 104-330, as amended. The law is codified at 25 U.S. C. 4101 et seq. Its implementing regulations are 

found at 24 C.F.R. Pan 1000. 

Page 6 of/2 
70 


29454.033

one or more physical problems compaTed with 7% of US households. HUD also found that among 

the 213 laTgest tribal areas. more than 18% of AIANs reside in the poorest regions- i.e., the Great 

Plains, Arizona, New Mexico. and Alaska, which arc also plagued by more serious deficiencies 

in housing infrastructure than other parts of the country. However. HUD concluded that there is a 

general lack of adequate infrastructure across Indian Country. 

Data from BUD's Congressional Justification for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Funding for Public and 

Indian Housing Native American Housing Block Grants: 

The above findings are supported by HUD data. In its FY 2017 Congressional Justification, HUD 

stated that "[t]he lack of housing and infrastructure in Indian County is severe and widespread, 

and far exceeds the funding currently provided to tribes. Access to Jinancing and credit to develop 

affordable housing in Indian Country is traditionally difficult to obtain.'' 

HUD also reported that AlAN people living in tribal areas in 2006- 2010 had a poverty rate and 

an unemployment rate that was at least twice as high as non-Indians nationally. AlAN households 

in larger tribal areas are 3 times more likely to live in an overcrowded home and more than 11 

times more likely to living in housing without adequate plumbing facilities, compared to the 

national average. Overcrowding has negative effects on a family's health, and is more likely to 

exacerbate domestic violence, truancy. and poor school performance. 

From 2011 to 2014, 563 tribes used IHBG funding to build 2000 new units annually and 

rehabilitate 4.800 units annually. 

Support for Federal Housing Programs Serving Indian Tribes 

A. Study on Mortgage Lending on Tribal Lands 

HUD also published its assessment of mortgage lending on tribal lands, the Mortgage Lending on 

Tribal Land (January 2017). 12 The study concluded that there are many daunting barriers to 

lending on tribal lands, primarily the lengthy leasing process, the inability to save enough for a 

down payment, low credit score, no credit history, inability to atford mortgage payments, and lack 

of mortgage lenders. Other bmTiers cited were no regular source of income and unfamiliarity with 

loan application processes and lending terms. 

Of the 28,840 Section 184 loans provided between 1994 and May 2015, only 3.460 or 12% were 

on tribal trust lands. Lending on tribal lands is time consuming because of the process involved in 

securing appropriate land leases. title status repmts, and envirorunental clearances. Lenders report 

that Section 184 Program loans can take up to 6 to 8 months to process and close; in some cases, it 

can take even longer. The study concluded that: 

I. Mortgage lending on tribal trust lands remains a time-consuming process and reduces the 

appeal oflending on tribal trust land, even with a federal guarantee. 

11 The Study can be accessed at www.hu<:Lgqy or www.huduscr.gov/portal/publictions/NAHSC-Lending.html. 

Page 7 o.f 12 
71 


29454.034

2. A stronger focus is needed on economic development on tribal lands. such as grants aimed 

at economic development. 

B. IHBG Appropriations 

SuppOii JHBG funding for FY 2018 of at least $700 million, equal to the FY 20 l 0 fw1ding level. 

HUD, in its Congressional Justification, estimated that this amount of funding would build a total 

of 5.065 housing units in Indian eountry. 13 The $2 million in loan guarantees will support up to 

$!7.9million in loans. 

Congress has appropriated IHBG funding at only $650 million for each ofFYs 2011-2016. HUD 

data shows that there is a housing shortage for low income families in IHBG funding areas of 

278,!99. 14 Additionally, HUD data shows that 111,180 AlAN households are living in 

overcrowded conditions. which translates to homelessness. 15 

C. Section 184 Indian Loan Guarantee Program 

FY 2018 funding for the HUD Section 184 Loan Program be returned to the FY 2009 funding 

level of $9 million. The below table highlights how funding for this vital program has decreased. 

As a result of continuing barriers to lending on tribal trust lands, only 12% of Section 184 loans 

have originated on tribal trust lands. One of the barriers is a recent issue that has arisen regarding 

comi jurisdiction of foreclosures. The Department of Justice has infonned HUD that it will not 

submit to tribal court jurisdiction. As a result, HUD has stopped approving tribal mortgage codes 

for the Section !84 Program until it finds a solution to this dilemma. The effect of this is that 

tribes who are not yet approved to implement the Section 184 Program are unable to do so until 

HUD finds a solution. We ask for your support in requesting HUD to provide a solution or to 

accept tribe's proposed options to this issue. 

D. Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) 

" HUD's Public and Indian Housing Native American Housing Block Grants 20 J 7 Summary Statement and 

Initiatives (11-6) 14 HUD FY 2017 IHBG Estimate Allocation 

"hl 

Page 8 '"/12 
72 


29454.035

Support funding tor ICDBG at $80 million tor FY 2018. Tribes rely on ICDBG funding for 

infrastructure development, a necessary component of housing development. The below table 

shows funding appropriations for the most recent three FY s for this important Program. 

