U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–712 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–514 

ADDRESSING THE HOUSING CRISIS IN INDIAN 

COUNTRY: LEVERAGING RESOURCES AND 

COORDINATING EFFORTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE LACK OF SAFE, AFFORDABLE, HIGH-QUALITY HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND EXPLORING INDIAN 

HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO 

ENSURE HIGH-QUALITY HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO TRIBES AND THEIR HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DWIGHT FETTIG, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

CHARLES YI, Chief Counsel 

LAURA SWANSON, Policy Director 

ADAM HEALY, Professional Staff Member 

BETH COOPER, Professional Staff Member 

DANA WADE, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

RIKER VERMILYE, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Johnson ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Response to written question of: 

Chairman Johnson .................................................................................... 35 

Doug O’Brien, Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development, Department 

of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 5 

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

Robert G. McSwain, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian 

Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services ........................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Jodi Gillette, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs for Policy and 

Economic Development, Department of the Interior ......................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

(III)

(1) 

ADDRESSING THE HOUSING CRISIS IN INDIAN COUNTRY: LEVERAGING RESOURCES 

AND COORDINATING EFFORTS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:04 a.m. in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today, the Committee will continue examining an issue of great 

importance to me and so many in my home State of South Dakota: 

the lack of safe, affordable, high-quality housing opportunities in 

Indian Country. During my time in Congress, I have worked to improve the housing options available to American Indians, including 

being an original cosponsor of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, NAHASDA. Unfortunately, as those living in Native communities know all too well, the 

critical housing needs far outpace the resources devoted to the 

problem. 

The Census Bureau reported in 2008 that Native Americans are 

almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population. For the same year, the GAO reported that nearly 46 percent 

of Native households were overcrowded, a rate that was almost 

three times as high as the rest of the country. According to the 

2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, American Indians 

make up less than 1 percent of the general population, but 8 percent of the country’s homeless population. Together, we must work 

to reverse this trend. 

In 2010, I chaired a joint Banking and Indian Affairs Committee 

field hearing in Rapid City, South Dakota, to examine creative solutions to the Indian housing crisis. Prior to the hearing, I brought 

HUD Secretary Donovan to the Rosebud Sioux Reservation so that 

he could see firsthand the immediate challenges facing Native communities. We heard from several witnesses who all echoed the need 

for housing funds. I support their calls for sufficient funding and 

will continue fighting for such funding as a member of the Appropriations Committee. But it is also important that we collaborate 

and leverage existing resources to provide housing in these tough 

economic times. These resourceful ideas are not meant to free the 
2 

Federal Government of its treaty and trust responsibility; rather, 

these ideas should serve as another avenue for us to work together 

to address the housing crisis facing Indian Country. 

As Chairman of this Committee, I am committed to ensuring 

that programs across many Federal agencies that address Indian 

housing, infrastructure, and community development are easily accessible to tribes and their housing organizations. It is also critically important that Federal agencies engage in a government-togovernment relationship and participate in meaningful consultation 

with tribes on housing issues and other important matters. That is 

why I have invited all of you to testify today. Each of your agencies 

plays an important role in Indian housing or housing-related infrastructure and community development. I look forward to hearing 

from you about how your agencies collaborate to make sure your 

work provides the most efficient and effective housing assistance 

possible in Indian Country. 

Longer term, the Committee is beginning to lay the foundation 

for the reauthorization of NAHASDA next year. It will be important for all of us concerned about Indian housing to work closely 

on this reauthorization, including tribes and their housing agencies. 

With that, are there any Members who wish to make a brief 

opening statement? 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, Senator Akaka. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership 

in holding this important hearing. 

Chairman Johnson, you and I, along with Senators Tester, 

Crapo, and Johanns, also serve together on the Indian Affairs Committee where we have been examining the various obstacles that 

hold tribal nations back from achieving the goals of self-sufficiency 

and economic development. 

One of the many core problems that plague Indian Country is the 

state of Indian housing, and you all know that very well. It is estimated that 90,000 Native families are homeless or underhoused 

and that 200,000 new housing units are currently needed. Due to 

this shortage, many Indian homes are severely overcrowded, and 

many lack the basic features that most Americans take for granted, 

such as access to electricity, a kitchen, or even connection to a 

sewer system. 

This lack of housing also has significant impacts on other areas 

of tribal life. Insufficient housing makes it harder for tribes to attract teachers to educate their children and law enforcement officers to protect their citizens and the local community. Also, it creates barriers to economic development, standing in the way of business opportunities that would benefit both tribes and local communities by creating jobs. 

Addressing these issues is not easy. However, it is vital that we 

do, and for the well-being of the tribal economies to help tribes provide for the basic needs of their members. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be here with you 

today as we continue the good work of the Banking Committee as 
3 

we examine how to address the housing needs of Native communities. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

I want to remind my colleagues that the record will be open for 

the next 7 days for opening statements and other materials you 

would like to submit. Now I would like to briefly introduce the witnesses that are here with us today. 

Sandra Henriquez was confirmed by the Senate unanimously in 

2009 as HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 

where she oversees the Office of Native American Programs. 

Doug O’Brien has served as USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary for 

Rural Development since 2011, where he works with the Rural 

Housing Service and other agencies that are important to Indian 

housing. 

Robert McSwain is Deputy Director for Management Operations 

at the Indian Health Service. He is a member of the North Fork 

Rancheria of Mono Indians in California. Mr. McSwain was confirmed by the Senate in 2008 and served as the IHS Director until 

May 2009. 

Jodi Gillette is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs 

for Policy and Economic Development at the Department of the Interior. She is an enrolled member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

located in North and South Dakota. 

We welcome all of you here today and look forward to your testimony about this important issue. 

Ms. Henriquez, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA B. HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Johnson and Senator Akaka. It is a pleasure to appear before you, and 

I would like to express my appreciation for your continuing efforts 

to improve the housing conditions of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples. 

The Office of Public and Indian Housing is responsible for the 

management, operation, and oversight of HUD’s Native American 

and Native Hawaiian housing and community development programs. These programs are available to all 566 federally recognized 

tribes and the State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands. Since President Obama took office, we have worked to create a new chapter in our nation-to-nation relationship, one built 

not on Federal mandates but on expanding interagency collaborations, strengthening tribal partnerships, and developing programs 

that better meet the needs of the Native communities, and today 

I would like to discuss how HUD is making progress in all of these 

areas. 

At a time when we are all being asked to do more with less, it 

is more critical than ever to identify inefficiencies, streamline programs, and find ways to work together and pool Federal resources 

to benefit the families and communities we work to serve. For 

years, HUD has worked closely with several Federal agencies that 

serve Indian country, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, 
4 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency. We know that increased interagency collaboration helps stretch Federal resources and assures that Native 

communities are actually receiving the support they need from the 

Federal Government, and the results of that collaboration are clear. 

Whether it is our work with BIA to reduce the title status report 

delays, to increase access to capital for Native Americans and Alaska Natives living on trust land, or our partnership with FEMA to 

provide homes to retain Native teachers who were previously unable to find adequate housing on reservation land, or our work with 

USDA, EPA, HHS, and BIA to improve the quality and long-term 

viability of water and wastewater infrastructure projects, or our 

Greener Homes Summit where multiple agencies collaborated on a 

strategy to provide tribes with a one-stop approach to training and 

technical assistance in energy efficiency and sustainability, HUD is 

doing everything we can to eliminate duplicative efforts, conserve 

precious resources, and improve service delivery in Indian Country. 

But our commitment to collaboration goes even deeper than our 

work with other Federal agencies. Indeed, history has shown that 

failure to include the views of tribal leaders in policies that affect 

tribes has often led to undesirable and at times devastating results. 

By contrast, we have seen that meaningful dialogue between Federal officials and tribal leadership has vastly improved the U.S. 

Federal policy and government-to-government relations, and I 

would like to speak briefly about a few efforts that reflect that new 

understanding. 

In October 2008, the President signed into law NAHASDA, and 

as part of NAHASDA, a negotiated rulemaking process was established that allows HUD and tribal leadership to work together to 

develop regulations that support implementation of the act. Tribally elected communities and HUD held six negotiated rulemaking 

sessions in 2010 which produced a draft proposed rule, which we 

hope to have finalized by the end of this year. 