FY 1-'c~ropriation 

~~ 7 estimated $80 million 

2016 $60 million 

20!5 $66million 

E. Indian Health Service (IHS) Sanitation Facilities 

Support funding for IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction of$103 million, the amount requested 

by IHS in FY 2017, for FYs 2017 and 2018. 16 The below table shows funding appropriations for 

the last 5 years. 

FY Appropriation. 

2017 President's Budget $103 million 

2016 $99.4 million -- ~--~015 $79.4 million 

2014 $79.4 million -·--------·-~--· 

2013 $75.4 million 

IHS appropriations for Sanitation Facilities Construction remain inadequate to meet essential 

infrastructure needs in Indian country, much of which consists of rural areas. IHS states that 

adequate water supply and waste disposal facilities are lacking in approximately I 3% of American 

Indian and Alaska Native homes, compared to less than 1% of homes for the U.S. general 

population. 17 In 2014, 11-lS reported a backlog of over 3,600 (an increase in 200 from2013) needed 

sanitation facilities construction projects and estimated the cost to provide all AlAN with safe 

drinking water and adequate sewerage systems in their homes at $3.1 billion. 

Allow the usc ofiHS funds for sanitation facilities construction in NAHASDA-assisted and !BEGassisted homes. There is a significant need for adequate sanitation infrastructure for homes funded 

by HUD programs. 1

R Yet, each year. including FY 2016, Congressional appropriations bills 

prevent the use of IHS sanitation facilities construction funds in connection with new housing units 

funded with lfiBG funds. Allowing the use of IHS funds on NAHASDA-assisted units would 

allow tribes to build more housing and rehabilitate existing infrastructure. 

F. BIA Housing Improvement Program (HlP) and Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 

16 See Department of Health and !Iuman Services FY20 17 Justification of Estimates for Approprialions Committees 

(page 14). 

" Indian Health Service Report on Safe Water, January 2014. 18 Government Accountability Office February 20 I 0 Report to Congressional Committees on Native American 

Housing, the ("GAO"). 

!'age 9of/2 
73 


29454.036

Support funding for the HIP program at $23 million for FY 2018. The BlA HIP provides funding 

to Indian tribes for verv low income families for home construction. rehabilitation, renovation, and 

repair. This program· was recently revised to allow younger families to compete Jor housing, 

provide down payment assistance on affordable mortgages and allow tribes the flexibility to 

address the housing needs of the very poor. 

Funding for this Program has dwindled even though it assists families who were the poorest of the 

poor. See the below table. Funding was reinstated at $8 million in FY s 2015 - 2017, even though 

BIA requested $9.7 million in 2017. Funding should be returned to the FY 2005 level of $23 

million to maximize opportunities for families to become self-sufficient through private 

homcownership. 

Fiscal Year ~QQ!:_iations 

2015-2017 $8 n;ill~~; 

2013- 20!4 $0 

2010- 2012 $12.6 million "-~----·~· 

2009 H1_1llillion + $20 million ARRA 

2006- 2007 $19 million ··--· 

200L__ ··-· p_3_!1}illion 

Supp01t funding for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program. Support the President's budget request 

of $8 million for this Program in FY s 2017 and 2018. The BIA Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 

is an initiative created in20 15 to provide loan guarantees to support Indian economic development 

It was funded at $7.7 million in 2015 and 2016. This Program is vital to jump starting economic 

development in tribal areas. 

G. USDA Rural Housing Programs 

fu!JmQrt funding for Section 502loans to at least the FY 2010 level of$1.121 billion for FY 2018. 

USDA housing loan and preservation grant programs serve rural areas, including the 19 Pueblos 

in New Mexico. Section502, the Single Family Housing Program, provides loans tolow-income 19 

and very Jow-income20 households in rural areas to purchase, construct, or renovate a home. The 

table below illustrates how funding for Section 502 has decreased annually. 

Section 502 Direct Loans 

fY Appropriation 

2017 President's Bu~t $900 million 

1--2_012 - 20 16 $900 million 

2009- 2011 $1.121 billion 

Support funding tor the Section 504 program at $26 million for direct loans and $29 million for 

grg)J1,~ for FYs 2017 and 2018. Section 504, Very Low Income Repair Loans and Grants. provides 

19 Households whose income is less than or at 80% of the area median income (AMI). 

'"Households whose income is less than or at 50% of the AMI. 

Page 10of12 
74 


29454.037

funding for the repair of homes to very low-income families in rural areas. The table below shows 

the funding history for Section 504. 

H. Veterans Affairs (VA) Native American Direct Loan Program (NADL) 

Support funding for this program for FY s 2017 and 2018 in an an}ount of $1.1 million. The 

President's FY 20 !7 budget requests $!.1 million for this Program. The table below illustrates 

funding for the Program in the last 5 years. 

The NADL provides direct loans to Native American veterans to purchase, construct, refinance, 

or improve a home on Indian trust lands. This program is vital to Native American veterans 

because it has no down payment requirement, requires minimum closing costs and has a low 

interest rate. This Program is underutilized due to the challenges with this Program of inadequate 

staff resource to provide outreach, technical assistance, and originate loans to qualified Native 

American Programs. To increase the use of this Program, we ask that you support the following: 

• Authorization of the Secretary of the VA to designate a portion of the proceeds from the 

VA guaranty funding fee to compensate third parties such as TDHEs, Native Community 

Development Financial Institutions (CDFis), and Tribal Veteran Service Offices to provide 

outreach, homebuyer education training, housing counseling. loan packaging services, and 

other technical assistance to Nave American veterans seeking to be homeowners through 

mortgage financing. Loan packaging services could be paid through an origination fee 

calculated at l% of the loan principal. 

• Allow TDHEs and Native CDF!s to be eligible borrowers. who would in retum enter into 

lease to purchase agreements with eligible Native American veterans. 

"The above would allow the VA to follow the practice of other federal direct loan programs to 

partner with third parties to increase the opportunities for access to this program. 

I. Native CDFis 

Page II of 11 
75 


29454.038

Support funding for the Native Initiatives component oftl]e CDF! Fund at $16 million for FY 18. 

The Native Initiatives Program administered by the U.S. Treasury Department provides funding 

to tribes and TDHEs to create community based financial institutions to further economic 

development, affordable housing, and financial services on or near Indian reservations. This Fund 

is vital to bringing banks and financial services to Indian communities and to promote businesses 

and economic development. The CDFI Fund's Native Initiatives has so far resulted in live Native 

CDFls in New Mexico. The table below illustrates funding for the Program in the last 5 years. 

r::::-::--···---·-·-····----··· . --·-····· 

FY ApprO[Jriation 

~17 Pn:sident's Budget $15.5 million 

2016 $15.5 million - 2014 and 2015 $15 million 

2013 $11.3 million 

While the ti.mding is available on a competmve basis, this funding is vital to economic 

development initiatives in Indian areas. Native CDFis in New Mexico provide home loans, 

construction loan funds, and business loans to spur economic development in tribal communities. 

J. Funding for Implementation of the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal 

Homeownership (HEARTH) Act 

Sponsor appropriations for in·mi~n:!?Jl_(lJ.tion of the HEARTH Act in the amount of $20 million. 

While this law allows a tribe to approve residential leasing for housing development on tribal laws 

without further federal approval, funding is required to allow tribes to take on responsibilities 

currently performed by BIA land surveys, reviewing leases, and conducting environmental 

reviews. Without funding tor its implementation, this law is cost prohibitive for many tribes and 

the reason for few tribes having taken advantage of enacting their own leasing regulations. 

Providing funding to implement the HEARTH Act would contribute to removing the barriers to 

mortgage financing on Indian lands. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the housing needs ofNative American communities. Any 

questions regarding this testimony may be snbmitted to me. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

THE PUEBLO OF ACOMA HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Floyd Tortalita, Executive Director 

ftortalita@acomahousing.org. 

?axe 12 ul/2 
76 


29454.039

July 15, 2017 

Dear Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

My name is Jeff Tribble Sr. I am a member of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of 

Ojibwe people. I have been involved with addressing Housing issues for over 12 

years as a concerned tenant of one of the H.U.D. homes here on our reserve. I 

have talked with many people who have concerns about the way LCO Housing has 

been treating tenants and how they are addressing mold issues inside their 

homes. There has been mold growth in my home as well as everyone else I have 

talked to in my community. There have been many attempts by individuals to 

address this health issue that doesn't have a satisfactory solution. There have 

been questions on how LCO Housing and some members of the Tribal Governing 

Board have been spending the funds that are given for H.U.D homes for any and 

all projects. I have questioned numerous people who I felt could contribute to 

obtaining information on why we are not receiving any remedies or the funding 

needed to address Housing issues, especially the mold. There are some people 

who claim they have a lot of information and evidence on how the funds were 

misappropriated into other projects. Because of their non- disclosure agreement 

with the Tribe, these people cannot however give any information to me or 

anyone else unless they are subpoenaed or requested to testify by a review 

committee. I have spoken to many people who live in the mold infested homes 

and asked about their health concerns. Everyone I talked with had mentioned 

that there has been a lot of respitory illnesses, especially with the elders and 

children living in the home. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Tribble 

13003W Water Tower Ln. 

Hayward, Wi 54843 

( 715) 699-2289 
77 


29454.040

Prepared Statement of Tony Walters, Executive Director 

National American Indian Housing Council 

to the 

U.S. House Financial Services Committee, Housing, and Insurance Subcommittee 

Field Hearing on "NAHASDA: 20 years On" 

2017 

Good Afternoon. My name is Tony Walters, and I am the Executive Director of the 

National American Indian Council. lam a member of the Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma. l would like to thank Duffy and committee members for having this 

hearing today and for staying engaged on tribal housing issues. 