In addition, this May, we will publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the creation of a separate negotiated rulemaking Committee to propose changes to the Indian Housing Block Grant formula, and HUD anticipates holding the first meeting of this new 

rulemaking committee in the fall of 2012. 

In our consultations with tribes, we were told time and again 

just how critical it was that we reform the Indian Housing Plan 

and Annual Performance Report, to streamline the planning and 

reporting process, and move from a grant-based program year to a 

fiscal year program, as well as to get money out the door faster and 

into the hands of the communities that needed it. I am proud to 

say that we have responded, and over the next year, we should see 

the benefits of how the new IHP/APR, which include ability to 

more accurately track activities and expenditures, spend down the 

oldest IHBG funds first, and speed up the obligation by tribes of 

funding from September to June. 

And, finally, in 2010, we launched a study of the unique housing 

needs in Indian Country. HUD’s last comprehensive study of housing needs in Native countries was 15 years ago, and in order for 

HUD to fully respond to the current needs in Indian Country, we 

first need a clearer picture of what those needs are. 
5 

So this study, we can begin to develop a long-term and long overdue economic and community development reinvestment strategy. 

And to ensure that tribal concerns and ideas are incorporated into 

the study, HUD will hold six additional consultations this year and 

begin field work in 2013. 

Chairman, I believe that a housing needs study as well as the 

revised IHP/APR and the negotiated rulemaking are but a few examples of how HUD is not just investing in Native families, as important as that is, but writing a new chapter in Native American 

policy that emphasizes inclusion, growth, and creative responses to 

the needs of tribal communities. We are becoming a better partner 

to the tribes, a partner that is working to build a stronger, better 

America, where every Native family and community has a fair 

shot. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Henriquez. 

Mr. O’Brien, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG O’BRIEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Chairman Johnson, Senator Akaka, thank you for 

inviting USDA to testify on the issue of housing in Indian Country. 

The Obama administration is acutely aware of and committed to 

overcoming the longstanding barriers to homeownership on tribal 

lands, borrowers’ credit issues, challenges with security on trust 

land, and a complicated leasing process, all of which hinder capital 

investment on Indian lands. USDA is particularly committed to improving our service to Indian Country. 

The Office of Tribal Relations, located within the Office of the 

Secretary, was created to ensure that all relevant programs and 

policies are efficient, accessible, and developed in consultation with 

the governments they impact. And in order to address civil rights 

complaints and to pave the way for stronger relationships with Native American farmers and ranchers, USDA’s Keepseagle settlement will make $760 million available to successful claimants, provide education and technical assistance to Native American farmers and ranchers, and require that regulations and policies be reformed to better assist them. 

At the direction of President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, 

USDA has also taken a number of actions that will significantly reduce existing challenges to affordable housing in Indian Country, 

and we are designing these approaches through a government-togovernment consultation process because meaningful dialogue between Federal officials and tribal officials greatly improves Federal 

policy designed to be delivered to the tribal communities. 

Since President Obama’s 2009 Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration, a team from across USDA has been reviewing how tribal consultation informs program implementation. Rural 

Development is part of this effort, and our staff continues to dialogue with tribal leadership at the local, regional, and national 

level. 
6 

Because of consultation and our experience on tribal lands, we 

know that lack of infrastructure is a major issue. Along with my 

fellow panel members, USDA serves on the Tribal Infrastructure 

Task Force that focuses on Federal agency collaboration to address 

the need for safe drinking water and basic sanitation. In February 

2011, this group produced a report containing 10 recommendations 

for increasing access to programs in Indian Country. Rural Development is committed to working with this group to implement 

these recommendations. 

Beyond addressing critical infrastructure issues, USDA is working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss land and lending 

issues that create challenges to extending credit on trust land. As 

a result of these meetings, USDA and the BIA are drafting a 

memorandum of understanding that will allow both agencies to 

better understand each other’s programs and the technical requirements for their delivery in Indian Country. 

When we at Rural Development talk about housing, we think 

about it in the context of the entire rural community. It is infrastructure and facilities, it is businesses and jobs that support families as well as individual homeowners. Rural Development staff delivers programs through a network of local offices. These programs 

support essential public facilities and services such as water and 

sewer systems, health clinics, emergency facilities, electric, telephone, and broadband services. Rural Development promotes economic development in rural areas by providing loans, grants, and 

other assistance. 

From 2001 to 2011, Rural Development assistance benefiting 

tribes totaled more than $3 billion. Because we have State and 

area offices in and near tribal communities, we are able to cultivate 

relationships with tribal leaders, lenders, realtors, communitybased organizations, and others. 

To maximize these relationships, we not only have a national Native American tribal coordinator, we also have tribal coordinators 

located at each Rural Development State Office. In housing in particular, we have invested $1.3 billion in Indian Country over the 

past 10 years. We have seen the impact of such investment firsthand. 

Just last month, Rural Development’s Under Secretary Dallas 

Tonsager took part in a ribbon cutting held by the Maliseet Tribe 

in Maine to celebrate their first multi-family apartment complex. 

When the tribe broke ground in November 2010, the Tribal Housing Authority had 40 families on a waiting list for housing. The 

completion of this housing complex moves this tribe in the right direction. 

For a community to access housing programs, it must have access to insurance products, a historic challenge on trust lands. We 

have been working to develop solutions. For example, the AMERIND Risk Management Corporation is a risk management agency 

administering a tribally owned risk management pool that covers 

homes and other structures on Indian lands. A Rural Development 

Administrative Notice was published last November, advising staff 

that the AMERIND could save borrowers money and increase capital in tribal communities. 
7 

All of us on this panel have been working to improve coordination across agencies, and we are proud of the progress that this Administration has made. These collaborative efforts provide us the 

best opportunity yet to significantly reduce the barriers that have 

made it difficult for Indian Country to access Government programs. We look forward to continuing to work closely with tribes 

to create more homeownership opportunities. 

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before 

you today, and I am ready to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien. 

Mr. McSwain, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. MCSWAIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator 

Akaka. I am really pleased to be here today to talk about and certainly discuss this important issue of Native American housing as 

well as the infrastructure development, and the infrastructure development certainly in an area that we play heavily in. I, too, want 

to thank everyone for your leadership on bringing this topic to the 

forefront. 

The IHS is keenly aware of the need for adequate housing 

throughout Indian Country and role to address the requirements 

for adequate infrastructure to support new and existing housing. 

The IHS has the primary responsibility for providing water supply, along with solid and liquid waste disposal facilities for American Indian and Alaskan Native homes and communities as part of 

delivering our total program. As you know, our total program consists of clinical care, preventative care, and public health, and the 

Sanitation Facilities Construction program is a critical part of our 

effort to deliver the care we do. 

IHS works cooperatively with tribes in providing these essential 

facilities. Enhancing tribal capabilities and building partnerships 

based on mutual respect are key factors in the success of this IHS 

program. The IHS also coordinates and advocates on behalf of and 

in cooperation with tribes to seek resources from other Federal 

agencies as my colleagues at the table. 

The Sanitation Facilities Construction program, as I mentioned, 

is an integral component of the IHS disease prevention activities. 

The IHS has carried out this program since 1959 using funds appropriated for Sanitation Facilities Construction to provide potable 

water and waste disposal facilities for American Indian and Alaska 

Native people. As a result—and you have seen this data before— 

the rates of infant mortality and mortality rate for gastroenteritis 

and other environmentally related diseases have been dramatically 

reduced by about 80 percent since 1973. IHS physicians and health 

professionals credit many of these health status improvements to 

IHS’ provision of water supplies, sewage disposal facilities, development of solid waste sites, and the provision of technical assistance 

to tribally owned/operated sewer utility organizations. An important part of our partnership is to work with tribes. Our first partner is the tribes. And the most important piece I can leave you 

with today is our consultation with tribes to develop the Sanitation 
8 

Deficiency data system, where we map out the entire needs across 

the country and by areas, rank-order the projects that we want to 

address, and that becomes our total system. 

As of November, the list to correct sanitation deficiencies totaled 

$3.1 billion, with those projects that are considered economically 

and technically feasible totaling $1.46 billion. We can talk about 

what is feasible and what is not, and you probably know that already. 

Relative to coordination with other agencies, the IHS has coordinated with States, tribes, local governments, and other Federal 

agencies since the first sanitation facility that was built in Elko, 

Nevada, in 1958, which led to the passage of Public Law 86–121 

in 1959. 