Background on the National Ame1·ican Indian Housing Council 

The NAlHC was founded in 1974 and for over four decades has provided invaluable 

Training and Technical Assistance (T&TA) to all tribes and tribal housing entities; provided 

information to Congress regarding the issues and challenges that tribes face in their housing. 

infrastructure, and community development eflorts; and worked with key federal agencies to 

ensure their effectiveness in native communities. Overall, NA!HC's primary mission is to 

support tribal housing entities in their efforts to provide safe, decent, aft\Jrdable, and culturally 

appropriate housing for Native people. 

The membership ofNAIHC is comprised of255 members representing 478 1 tribes and 

tribal housing organizations. NAH-IC's membership includes tribes and groups throughout the 

United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. Our members are deeply appreciative of the 

consistent leadership this Committee provides in Congress related to issues affecting tribal 

housing programs, 

1 There arc 567 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the United States, all of which are 

for membership in NAIHC. Other NAJHC members include tribes for housing 

under the 1937 Housing Act and that were in under American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of \996. Home Lands, the state 

agency that administers the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program under Title V!ll ofNAHASDA. 
78 


29454.041

Profile oflndian Country 

There are 567 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United States. Despite progress 

over the last few decades, many tribal communities continue to suffer from some of the highest 

unemployment and poverty rates in the United States. Historically, Native Americans in the 

United States have experienced higher rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes 

than other demographics. 

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in the 2015 American Community Survey that 

American Indians and Alaska Natives were almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of 

the population-26.6 percent compared with 14.7 percent. The median income for an American 

Indian Alaska Native household is 3I% less than the national average ($38,530 versus $55,775) 

In addition, overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness are far more common 

in Native American communities. In January of this year, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) published an updated housing needs assessment. According to the 

assessment, 5.6 percent of homes on Native American lands lacked complete plumbing and 6.6 

percent lacked complete kitchens. These are nearly four times than the national average, which 

saw rates of 1.3 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. The assessment found that 12 percent of 

tribal homes lacked sufficient heating. 

The assessment also highlighted the issue of overcrowded homes in Indian Country, 

finding that 15.9 percent of tribal homes were overcrowded, compared to only 2.2 percent of 

homes nationally. The assessment concluded that to alleviate the substandard and overcrowded 

homes in Indian Country, 68,000 new units need to be built. 

Since NAHASDA was enacted, tribes have built over 37,000 new units according to 

BUD. However, as the !JlBG appropriations have remained level for a number of years, inflation 

has diminished the purchasing power of those dollars, and new unit construction has diminished 

as tribes focus their efforts on unit rehabilitation. While averaging over 2,400 new unit 

construction between FY2007 and 20 I 0, new unit construction has dropped in recent years with 

only 2,000 new units between 20 II and 20 I4, and HUD estimating less than I ,000 new units in 

future years as tribes maintain existing housing stock. 

NAHASDA Reauthorization Efforts 

The last NAHASDA reauthorization was enacted in 2008, and that authorization expired 

at the end of fiscal year 2013. This is the fourth year now that the program has been left 

unauthorized, and our membership continues to grow more concerned as discussions in 

Washington, DC focus on cutting spending and eliminating unauthorized programs. 

While NAHASDA may be currently unauthorized, the United States' trust and treaty 

responsibilities towards Native peoples remain and will not go away. The members of this 

Committee know these commitments well and NAIHC is very appreciative of all your efforts in 

supporting tribal housing programs and tribal self-determination. 
79 


29454.042

We recognize the leadership that the House and the Financial Services Committee has 

shown by passing a NAHASDA reauthorization in both the I 13th and ll4'h Congress. We look 

forward to working with you this year to again work towards finalizing a reauthorization that can 

be signed into law. 

H.R. 360 

NAIHC strongly supports the re-authorization ofNAHASDA, and we supported H.R. 

360, with only one primary concern. We understand the rules of the House of Representatives 

normally require authorizations to include a specific total amount, rather than "such sums as 

necessary" language. Accordingly, H.R. 360 would cap the authorization ofNAHASDA at $650 

million dollars per year. Since NAHASDA was enacted 20 years ago, tribal programs have 

received between 600 and 650 million annually. However, when factoring for inflation, funding 

of $650 million only provides tribal housing programs about 2/3 in the purchasing power they 

received 20 years ago. 

NAIHC would request language that at a minimum allows for the authorization to grow 

with inflation over the authorization time period, or a higher cap that appropriators can build to 

over time. We believe the increase in authority and appropriations is justified as Indian Country 

continues to see rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes well in excess of the 

national average. A HUD needs assessment published in January of this year indicated that 

68,000 new units are needed in Indian Country. As the ability of tribes to develop new housing 

units has diminished in the last few years due to inflation, the problem cannot be solved by 

limiting funding to current levels. 