In 2007, as was mentioned by my colleague, certainly the Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services 

formed an Infrastructure Task Force that was referenced earlier, 

and the important part of this is that this is, in fact, an ability to 

coordinate amongst all agencies that have a vital interest in Indian 

housing and Indian—certainly Indian housing and the support infrastructure that occurs. 

Approximately 43 percent of all IHS SFC-funded projects over 

the last 5 years were funded either partially or entirely with contributions from others. You will hear all of us talk about leveraging 

the other, and that is what we do. That is what we work with the 

tribes to do. 

The challenge before us, though, is that the sanitation facilities 

infrastructure grows every year—the needs grow, the population 

grows. And, of course, then what has happened in the meantime 

was in 2006 the EPA did change the arsenic rule, and immediately 

we had 18,000 homes that were impacted. Currently, we have now 

36 systems serving 42,000 people that are out of compliance with 

the new arsenic rules. 

Tribally owned and operated facilities is huge, and let me just 

close by saying that the most important part we can do is work 

with tribes on operation and maintenance. There has got to be 

training. There has got to be certainly startup supplies and equipment to help them maintain their systems when we have built 

them and transferred them. 

With that, this concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. McSwain. 

Ms. Gillette, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JODI GILLETTE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR POLICY AND ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. GILLETTE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka 

and Members of the Committee. My name is Jodi Archambault Gillette, and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs 

at the Department of the Interior. I thank you for shining a spotlight on this very important housing situation in Indian Country as 

well. Growing up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, I know 

firsthand the lack of adequate housing has an incredible strain on 
9 

a community of family and a nation. I only can talk about the 

agency perspective, but you well know, as Mr. McSwain noted, that 

the population continues to grow, and unless we take measured 

steps that will result in a great degree of success, the conditions 

may only worsen. 

I am pleased to provide you with the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ 

activity in providing home improvement assistance and our role in 

assisting individual Indians in the pursuit of homeownership. The 

BIA’s Office of Indian Services runs the Housing Improvement Program. This program addresses the Department’s strategic goal of 

serving Indian communities by improving the quality of life of eligible Indians by helping to eliminate substandard housing and homelessness. The program’s activities include housing repairs and renovations of existing homes and construction of modest homes for 

families who do not own a home but own or lease land where a 

home can be built. The BIA’s policy and methodology ensures that 

we are providing housing assistance to the neediest of the needy. 

We look at qualifications that include disability, elderly, children, 

number of children in the household, and income to determine who 

would qualify for this program. Consistent with the goals of this 

self-determination, the program is 95 percent operated by tribes 

through 638 contracts or self-governance compacts. Those tribes 

participating in the program must comply with appropriate regulations. 

In addition to providing home improvement assistance, we also 

have an important role in the mortgage process. The BIA’s Land 

Titles and Records Office is the official Federal office for recording 

all title conveyance and encumbrance documents for Indian lands 

within the LTRO’s jurisdiction. The LTRO is also the Federal office 

for the examination and certification of title to Indian trust and restricted lands. The LTRO issues an official Federal certificate of 

title to Indian lands known as the Title Status Report, or TSR, 

which is the legal land description, the current ownership, and the 

recorded liens and encumbrances on the ownership for a specific 

tract of Indian trust or restricted land. The TSR is required by 

lending institutions to verify that the loan applicant has acquired 

a leasehold interest on tribal land or that the loan applicant has 

total ownership of the trust land, and that the title is clean and 

clear of any liens against the property so that the loan application 

process can move forward. 

In 2004, the BIA entered into an MOU with the Departments of 

Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development for the purposes 

of establishing a framework for partnering among the agencies to 

improve assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives in the 

development of affordable housing on trust and restricted lands, 

reservations, and in approved service areas. Our goal is to assist 

tribes in improving their living environment through the delivery 

of quality housing and resolving issues that delay processing of 

mortgage loans to eligible Indians. 

Additionally, we have partnered with HUD’s Office of Native 

American Programs, Rodger Boyd and folks, to provide training to 

lenders in order to educate the lenders concerning the title process 

for Indian mortgages and to better facilitate and improve the efficiency of the mortgage process. Anytime a mortgage is approved, 
10 

it has the potential to improve the quality of life for Indians, and 

requests for Title Status Reports for the mortgage purposes are 

and will remain a high priority within the BIA. 

Also, we are in the process of revising leasing regulations as part 

of the effort to return control of land use decisions to tribal management and to streamline surface leasing processes to promote 

homeownership, economic development, and clean energy. We anticipate issuing final regulations later this year. We have gone 

through two rounds of tribal consultation, and we look forward to 

having some finality on this shortly. 

In addition to these proposed leasing regulation revisions, the 

Department strongly supports the Helping Expedite and Advance 

Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act, or HEARTH Act, both the 

House and Senate versions. The HEARTH Act would restore tribal 

authority to govern leasing on tribal lands and to promulgate regulations for the governance of those leases, while preserving the 

statutory tools available to the Secretary for carrying out the trust 

responsibility to tribes. Passage of the HEARTH Act has the potential to significantly reduce the time it takes to approve leases for 

homes and small businesses. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Gillette. 

We will now begin asking questions of our witnesses. Will the 

clerk please put 5 minutes on the clock for each Member for their 

questions? 

Ms. Henriquez, I was pleased to see HUD issued a notice earlier 

this week announcing a revised tribal consultation process for the 

needs assessment. Meaningful tribal consultation is key to ensuring a sound study. Can you briefly explain how HUD addressed 

tribal concerns about this initial process? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Initially, we set out to do listening sessions or, I would say, consultations, small ‘‘C.’’ We really met in seven consultations around the 

Nation. We asked people to attend, to both look at the—to talk 

about the housing needs survey to be done, to look at the survey 

that had been done and the instrument used in 1996, and then to 

build upon that with changes in recommendations and so on. 

As that process went forward, we began to hear more conversation among tribal leaders that it was not a full consultation process, formal consultation. And with conversations both with two of 

the industry groups representing both tribal housing entities and 

tribal leaders, both NCAI and NAIHC, we decided that we should 

take a step back and that we should go into a formal consultation, 

much more formalized, deliberative process with tribal leaders. We 

held one of those sessions last July here in Washington. We just 

did another one on Monday afternoon in conjunction with NCAI’s 

leadership meeting that is being held this week. And we have 

planned to do five others across the country between now and 

June. 

We find, as I said in my testimony, and all of us find that 

when—we want to make this successful, we want to make sure 

that it is done well and it is done right, and we want to make sure 

that it is responsive in as many ways as possible with what tribal 
11 

leaders really want to have come out of this survey. And so that’s 

why we decided we should take a deep breath, take a step back, 

re-engage in a much more formalized way and go forward. 

So we are doing some groundwork, background work right now 

that can go forward, but the formal design will wait until the end 

of this formal consultation period. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. McSwain, for years Congress has prohibited IHS from using appropriated funds to pay for sanitation facilities infrastructure for HUD-funded homes. To what extent has 

this prohibition led to homes being constructed with inadequate 

drinking and wastewater systems? And should Congress remove 

the prohibition? 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The prohibition, as 

you described, appears in our bill language every year in our appropriation that says we cannot support infrastructure for new 

HUD homes. Part of that is a history related to NAHASDA and 

how the dollars were actually routing. When NAHASDA was 

passed, the dollars went directly to the various housing authorities 

and did not come to the Indian Health Service. And so there was— 

and I cannot say for certain if that is the absolute cause, but that 

was part of it. 

But I would want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that, for example, on average we still serve 200 homes a year, even though we 

are not providing the infrastructure, it is coming through the housing authorities, the fact that we have the engineers on the ground, 

they are actually sitting there and working with the community on 

the what the total housing needs are. And, granted, we ensure that 

the water systems we are allowed to put in have sufficient capacity 

for any additions that may come, the tribe has planned through 

HUD housing. But that has been the prohibition, and it has not 

really—we kind of work with the tribes to leverage resources to 

pick up the gap. But that is a prohibition, and we have been mindful of that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Should Congress remove the prohibition, in 

your opinion? 

Mr. MCSWAIN. In my opinion, if they fix the other end of it, 

which is the way that the dollars come from HUD to the tribal 

housing authorities, that they really do include infrastructure or 

work out something else, I think I would—before I express my final 

opinion, I would certainly need to consult with my Director, Dr. 

Roubideaux, before I would respond. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to tell this panel that your testimonies were well received 

here, and thank you so much for what you all are doing. 

Ms. Henriquez, in the last reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, the Native 

Hawaiian provision was not reauthorized. Title 8 is a block grant 

housing program for Native Hawaiians who reside on Hawaiian 

homelands. This title was added to NAHASDA in the year 2000. 

In the year 2008, NAHASDA was reauthorized without Title 8. 

Without congressional reauthorization, the risk that funding could 

be cutoff has had a detrimental effect on Native Hawaiian housing 

programs. 
12 

Would your Department support the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian provisions within the next reauthorization of 

NAHASDA? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would 

answer your question in this way: We continue both in our budget 

and in the President’s budget to include funding for Native Hawaiian homelands for the infrastructure and for the building of homes 

under NAHASDA. I think that expresses our commitment moving 

forward and continuing, and we would like to work with you and 

Members of this Committee and the Chairman moving forward to 

make sure that all peoples in both Indian Country and in Native 

Hawaiian homeland and Native Alaskan lands are protected and 

covered. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. O’Brien, Secretary O’Brien, USDA is in the process of 

streamlining to address budget shortfalls in the rural development 

programs. What impact will this have on tribal assistance within 

these programs? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Senator, thank you for that question. As you pointed out, in particular in the last two appropriations cycles, the rural 

development mission area as well as, of course, many other components of the Federal Government, has experienced decreases in its 

appropriations. About 2 or 3 months ago, Secretary Vilsack announced a blueprint for stronger service that indicated how we 

were going to manage this change, and for rural development, it included the closure of 43 of our 500 or so offices across the country 

for rural development. Those offices were chosen, looking at some 

farm bill legislation that actually directed a sister agency on how 

they choose to close offices, by looking at those that had two or 

fewer staff as well as those that were 20 miles or closer to another 

office. Also, Rural Development has the discretion to look at workload, to look at the needs of the community, and we are in the process of closing those 43 offices. 

Now, that said, Rural Development continues to have more than 

450 offices throughout rural America, and work continues and we 

will continue to work closely with tribal communities and other 

communities in rural places. 

The USDA, the President’s budget for 2013 continued to propose 

and request almost $50 million in set-asides for infrastructure and 

business programs for tribal communities, for Hawaiian homelands, and Alaska Native communities. And most of USDA’s rural 

development programs continue to have a priority for distressed 

communities, many of which, of course, as was pointed out by both 

Senators today, are included in tribal communities. 

It does present challenges because the people in distressed communities tend to be some of the most resource intensive to serve, 

but it has changed that we are proactively trying to manage. 

Of course, and last, a key component of being able to continue 

to serve these communities will be to work with our sister agencies 

to make sure that we leverage our dollars most efficiently and, 

most importantly, that we continue the consultation process so we 

know what the governments in the 575 individual tribal communities, nations, need most. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
13 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. O’Brien, the GAO found in a 2010 study 

that several tribal housing authorities had little or no interaction 

with or knowledge of USDA programs that could assist them meet 

their housing needs. I have not heard that in South Dakota where 

Elsie Meeks, who comes from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 

is the State Rural Development Director and has worked closely 

with the tribes. Nationally, what has USDA done to enhance outreach to American Indian tribes? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Senator, thank you for that question, and thank 

you for pointing out the exemplary work that our State Director 

Meeks does in South Dakota. In many ways, the work that is done 

in South Dakota is looked to as a model in how we can expand and 

improve upon our delivery across the country. 

Since that GAO report, I will talk about three things very quickly. One is that we have had an aggressive public service announcement campaign in both print and radio where we have utilized real 

stories of tribal citizens who have utilized our housing business infrastructure programs and have used the media outlets that are 

most listened to or read by tribal communities. 

We have also had an aggressive training program within the 

USDA itself because, you know, to address the problem of lack of 

access and knowledge by the tribal communities, we really need to 

educate our own workforce. So our national Native American Coordinator has worked with different components within Rural Development to make sure that our own employees understand how we 

can work and partner with tribal communities. 

The final thing I will mention is our aggressive agenda on tribal 

consultation that we find so valuable as we work through many, 

many issues—regulatory issues, funding issues, just basic process 

issues. We have had in the last 2 years more than 25 either formal 

consultations, roundtables with national tribal leaders or national 

virtual convenings. I have had the privilege to participate in a 

number of those. In fact, just this morning I spent an hour with 

Chief Baker of the Cherokee Nation to talk about the issues there. 

So thank you for that question. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Gillette, the BIA administers a Housing 

Improvement Program, a home repair, renovation, and replacement 

grant program. How does this program interact with HUD and 

other programs? 

Ms. GILLETTE. Well, as I stated earlier, we do have an existing 

MOU, and we try to ensure that we do not have overlap between 

the different programs. We have specific regulations that govern 

the Housing Improvement Program, and they really are, we feel, 

meeting the needs of a specific part of the population on reservations that are not able to qualify for some of the programs at other 

agencies. And so this is really trying to address the needs of the 

very needy residents of the reservation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. For the whole panel, each of your agencies 

has a specific mission but collectively play an important role in 

helping ensure high-quality housing opportunities are available in 

Indian Country. How do you coordinate efforts on this front? Do 

you have formal agreements established with other agencies to provide housing and related services in Indian Country? Do agencies 

provide training to employees through the agreements so the agree-
14 

ments are implemented on the ground? Let us begin with you, Ms. 

Henriquez. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that, 

first of all, our mission and our vision at HUD, particularly as it 

relates to housing in Indian Country, is to understand, most importantly, the mission and vision of tribes themselves, and our role is 

to help them accomplish their mission. And we see our partnership 

role from that lens directly. 

We have a number of formal agreements we have discussed here 

with a number of agencies both here and others that are not here, 

such as FEMA and so on. And we provide training not just for our 

own employees through our six regional Native American program 

offices across the country. We also provide training and working 

with Native American industry groups through their auspices as 

well, both for our employees but also, in addition, for Native American tribes and their members, again, to figure out what their vision is and help them reach and attain those goals. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. O’Brien? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I will 

just mention three sort of formal relationships that we have with 

our Federal partners to better serve tribal communities. 

The first is the Tribal Interagency Infrastructure Task Force, as 

was referred to in prior testimony, where we work with our sister 

agencies on infrastructure issues. Some of the difficult issues, for 

instance, how we deal with the environmental process when you 

are leveraging funds in a particular project and the different avenues that the tribal community—they need to deal with, you know, 

two or three or maybe even four different Federal agencies on their 

environmental processes. 

We have been able to make progress so that in a number of instances we have been able to work with our Federal agencies so 

that one of the agencies is the lead agency, so that the tribal community can work with one contact person. And to the degree that 

we are able, we coordinate our processes and, looking at our regulations, how we can better match our regulations to make it easier 

for the tribal communities to deal with. 

The other one I will mention is the memorandum of understanding we have with BIA—or that we are working on drafting 

with BIA to deal with the complicated leasehold and property interest when we are trying to provide funding that requires secured interest. 

And the final one I will mention is the Administrative Flexibility 

Task Force that the White House has led to help Federal agencies 

have a platform of conversation to make sure that we are not be 

duplicitous and that we can be the best partner possible on tribal 

lands. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. McSwain? 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. O’Brien has 

mentioned, certainly the ITF is one that we have operated, and one 

of the people that is not at the table is EPA, which we do a lot of 

work with EPA in partnership in addressing Indian communities 

as well as my other colleagues here. 

One of the major accomplishments I can point out is that during 

certainly the appropriation for the American Recovery and Rein-
15 

vestment Act, in a partnership we actually partnered with EPA, 

and by doing so we cobbled our money that we got with their 

money, and it actually resulted in 160 new projects off that long 

list. And I want to point out that we basically share our Sanitation 

Deficiency System list with all of our colleagues, and it becomes 

sort of a working punch list for all of us so that we all can—so it 

is an ability for all of us to look at the list and pick and choose 

what meets our particular agency’s authorities. 

So if we can do one thing and certainly USDA or HUD or BIA 

or EPA can do something else, then we kind of work it together, 

and we are constantly talking with tribes, and tribes come in to 

talk to us. And they are making the rounds. They are actually talking to all of us. And I want to echo the comment by Mr. O’Brien 

about the President’s flexibility Executive order. I happen to be on 

a housing group that is having a dialogue in that group on how we 

can simplify the process for tribes to really access resources to meet 

their needs, and that is one that I think is another venue that has 

really been successful. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Gillette, do you have any comments to 

follow up with, including on Mr. O’Brien’s MOU? Please provide us 

with a timeline. 