Despite that primary concern, H.R. 360 largely improves and builds upon existing 

NAHASDA provisions. Title I of the bill would place deadlines on HUD to act upon waiver 

requests, and include language that would greatly simplify NEPA reviews for tribal projects. 

Because tribal projects routinely combine multiple federal sources of funding, compliance with 

multiple environmental review processes wastes time and resources, so any eft()rt to reduce those 

burdens, while still complying with the spirit ofNEPA is appreciated in Indian Country. Title I 

would also require a study to streamline Indian Housing Plans, and allow for multi-year housing 

plans. This provision builds upon self-determination policies and is in line with other successful 

self-governance policies used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. 

Title II of H.R. 360 includes multiple provisions that provide flexibility to tribal housing 

programs. This includes providing tribes a greater ability to use Native-owned companies in 

construction, which helps spur job creation in these communities as well. Another provision 

allows tribes more flexibility in determining minimum rent requirements, recognizing tribes' 

rights to self-governance. Title II also provides greater flexibility for converting a tribal family 

from renter to a homebuyer, and other helpful leasing provisions. Finally, Title II provides tribal 

housing programs access to sanitation facilities funding from the Indian Health Service. 

Title III contains the 5-year reauthorization and would also place incorporate the 3x 

language affecting undisbursed funds developed through negotiated rulemaking into the 
80 


29454.043

NAHASDA statute. NAIHC does not believe that language is necessary, as negotiated 

rulemaking allows for periodic updates to the rules as needed to address changing circumstances. 

While NAIHC does not believe it is needed, we do appreciate that H.R. 360 simply adopted the 

current policy as decided through negotiated rulemaking with tribes. 

Title IV would streamline the audit process by ensuring that HUD is timely in its 

communications with tribes who are working to correct insufficiencies found in their programs. 

Title V includes making the tribal HUD-V ASH program permanent, which NAIIIC 

support. A bipartisan bill in the Senate, S. 1333, includes some additional language that would 

address a few of the problems identified in the demonstration phase of tribal HUD-V ASH 

implementation. Title V also includes a reauthorization of the 184 loan guarantee program. 

Title VII ofH.R. 360 would establish a demonstration project providing a tribes a new 

method of leveraging their NAHASDA funding with private investment. W c believe any efforts 

to expand access to capital and getting new private investments in Indian Country is worth 

looking into and tribes who are willing to utilize the demonstration program should have that 

option. 

Finally, NAIHC supports reauthorization of the Title VIII programs for Native 

Hawaiians, and support its inclusion in any NAHASDA reauthorization bill. 

With all of the improvements contained in H.R. 360, NAIHC would strongly support its 

re-introduction this Congress, and looks forward to working with the bill sponsors and leadership 

of this Committee to finally enact a NAHASDA reauthorization. 

Concerns with the Administration's FY 2017 Omnibus Signing Statement 

On May 5, when President Trump signed into law the FY 2017 omnibus spending bill, 

the President issued a signing statement that characterized the "Native American Housing Block 

Grants" as quote "a program that allocated benefits on the basis of race." 

All of the members of this Committee know full well that tribal programs are not based 

on race, but on the political relationship that have existed between Native peoples and the United 

States for over two hundred years. 

The relationship is grounded in the United States Constitution and treaties, Congressional 

statutes and numerous Supreme Court decisions. So we ask that members of Congress work with 

the new Administration to ensure it knows the history and importance of tribal programs. 

There are numerous Supreme Court cases that can be cited upholding this principle of 

federal Indian Law and countless legal articles that chronicle this background. NAIHC is happy 

to provide documentation to the Committee if necessary, but believes the question is well settled 

and did not see the need to include such information here. 
81 


29454.044

Concerns with the Administration's FY 2018 Budget Proposal 

While the signing statement could be dismissed as not fully understanding the 

background of federal Indian law, the Administration's FY 20 I 8 funding proposals is much more 

concerning. In short, NAIHC believes that the budget, if enacted, would devastate tribal housing 

programs across the country. 

The budget provides substantial cuts or completely eliminates the Community 

Development Block Grant at 1-IUD, the CDFI Fund at Treasury, and Rural Development 

programs at the USDA. 

The proposed budget would also cut the Indian Housing Block Grant to $600 million, 

which is essentially the same level of funding tribal housing programs received in 1996. 

However adjusting for inflation, the proposal represents a cut of about one-third compared to 

1996 funding levels. 

The HUD tribal housing needs assessment released in January showed that tribes have 

rates of substandard housing and overcrowded homes well in excess of the national average. The 

report indicated that 68,000 new units are needed in Indian Country. As the ability of tribes to 

develop new housing units has diminished in the last few years due to inflation, the problem 

cannot be compounded by the severe program funding cuts proposed in the Administration's FY 

2018 budget. 

NAIHC asks that members of this Committee work with their colleagues who sit on the 

Appropriations Committee to support adequate funding of the Indian Housing Block Grant and 

other tribal housing programs. Funding the lHBG at $900 million would provide tribes relatively 

the same purchasing power it had in 1996 and NAIHC requests no less than $700 million for FY 

2018. Congress should also reject the proposed cuts to the other programs listed above, as they 

provide tribes additional resources for their housing programs. Funding tribal housing programs 

not only fulfills Congressional trust and treaty responsibilities, but does so in a way that spurs 

economic development, creates jobs and builds credit in tribal communities. 
82 


29454.045

GWY.B D3f 

CHEROKEE NATION® 

july 27, 2017 

The Honorable Sean Duffy 

Chairman 

House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

2330 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Emanuel Cleaver 

Ranking Member 

House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

2335 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Office of the Cbief 

Bill John Baker Principal Chief 

0P Gh ..!SS&ov.Y 

O>E0G.f.l 

S. Joe Crittenden 

Deputy Principal Chief 

ov. KG. ..!E.Yov.Y WPJ\ Dcd'J\ O>E0G.f.l 

Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the Subcommittee: 

Osiyo. I am Bill John Baker, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Our tribe is the largest 

federally recognized tribe in the United States, with more than 350,000 citizens, and a 

jurisdiction that spans more than 7,000 square miles in all or part of 14 counties in 

northeast Oklahoma. I am submitting this letter as part of the record for the House 

Financial Services Committee Housing and Insurance Subcommittee's recent field hearing 

entitled "NAHASDA: 20 Years On" on July 21,2017. 

Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act 

(NAHASDA) in response to a growing housing crisis in Indian Country. This was a complete 

reorganization of housing assistance programs and replaced with a block grant type 

programs. 

NAHASDA has demonstrated that when tribal governments are able to exercise their 

sovereign self-determination on how to best utilize their federal funding, those dollars are 

employed more effectively and can be tailored to specific, local needs. The Housing 

Authority of Cherokee Nation administers programs to address the housing needs of our 

citizens, including low-income rental assistance, new home construction, repairs and 

upgrades to outdated units, and other services that ensure that our citizens have safe, 

affordable homes for their families. Cherokee Nation assists over 7,000 families every 

month in northeast Oklahoma, and the Housing Authority of Cherokee Nation relies on 

NAHASDA to fund these core services. 
83 


29454.046

The last NAHASDA authorization expired in 2013, leaving this program unauthorized for 

the previous four years. Allowing this critical program to remain unauthorized creates 

uncertainty and insecurity that is troublesome for all of Indian Country. A NAHASDA 

reauthorization measure (H.R. 360) was passed by the House of Representatives in the 

114'h Congress, but did not receive a vote in the Senate. 

The Cherokee Nation believes H.R. 360 was a promising bill that merits review and 

reintroduction in the 115th Congress. It had bipartisan support and we believe a similar 

NAHASDA Reauthorization measure should be reintroduced and include improvements to 

better recognize tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The improvements Cherokee 

Nation request include: allowing tribes to consolidate environmental review requirements 

in multi-grant funded projects; allowing individual tribes to determine maximum rents; 

and allowing tribes the discretion to use other funding sources for projects funded under 

NAHASDA. 

Additionally, any language that is negotiated and adopted by the NAHASDA Formula 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee regarding undisbursed funds should be included in the 

bill. There continue to be set aside funding for Native American Veterans under the HUDVASH program included in the bill. We hope that any Reauthorization measures would 

include reauthorization for the Loan Guarantee (Section 184) program, which gives Native 

Americans the opportunity to become homeowners. Finally, it is our opinion that any 

NAHASDA Reauthorization measure should not include any limitation on use of funds for 

Cherokee Nation. 

As discussions in Congress have focused on reducing spending and eliminating 

unauthorized programs, I want to clearly state that eliminating NAHASDA would have 

devastating consequences for families not just in the Cherokee Nation, but also across 

Indian Country. The dollars help some of our most vulnerable citizens survive. While some 

progress has been made in improving access to safe, sanitary and affordable housing 

options for Native communities since the introduction of NAHASDA, there remains an 

urgency for further improvements and funding allocations to fully address the dire housing 

needs that persist within our tribal communities. 

Furthermore, Cherokee Nation is concerned with the proposed funding allocations for 

FY2018, as it relates to Native housing programs. The proposed budget reduces funding for 

the Indian Housing Block Grant to $600 million, which essentially leaves this program at 

the same funding level it was in 1996. Increased costs and inflation have reduced the 

purchasing power of our dollars, and in the long-term that means reduced abilities to 

service our people. In january of this year, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) issued a housing need assessment for Indian Country. This document 

outlines a number of concerning statistics that demonstrate how severe the housing 

shortage in Indian Country really is. The report says 68,000 new units are needed to meet 
84 


29454.047

basic housing needs. Reduced funding levels will further exacerbate this problem, leaving 

vulnerable tribal citizens without their most basic needs. 