Ms. GILLETTE. We have been engaged in discussions for at least 

a year on the MOU, and from the discussions in creating an MOU, 

we have also found different areas that we need to collaborate better on, including improving communication between not just the 

people in Washington, D.C., but throughout the field. Part of that 

is having interpreters that are cross-trained in understanding both 

the USDA systems, because USDA is a very large agency, and then 

the unique trust status of the lands in Indian Country. 

So you have two systems that are needing to have better communication, and we are trying to do that through regular conversations and training, and that is actually growing out of the MOU 

discussions. MOU discussions have been taking place, like I said, 

for a year, and we really wanted to identify some of the places that 

make the most sense. So we are in a first-draft process. How soon 

we can get that out, you know, we are hopeful by the fall we will 

have something. That is being pretty conservative. I think we can 

do it quicker than that, but I am going to probably have to work 

with USDA to try to make some kind of timeline like that. 

But also from the discussions on the MOU, we have also identified places that we really do have to look at our own regulations 

and find ways to accommodate for the unique status of Indian 

lands, and then also for the different kinds of programs that are 

available through USDA that tribes and individual Indian landowners traditionally have not been able to access because of their 

unique status. 

So we are looking at both regulatory changes in that respect as 

well as the statutory changes that could improve the access for everyone in Indian country. 

Then the other thing I wanted to just reiterate is this work is 

all complementary to the Administrative Flexibility Initiative that 

the President directed all of the agencies to find ways to work together to reduce the unnecessary administrative burdens that are 

placed on tribes and local governments and State agencies so that 
16 

we can use most of those resources to look at producing better outcomes rather than duplicative processes throughout the agencies. 

Although the Administrative Flexibility Initiative is just a year old, 

we have a number of conversations that have been ongoing, and 

this initiative is really going to allow us to provide deliverables 

within a specific timeline in the Administration, and that is being 

run out of the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic 

Policy Council. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator Akaka? 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I want to repeat that I like what you all are saying and 

that you are working jointly to help the indigenous people here 

with MOUs, also being partnered with the tribes, and working 95 

percent programs operated by the tribes. And so this indicates joint 

efforts on your part, and I commend you for that. 

Mr. McSwain, there is a significant need in Indian Country for 

wastewater infrastructure, and you mentioned that the IHS mission is to raise the health status of American Indian and Alaska 

Native people to the highest possible level by providing comprehensive health care and preventive health services. To support the IHS 

mission, the Sanitation Facilities Construction program provides 

American Indian and Alaska Native homes and communities with 

essential water supply, sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal 

facilities. 

My question to you is: How does IHS prioritize tribal need in its 

SFC program? 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. It begins with us having a conversation at the community level with each of the tribes, 

and from that we actually develop their needs as they have them. 

And then we compile them into certainly the national need, but it 

is basically every area—Alaska would be sitting down with their 

villages and corporations—and determining what the total need is, 

and that gets captured in a national setting in terms of the total 

need, and that is the total need I talked about, which is $3.4 billion. 

Each of the areas then meets with their tribes, and the tribes in 

their discussion will rate and rank their particular needs across the 

State, and we represent those. And when we get an appropriation, 

we go work that list again with those tribes. 

So every tribe, certainly we break it down between water, sewer, 

and solid waste disposal for each of the tribes, and so we have a 

rate and ranking even within each of those. 

So we are able to really cast a very detailed description of what 

the needs are, but they are reflective of the fundamental tribal consultation, tribes telling us what their needs are. After all, when we 

go on to the reservation, we need their permission. We also give 

them the option if they want to build it, they can assume it and 

build it. It is their choice. But if we build it, we build it with their 

approval, site selection, architecture, how we deliver the actual 

three major services. But that is essentially—I hope I have answered your question, but basically it is this $3.4 billion and $1.4 

feasible is—obviously there is a big difference when it is going to 

cost a lot to—and maybe it is—I found out on the Navajo, for exam-
17 

ple, you have to go quite a ways to find potable water, which 

means you are doing pipelines and you are finding places to build. 

And this is not unique to Navajo but certainly an example. 

But, again, those particular projects are consulted with the 

tribes, and we have that list, and the very first dollar we get for 

the allocation goes to the one that they choose. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your response. 

Ms. Gillette, how does the housing situation in Indian Country 

impact the Department’s ability to provide teachers to BIA schools 

and law enforcement officers to Native communities? 

Ms. GILLETTE. Well, it is something that impacts our ability to 

recruit and retain key employees in those different agencies. And 

as you noted in your opening remarks, housing not only affects 

needy tribal members, but it also affects the ability for professionals to stay home as well, and it affects our ability to bring people in as employees for different law enforcement or education 

roles. And so this is something that we do provide. We have approximately 3,419 units across Indian Country in 131 different 

sites. We know that there is difficulty in how this is all structured 

because we have limited funds to expand the units that are out 

there. We also have an issue with the ability for us to maintain 

that because the only way we can maintain the units is by the 

rental income that we receive, and that rental income has to be set 

based on similar units in the local community, and sometimes the 

local community does not have comparable units. 

So we struggle with maintaining, even when we do build, but we 

are looking at different ways to revise some of those regulations to 

establish rental rates and trying to find innovations and making 

sure that we have a more realistic approach to providing housing 

for professionals in our agencies. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, all of you, for 

your responses, and I want to thank our Chairman for his leadership in this area as he continues to work on this. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

I have just a couple more questions. Ms. Gillette, given the BIA’s 

responsibility for managing American Indian trust land, how have 

delays in approving leases impacted housing construction and economic development in Indian Country? I have heard numerous horror stories related to the delays in approving leases over the years. 

Ms. GILLETTE. With our undertaking of revising the leasing regulations as it relates to home sites, we have looked at these since 

the beginning of this Administration. Actually, this is the first time 

these regulations are going to be fully revamped in 50 years, and 

so this is a huge undertaking for the Department. In the past, the 

leasing regulations were grouped under agricultural and nonagricultural, so you had all of the different types of leasings 

grouped into other leases. 

The proposed rule, what we plan to do with that is separate the 

different types of leases out to homeownership, renewable energy, 

and business leasing. And so the homeownership aspect of it, you 

know, generally the revisions make the procedures for leasing more 

transparent and as explicit as possible. We have also provided procedures for amendments, assignments, sub-leases, which they 
18 

have—they are not in there currently, and we are addressing 

leases for single-family homes and housing for public purposes on 

Indian lands. The proposed regulations will provide for a 30-day 

timeframe in which the BIA must issue a decision on a complete 

residential lease application; otherwise, it is deemed approved. And 

that is something that timeframes have not been imposed with the 

current regulations. We also have standards for disapproving 

leases that have not been in place either, so we are trying to make 

those more consistent. We also have provisions in there that really 

talk to the specifics of enforcement of lease violations. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. McSwain, given IHS’ primary mission to provide for the 

health of American Indians, can you give us a sense of the negative 

impact unsafe and overcrowded housing has on the health of Native communities? In South Dakota, I have seen far too many inadequate homes on reservations that house two, three, or more families, which causes a number of problems, including black mold. 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have the actual numbers, but anecdotally, hearing about black mold, in particularly North and South Dakota, is really, I believe, clearly on 

our radar. The biggest issue is sort of the recurrent issues that are 

happening with black mold up particularly in the higher parts of 

North Dakota. 

I am personally aware of some of those, and actually had discussion with the tribal leaders, about how to address those. A lot of 

it has to do with the fact that they have low-lying water and how 

homes are built and the fact that they are not really built properly 

to deal with those particular environmental conditions. 

But I do not have any numbers on it, but I am aware, certainly 

hearing from tribal leaders about the overcrowding and the numbers of families that are in a particular house certainly indicates 

that a few more houses would be appreciated by them. But certainly I do not have the numbers that would correlate to how extensive and quantify the overcrowding, but anecdotally, it is occurring. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you all for your testimony and for 

being here with us today. Each of the agencies you represent plays 

an important role in providing American Indian families with safe, 

affordable, and high-quality housing options. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and responses to written questions supplied for the record follow:] 
19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today, the Committee will continue examining an issue of great importance to me 

and so many in my home State of South Dakota——the lack of safe, affordable, 

high-quality housing opportunities in Indian Country. During my time in Congress, 

I have worked to improve the housing options available to American Indians, including being an original cosponsor of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996. Unfortunately, as those living in Native communities know all too well, the critical housing needs far outpace the resources devoted 

to the problem. 

The Census Bureau reported in 2008 that Native Americans are almost twice as 

likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population. For the same year, the GAO 

reported that nearly 46 percent of Native households were overcrowded, a rate that 

was almost three times as high as the rest of the country. According to the 2009 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report, American Indians make up less than 1 percent of the general population, but 8 percent of the country’s homeless population. 

Together, we must work to reverse this trend. 

In 2010, I chaired a joint Banking and Indian Affairs Committee field hearing in 

Rapid City, South Dakota to examine creative solutions to the Indian housing crisis. 

Prior to the hearing, I brought HUD Secretary Donovan to the Rosebud Sioux Reservation so that he could see first-hand the immediate challenges facing Native communities. We heard from several witnesses who all echoed the need for housing 

funds. I support their calls for sufficient funding and will continue fighting for such 

funding as a member of the Appropriations Committee. But, it is also important 

that we collaborate and leverage existing resources to provide housing in these 

tough economic times. These resourceful ideas are not meant to free the Federal 

Government of its treaty and trust responsibility. Rather, these ideas should serve 

as another avenue for us to work together to address the housing crisis facing Indian Country. 

As Chairman of this Committee, I’m committed to ensuring that programs across 

many Federal agencies that address Indian housing, infrastructure, and community 

development are easily accessible to tribes and their housing organizations. It’s also 

critically important that Federal agencies engage in a government-to-government relationship and participate in meaningful consultation with tribes on housing issues 

and other important matters. That’s why I’ve invited all of you to testify today. Each 

of your agencies plays an important role in Indian housing or housing-related infrastructure and community development. I look forward to hearing from you about 

how your agencies collaborate to make sure your work provides the most efficient 

and effective housing assistance possible in Indian Country. 

Longer term, the Committee is beginning to lay the foundation for the reauthorization of NAHASDA next year. It will be important for all of us concerned about 

Indian housing to work closely on this reauthorization, including tribes and their 

housing agencies. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA B. HENRIQUEZ 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 8, 2012 

Good morning Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby and Members of the 

Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you, and I would like to express my 

appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the housing conditions of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian peoples. 

The Office of Public and Indian Housing is responsible for the management, operation and oversight of HUD’s Native American and Native Hawaiian housing and 

community development programs. These programs are available to all 565 federally 

recognized Indian tribes and the State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands. We serve these entities directly, or through their tribally designated housing 

entities (TDHE), by providing formula-based housing block grants and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community development. Our partners are diverse; they are located on Indian reservations, in Alaska Native Villages, 

and on the Hawaiian Home Lands. 

Before we begin exploring the ways that Federal agencies working in Indian 

Country can do a better job of coordinating efforts to broaden economic development 

opportunities, I would like to provide the committee with a brief overview of the programs administered by the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) at HUD. 
20 

ONAP Programs 

HUD administers four programs specifically targeted to Native American and 

Alaska Native individuals and families: 

• Indian Housing Block Grant program; 

• Title VI—loan guarantee program; 

• Section 184—Single Family Home Loan Guarantees; and 

• the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG). 

In implementing these programs, the Department recognizes the right of tribal 

self-governance and the unique relationship between the Federal Government and 

tribal governments, established by long-standing treaties, court decisions, statutes, 

Executive Orders, and the United States Constitution. Each of the 566 federally recognized tribes has its own culture, traditions, and government. The Department 

strives to balance respect for these individual tribes with regulations and procedures 

that ensure accountability and consistency. 

HUD also administers two programs specifically targeted to Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.—Native Hawaiian Housing Block 

Grant program and the Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program. The block 

grant program for Native Hawaiians is administered through the State Department 

of Hawaiian Home Lands and is augmented by a home loan guarantee program. 

Indian Housing Block Grant 

The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) is ONAP’s largest program, both in 

terms of dollars appropriated and population served. It was authorized by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1996. 

IHBGs are awarded to eligible Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) for a range of affordable housing activities that primarily benefit lowincome Indian families living on Indian reservations or in other Indian service 

areas. The amount of each grant is based on a formula that considers local needs 

and the number of units developed with 1937 Housing Act funding and currently 

managed by the tribe or its tribally designated housing entity (TDHE). The block 

grant approach offers each tribe the flexibility to design, implement, and administer 

unique, innovative housing programs, based on local need. 

Title VI—Loan Guarantees 

NAHASDA also authorized the Title VI program, which offers recipients of the 

IHBG (tribes and their TDHEs) a loan guarantee program that encourages longterm projects and the leveraging of a variety of funding sources. Under Title VI, 

HUD can guarantee 95 percent of a loan for affordable housing activities. Borrowers 

pledge a portion of their current and future IHBG funds as security. This program 

has provided an incentive for lenders to get involved in the development of tribal 

housing. 

Section 184—Single Family Home Loan Guarantees 

The Section 184 program was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as amended. It is a single-family mortgage loan program that 

provides a 100 percent guarantee for private mortgage loans issued to eligible borrowers. Eligible borrowers include American Indian and Alaska Native families and 

individuals, Indian tribes, and TDHEs. There are no income limits. Loans are used 

to purchase, construct, rehabilitate, refinance, or purchase and rehabilitate a home 

located on a reservation or within an Indian area. A one-time, 1 percent guarantee 

fee is charged; it can be financed or paid in cash at closing. The maximum mortgage 

term is 30 years. 

Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG) 

This program was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974. ICDBG is a competitive program, open to federally recognized tribes and 

certain tribal organizations. Each year, approximately 1 percent of the Community 

Development Block Grant appropriation is set-aside for ICDBG. 

Some examples of ICDBG projects include construction of health clinics and other 

public facilities including gymnasiums and cultural centers; housing rehabilitation; 

health and education facilities; infrastructure, including roads, power, water, and 

phone lines; and waste water systems. 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) 

The NHHBG program, Title VIII of NAHASDA, was authorized by the Hawaiian 

Home Lands Homeownership Act of 2000. The Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands (DHHL) is the sole recipient. The NHHBG is designed to primarily benefit 
21 

low-income Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home 

Lands. Eligible activities are the same as for the IHBG program. DHHL provides 

many housing services, including counseling and technical assistance, to prepare 

families for home purchase and ownership. DHHL is also using NHHBG and other 

funds to invest in infrastructure for future housing development. 

Section 184A—Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program 

Section 184A was established by Section 514 of the American Homeownership and 

Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, which amended the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992. The program is similar to Section 184, but is intended 

for Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands. 

Collaborations that Improve Service Delivery and Foster Economic Opportunities 

Federal Partnerships 

HUD collaborates with several Federal agencies that serve Indian Country; specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Services (IHS), the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Although short and/or long-term cost savings are difficult to project, economies of 

scale should result from enhanced coordination and collaboration among Federal 

agencies. Increased collaboration among and within agencies will help ensure that 

Native Americans are receiving the support they need from Federal programs. 

HUD–BIA Partnership 

In 2004, Assistant Secretaries’ from HUD, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) executed an Interagency Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) to improve the delivery of Federal programs and services 

for the benefit of Native Americans. While the primary focus of the MOU is to reduce the BIA’s Title Status Reports (TSR) process down to 30 days. 

The inability to secure title in a timely fashion has reduced access to capital for 

Native Americans and Alaska Natives living on tribal trust, allotted, and individual 

trust land (tribal lands). With evidence of clear title, land-use decisions can be more 

easily made and enacted, and business opportunities and job creation is possible. 

Building an efficient system for title delivery will pave the way for increased collaboration between tribes and government agencies, financial institutions, corporations, and builders. 

Since the MOU was executed, the HUD–BIA partnership has produced several advancements including a reduction of processing time for TSRs, streamlined and synchronized administrative functions between the BIA and HUD offices when obtaining a mortgage on tribal lands, and developed staff training on a national recordation process. While the partnership has produced many positive results, there is still 

room for improvement in order to bring the titling process to market rate standards, 

and ultimately encourage economic development in Indian Country. 