Cherokee Nation joins the National Indian Housing Council's request that IHBG be funded 

at no less that $700 million for FY18. Further, we oppose elimination and funding cuts to 

the Community Development Block Grant at HUD, the CDFI fund at Treasury, and Rural 

Development programs at USDA. These programs are critical to Indian Country and key to 

fulfilling the Federal Government's trust responsibility. 

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact our Director of 

Government Relations, Kimberly Teehee at Kim-Teehee@cherokee.org or (202) 615-9505. 

Sincerely, 

Bill John Baker, 

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief 

29454.048

IC 

1 

ee .e.illes 

I I 

I 
86 


29454.049
87 


29454.050

(!) 

E 

0 

::c 

(!) 

Vl 

ro 

..c 

a.. 
88 


29454.051
89 


29454.052
90 


29454.053

(jJ 

E 

0 

:::r: 

(jJ 

rn "' 

..c 

a.. 
91 


29454.054
92 


29454.055

~ Housing Assistance Council 1025 Vermont Ave., N.W., Sui!e -GOG, Washington, DC 20005, Te!. 202-842..-8600, Fax: 202-347-3441, E-mail: hac@ruralhome.org 

HAC 

Testimony ofMoises Loza 

Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council 

Submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives 

www.ruralhome.org 

"Financial Serviees Committee, Housing and Insurance Subcommittee 

July 21,2017 

NAHASDA: 20 Y cars On 

Thank you, Chairman Duffy and Ranking Member Cleaver, for the opportunity to share the inpnt 

of the Housing Assistance Council (HAC) as the House Financial Services Committee's Housing 

and Insurance Subccmmittee examines federal housing programs that affect Native American 

communities and reservations. HAC has long held that policymakers' personal understanding of 

rural and tribal housing conditions is essentiaL Thus, HAC commends the Subcommittee's field 

heariog location in a tribal community as it brings attention to tribal housing issues. 

For 46 years, HAC has improved housing cooditions for the rural poor with an emphasis on the 

poorest of the poor in the most rural places. HAC's "Worst in the Nation" report on Indian housing 

conditions in the 1970s set a foundation at HAC for ongoing research projects, training and 

technical assistance engagements, and lending in tribal communities. HAC's govemance has long 

included tribal representation. }lAC's comment~ are rooted in HAC's experience working with 

tribal organizations, but HAC notes the distinct nature and sovereignty of such communities. HAC 

welcomes further opportunities to share regional ot local-specific information with the 

Subcommittee upon request. 

ln carrying out its work in Native American communities since 1971, HAC has heralded the 

extraordinary resilience of Native American communities. Such resilience coupled with adequate 

and sustained federal resources toward housing in Native American communities can be 

transformative. 

Native American Housing Assistance and Seli~Dctermination Act (NAHASDA) 

As a long-time advocate for improved tribal housing conditions, HAC acknowledges the need to 

revisit and make improvements to NAHASDA. When NAHASDA, including the 2015 

NAHASDA Reauthorization Act (H.R. 32Q), two points are for HAC and our Native 

American partners: 

l. Funding is paramounl HAC partners have noted NAHASDA's superiority to its 

predecessor programs, which were cumbersome and inadequately oriented toward tribal 

self-determination. However, HAC ha' long advocated (including in ;2QUJ,stimQJJY before 

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs) that appropriations for NAHASDA 

are not adequate to meet the needs on tribal lands. short, for NAHASDA to work, 

funding is essentiaL And recent funding levels are wholly inadequate. 

2. ln Native American communities, as in others, improved housing conditions are a 

precnrsor for improved health outcomes, educational outcomes, and community stability. 

Building 

Rurat 

Communities 

Southeast Office 

600 W Peachtree St., N.W. 

Suite 1500 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

Tel.: 404~892-4824 

Fax: 404-892-1204 

south-ea!'t@ruralhome.org 

HAC is an equal opportunity lender. 
93 


29454.056

Housing Assistance Council 

NAHASDA 

Page2 

T1ibal stakeholders often remind HAC that vast overcrowding and substandard conditions 

in Native American housing (e.g., lack of plumbing, makeshift roofing, black mold) hold 

back all ages, but especially children, fi:om th!·iving. Failure to address such conditions 

canies a deep human toll and social cost~. 

Last year, horrific housing conditions in Indian Country were uncovered by the Great Falls 

Tribune, which noted a housing shortage that "has lingered on U.S. Indian reservations for nearly a 

century." Such reports are fmstrating, because HAC and our Native American partners ]mow what 

works: sustained funding of federal housing programs that meet the unique needs of sovereign 

Indian nations. 