HUD and FEMA 

Since its inception in 2008, HUD and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have partnered to distribute nearly 1,900 mobile homes to Tribes all 

across the country. These homes were originally purchased by FEMA as emergency 

disaster housing but were never occupied. 

In 2011, HUD decided to use our partnership with FEMA to tackle a very specific 

another housing issue in Indian Country—retaining good teachers. Teacher turnover 

rates on tribal land are very high due to the lack of affordable housing options. 

HUD’s 2011 mobile home distribution became a Teacher Housing Initiative designed 

to retain good Native teachers in Indian Country. HUD distributed over 550 mobile 

homes in 2011 under this initiative. The tribes only pay for set-up and transportation costs and can use HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant funds or any other tribal funds to pay for these expenses. 

Infrastructure Task Force 

An Inter-Agency Infrastructure Task Force (‘‘Task Force’’) came into effect on 

June 2007 following the signature by the Department Secretaries of two Memoranda 

of Understanding (MOU) to develop strategies to improve access to safe drinking 

water and basic sanitation in Indian country. 

The Federal partners of the Task Force are the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(Rural Development—USDA–RD), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Indian Health 

Service, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs—BIA). 
22 

This group continues to meet on a routine basis to address the provision of quality 

water and waste water infrastructure services in support of tribal housing and tribal communities. As part of this effort a workgroup was established to develop a plan 

of action with all the possible recommendations for streamlining the multi-agency 

requirements placed on Tribes in order to receive Federal funding for water and 

wastewater infrastructure construction projects. 

This working group provided their recommendations in February 2011 in a report 

titled, Overview of Tribal Water Infrastructure Funding Application Processes and 

Recommended Paperwork Streamlining Opportunities. The report contains 10 recommendations including: coordination of agency grant funding cycles, additional use 

of IHS sanitation deficiency system priority list by all Federal partners, develop a 

standard environmental review process and Federal agency cross training. 

The larger Task Force is currently focusing on issues of sustainability in an effort 

to improve the quality and long-term viability of water and waste water infrastructure projects. 

Greener Homes National Summit 

In September 2011, the third annual Greener Homes National Summit was held 

in Denver, sponsored by ONAP. This conference brought together HUD, DOE, EPA 

and USDA, and is considered a hallmark of tribal and Federal participation. This 

3-day conference fostered discussions to promote energy efficient tribal homes and 

communities, and encouraged economic development of renewable energy sources 

and energy efficiency technologies. 

Federal agencies collaborated on a strategy to provide tribes with a coordinated, 

‘‘one-stop’’ approach to training and technical assistance in energy efficiency and 

sustainability, which would eliminate duplicative efforts and conserve resources for 

both tribes and the Federal agencies involved. 

Tribal Collaboration 

Housing Needs Study 

HUD is conducting a comprehensive, nationally representative HUD study on the 

extent of housing needs in Indian Country and Hawaii. The last comparable study 

was conducted in 1996. In 2010 and 2011, HUD held seven regional outreach meetings with tribal housing stakeholders as well has a national tribal consultation 

meeting in Washington, DC to seek tribal input on the research approach and survey instrument design. The study’s outreach plan and survey instruments have been 

refined based on input from these sessions and comments from the expert panel convened specifically for the study. 

Despite these efforts, there was concern from the tribal community that tribal 

leaders did not have the opportunity to review the study through formal tribal consultation. In response to that concern, HUD committed to hold additional tribal consultations on the survey instruments and study design in 2012 and begin the field 

survey work in 2013. 

HUD is working with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the 

National American Indian Housing Council to host six regional consultations and 

two national consultations beginning in March of this year. The first national consultation took place earlier this week in conjunction with NCAI’s Executive Council 

Winter Session. The second national meeting will take place in June. Dates and locations for the regional meetings are being finalized. 

In the meantime, the secondary data collection and analyses are underway. 

Negotiated Rulemaking to Implement the NAHASDA Reauthorization Act 

On October 14, 2008, the President signed into law the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008 (the Act). Section 

105 of the Act contains the requirement to engage in negotiated rulemaking to create regulations for those provisions of the Act that are not self-implementing. HUD 

held six negotiated rulemaking sessions in fiscal year 2010, which produced a draft 

proposed rule. 

This proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011. 

Public comments were due on January 17, 2012. HUD received 20 public comments 

and is currently reviewing them. Preparations are being made to review the public 

comments and make any final adjustments. The rule will again be placed into Departmental and OMB clearance. After that process is complete, the final rule will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

In May of this year, HUD will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the 

creation of a separate negotiated rulemaking committee to propose changes to the 

IHBG formula. The notice will request nominations to represent tribes on this new 
23 

committee. HUD anticipates holding its first meeting of this negotiated rulemaking 

committee in the fall of CY 2012. 

Indian Housing Plan (IHP) Conversion Update 

In 2005, the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) started the process of 

converting the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program from a grant-based program to a fiscal year-based program. This major administrative change was the 

number one priority requested through the eight consultation sessions that were 

held around the country that year. 

Since then, a tribal workgroup assisted HUD in developing the new IHP/APR 

form that is being implemented now. The new IHP/APR incorporates statutory 

changes from the 2008 NAHASDA Reauthorization, and extensively streamlines the 

planning and reporting process for IHBG funding. 

The new IHP/APR also collects new data on program activities and tribal housing 

need. In response to the GAO report Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program 

Effective, but tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvements, 

the IHP will now track infrastructure in the section where the grantee identifies 

their low income and all families ‘needs’, as wells as adding ‘infrastructure to support housing’ as a specific eligible activity. The APR will track as a specific outcome 

‘improve quality of existing infrastructure’. 

In the past year, there has been intensive training around the country to ensure 

that everyone has the opportunity to learn about the new IHP/APR, and the administrative changes that are occurring with the shift to a fiscal year-based program. 

Additional training sessions will be available starting this summer. 

The transition thus far has been a success. Over the next year we should see the 

benefits of this change. Improvements include: the ability to track activities and expenditures using only one IHBG grant rather than having multiple open grants; expenditure of the oldest IHBG funds first; ONAP obligation of most the fiscal year 

funding by late June rather than in September or later. 

Administrative Flexibility Working Groups on Native American Issues 

In February 2011, the President issued a Memorandum to Federal agencies entitled ‘‘Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, 

and Tribal Governments.’’ This memorandum instructed Federal agencies to work 

with tribal governments—as well as States and localities—to reduce unnecessary 

administrative burdens and focus available resources to achieve better program outcomes. Based on comments and input from tribes and Native American business 

leaders, the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) convened five interagency working groups, comprised of senior program managers, to focus on areas that Indian Country identified as priorities. HUD 

is actively involved in working groups on Housing and also Loans and Credit (the 

other working groups include Training and Employment, Broadband Service, and 

Workforce Development). Goals for these groups include: 

• Housing. This group is developing a matrix of Federal housing, community, 

and economic development programs across the various agencies to increase the 

visibility of available resources and determine how to make these programs 

more accessible. 

• Loans and Credit. The goal of this group is to ensure that Federal loan and 

credit programs are deployed to tribal economies through: improved flexibility 

under existing loan and credit program authority; improved and innovative deployment, oversight and accountability of loan programs in Indian Country; reduction in inefficiencies or disconnections between existing programs; and improvement in knowledge of programs through better training and technical assistance. 

Working groups have reached out to Tribes to receive input through written comments, conference calls, and discussions at conferences and other events. 

Closing 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to continuing to work with you 

and your staffs on these issues. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 
24 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG O’BRIEN 

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

MARCH 8, 2012 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee, I 

want to start by thanking you for inviting me to testify here today and to represent 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the issue of housing in Indian 

Country. 

When we talk about housing at Rural Development, we often speak of the entire 

rural community—its infrastructure and facilities, its businesses, as well as the individual homeowner. Programs at USDA span a wide range of areas that have an 

impact on Indian Country, including food safety, housing, business development, 

telecommunications, water systems, crop insurance, nutrition, research, and of 

course the programs designed to assist farmers. According to the National Congress 

of American Indians, agriculture is the second largest employer in Indian Country. 