But currently, just maintaining baseline funding levels is a challenge. The first and most inlportant 

step to addressing such conditions, whether in Blackfeet Nation, Turtle Mountain, Navajo Country, 

or elsewhere, starts with Congress. NAHASDA reduced regulations and allowed Indian tlibes to · 

determine the best use of block grants, an important recognition ofindian self-detennination and 

tlibal self-govemance. But NAIIASDA's authorization expired in 2013; each year since, the 

program has continued, but witl1 funding ill-matched for growing needs. Reauthorization by 

Congress would bring stability, when coupled with adequate resources. 

Reauthorization ofNAHASDA without adequate funding would be hollow. Federal funds for 

Indian housing have been virtually frozen for the past 20 years. Adjusted for inflation, NAIIASDA 

has essentially been cut by 33 percent, despite a steady stream of reports including one from HUD 

in 2017 quantifying deep poverty and a cmTesponding lack of plumbing, heating, and functional 

electricity as all too typical for American Indians. The Administration's proposed budget would 

cut block grants for Native American housing by approximately $50 million. Fortunately, the 

House Appropriations Committee has rejected that reduction. Such a cut, when combined with 

proposed deep cuts to programs in the United States Department of Agliculture (USDA) and 

elsewhere that help to bring basic services to rural and tribal areas, would not only lead to more 

years of substandard conditions. The cuts would also thwart economic development and increased 

self-sufficiency. 

Estinlates vary for Native Americans' needs for new and rehabilitated housing but, over tl1e past 

decade-and-a-half, surveys have agreed that the challenge is severe. In a conservative estimate, the 

H:UD repott found that roughly 68,000 new housing units are needed to reduce overcrowding and 

replace severely deteriorated housing in ttibal areas. Further demonstrating the inadequacy of 

existing housing stock, the National Ametican Indian Housing Council and the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights have both repotted that waiting lists from the Indian housing authorities have 

totaled at least 200,000 since the beginning of the last decade. 

Other ·Federal Programs 

HAC lauds increased attention to tribal housing and infi:astructure in recent years from Congress 

and within the USDA Rural Development agencies, including the Rural Housing Service. But 

much work remains. At a 2016 hearing before the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, tribal 

representatives reported a range of experiences in working with USDA Rural Development. Such 

comments align with experiences of HAC and our partllers. 

Without question, though, the amount of USDA Rural Development resources directed toward 

Native American communities and reservations is troubling. At the heruing, several Senators along 

witl1 other officials lamented that about 1 percent of Rural Housing Service funding goes toward 
94 


29454.057

Housing Assistance Council 

NAHASDA 

Page3 

Native American communities. Improving access to these programs requires political will from 

agency leaders coupled with sustained oversight from Congress. 

In HAC's experience with such issues, it is important that Congress and federal agencies work 

with tribes to identifY and address administrative baniers that thwatt the delivety of federal 

resources to tribal communities. Examples exist of committed USDA Rural Development state 

directors (and others within the agency) taking actions to address tribal concems and direct 

resources toward the needs of Native American communities and reservations. Similar examples 

come from the Veterans Administration. But such actions, in order to become the norm, must be 

ingrained in an agency's way of doing business. Congress can encourage such actions by calling 

attention to the need for them, especially dming transitions in Administrations and as agency 

officials discuss their funding needs with Congress. 

Need for Capacity Building and Technical Assistance 

HAC has long advocated for sustained capacity building and teclmical assistance funding directed 

toward poor mral communities; such funding is patticularly imp01tant for Native American 

communities, too many of which lack resources and capital to take on local housing needs. For 

HAC, capacity building means building long-term relationships and tmst between HAC staff and 

tribal partners. It means providing low or no-cost access to trainings, infonnation, and peer 

exchanges to build skills and share ideas as our local pattners navigate an increasingly complex 

route to create affordable homes. 

Unfmtunately, federal funding has stagnated for rural-focused capacity building and teclmical 

assistance, including HUD's Rural Capacity Building program, USDA's Rmal Cormnunity 

Development Initiative, and the capacity building provided through NAHASDA, thus impacting 

the ability of HAC and other national organizations to provide services that our Native American 

partners have repeatedly reported as essential. Such capacity building not only is necessary to 

improve housing conditions, but also is often a precmsor to social entrepreneurship (e.g., Nativeled Community Development Financial Institutions) in tribal commtmities. 

Finally, increased capacity of Native American housing entities will result in better and more 

efficient utilization of federal and pdvate sources of housing funding. For example, the 50-year-old 

self-help housing program has shown some promise in a tribal setting, tapping USDA and other 

resources to assist families building their own homes via contributions of"sweat equity." 

Unlocking such resources-often via public-private partnerships-is dependent on the sustained 

capacity of locally rooted organizations. 

Thank you again to the Subcommittee for its attention to Native American housing and related 

issues. Adequate and decent housing for all Native Americans is a moral imperative. By listening 

to Native American stakeholders, the Subcommittee is taking an important step. 

0