As such, Secretary Vilsack is committed to a USDA that faithfully serves Tribal governments, Tribal communities, and individual American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

The Office of Tribal Relations (OTR), located within the Office of the Secretary, 

is the primary point of contact for Tribal consultation and collaboration within 

USDA and works with all USDA agencies to ensure that relevant programs and 

policies are efficient, easy to understand, accessible, and developed in consultation 

and collaboration with the American Indian and Alaskan Native governments they 

impact. OTR is responsible for improving our government-to-government relations 

between USDA’s various agencies and Tribal governments, advising Secretary 

Vilsack on Tribal issues and concerns, Tribal consultation, the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and issues impacting Tribal members. OTR works 

cooperatively and collaboratively across USDA to build an integrated approach to 

issues, programs, and services that address the needs of American Indians and 

Alaskan Natives. We believe that the efforts and commitment of OTR in partnership 

with all USDA is guiding the Department toward a more flexible and sustainable 

approach in addressing the needs of Tribal governments, the communities they 

serve, and the individuals living on Tribal lands. 

Since President Obama’s 2009 Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration, a dedicated team from across USDA has been working to re-examine existing 

departmental policies and regulations regarding Tribal collaboration and consultation and how USDA programs are utilized in Indian Country. In 2010 we held a 

series of joint consultation regional events where we heard from Tribal elected officials and their representatives about program rules and the challenges to stronger 

utilization of USDA programs in Indian Country. Rural Development took part in 

those regional venues and RD staff and leadership have participated many times 

at the local, regional and national level in ongoing dialogue with Tribal leadership. 

On June 9th, 2011 President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the 

first White House Rural Council. The White House Rural Council’s goal is to improve coordination of programs across Government and encourage public-private 

partnerships to promote increased economic prosperity and improved quality of life 

in rural communities. Chaired by Secretary Vilsack, the Council is responsible for 

helping coordinate Federal investments in rural areas and continues to hear from 

a wide variety of rural stakeholders, including Tribal governments. The Council 

breaks down program silos and finds areas for better collaboration and improved 

flexibility in Government programs. To further this objective, in August 2011 the 

Rural Council convened the White House Native American Business Leaders Roundtable with Tribal representatives, economic development experts, and Federal policymakers. At this roundtable participants discussed challenges Tribal businesses 

face, including access to capital, job skills and training shortfalls, and limited 

broadband deployment and adoption in Tribal communities. Just last week, Federal 

representatives and Tribal business and Government leaders participated in a Capital Access roundtable at the Reservation Economic Summit (RES) 2012, where we 

continued to delve deeper into the challenges and barriers faced in accessing necessary capital to build strong rural economies in Indian Country. The feedback and 

insight gained by my colleagues is being incorporated into our ongoing efforts to address economic growth in Indian Country, and USDA looks forward to all we can 

achieve with our partners in the Federal Government and in Indian Country to create more opportunity in Native American communities. 
25 

USDA is also addressing civil rights complaints that go back decades in order to 

pave the way for new and stronger relationships with the rural farming and ranching communities found throughout Indian Country. In October 2010, Secretary 

Vilsack announced the settlement of a decades-long discrimination case brought 

against the Department by Native farmers and ranchers: Keepseagle v. Vilsack. Up 

to $760 million in monetary relief, debt relief, and tax relief is available to successful claimants. The claims period closed in December 2011 and we anticipate payments to successful claimants this calendar year. As part of the settlement of the 

Keepseagle case, the Secretary will appoint a Council on Native American Farming 

and Ranching that will meet regularly to further advise USDA on how our programs 

can build strong rural farming and ranching communities. We expect the appointment of the Council members to occur in the coming months. 

Furthermore, USDA continues to be an active participant on the Tribal Infrastructure Task Force to address the ongoing need for safe drinking water and basic 

sanitation in Indian Country. Between 2003 and 2009, the combined funding from 

the Task Force Agencies—USDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Indian 

Health Service (IHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD)—provided 80,941 Tribal homes access to safe drinking water and 43,562 

Tribal homes access to basic sanitation. In August 2011, USDA Rural Development 

provided a $12 million grant and $3.34 million loan to Mni Waste Water Company 

to complete phase II of a multi phase project to replace a failing water system that 

serves the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation, as well as Meade and Perkins 

Counties in South Dakota. In fact, prior to this investment Rural Development 

hosted an interagency funding meeting with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe where 

the tribe spelled out its priorities and challenges associated with this project in front 

of Federal officials from USDA, the Indian Health Service, HUD and EPA—all of 

which also actively participate in the task force. These numbers demonstrate significant progress made by the Task Force agencies, but we recognize that more work 

is needed. To this end, the Task Force is refocusing its goals around the principle 

that access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation should be provided through 

entities that are sustainable and implemented through integrated agency planning 

that links the development goals of the tribe with the need for such services and 

infrastructure. This principle fits well with USDA Rural Development programs 

that are committed to improving the economy and quality of life in rural areas. 

In recent months, USDA has been working to improve our program delivery to 

Tribal governments, communities and individuals they serve. As an outgrowth of 

the Keepseagle settlement, USDA has established a technical assistance network in 

partnership with the Intertribal Agriculture Council. The network works across Indian Country in 13 regional locations to provide needed technical assistance on the 

ground so that Tribal governments, communities and individuals have a stronger 

understanding of USDA programs and of how to strategically plan for their communities’ growth. And finally, USDA launched a Strike Force initiative in southeastern 

States that is now expanding to western States with substantial Native American 

populations. The Strike Force initiative ensures that the Federal agencies (both 

within and beyond USDA) partner to provide effective and targeted technical assistance. These technical assistance efforts do not duplicate one another; instead, they 

complement and catalyze the efforts of staff from numerous agencies. USDA recognizes that Federal program managers need to strive to provide seamless technical 

assistance and we also recognize that in many rural communities, this type of targeted technical assistance is needed to uncover the best strategies to vision and 

build strong communities and families. We believe that these efforts will ensure the 

unique challenges of Native Americans, living both on and off reservations, will be 

addressed. 

To better serve tribes and to ensure Rural Development investments flow onto 

Tribal lands, it is both pragmatic and necessary that we work in cooperation with 

elected Tribal officials, adhere to Tribal ordinances and laws, and partner with other 

Federal agencies such as the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), HUD, and many other Federal partners. Rural Development has exceptional 

staff in our nationwide network of State-level field offices and area offices across the 

rural landscape. These individuals work closely with Tribes and dedicated partners 

on a daily basis in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Rural Development staff in 

the local offices deliver programs for all three agencies in the Rural Development 

mission area-the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service 

and Rural Utilities Service. By being located in rural communities, we are able to 

cultivate important relationships with Tribal leaders, Tribal professional staff, lenders, realtors, community-based organizations, redevelopment authorities, leadership 

groups, and others. Each State-level Rural Development office maintains a Native 

American Tribal Coordinator to assist Tribes with their development interests by 
26 

providing technical assistance and programmatic knowledge throughout the application process. Rural Development provides financial programs to support essential 

public facilities and services such as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities, electric, telephone and broadband services. Rural 

Development promotes economic development in rural areas by providing loans, 

loan guarantees, grants, and other assistance to applicants, including tribes, Tribal 

members, individuals and families, banks, and community-managed lending pools. 

And RD, I am proud to say, has a long history of investing in Tribal economies. 

From 2001 to 2011, Rural Development assistance benefiting tribes totaled more 

than $3 billion. I believe we can continue on this path and even do more, if funds 

are available. 

On the issue of housing in Indian Country, Rural Development understands the 

history of challenges as well as the opportunities that lie before us. USDA Rural 

Development continues to work closely with national organizations like the National 

Congress of American Indians, the National American Indian Housing Council 

(NAIHC), and the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development to 

communicate Rural Development’s program information to their members and affiliates. Over the past 10 years, our Rural Housing Service has invested nearly $1.3 

billion dollars that has benefited American Indians and Alaska Natives. Our Single 

Family Housing (SFH) Direct and Guaranteed loan programs helped over 7,200 

American Indian and Alaska Native families become homeowners. RD’s SFH Home 

Repair program funded home repairs for over 2,900 American Indian and Alaska 

Native families. 

Over the same period, our Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Direct Loan program 

supported the construction of 67 properties and made nearly 1,200 rental units 

available to Tribal members. Housing Preservation Grants have helped repair or improve 1,412 American Indian and Alaska Native occupied housing units. Our MFH 

Guaranteed Loan program has supported the construction of 5 properties with 217 

rental units available to Tribal members. 

We have seen the impact of such projects first-hand. Just last month, our Under 

Secretary for Rural Development, Dallas Tonsager, had the privilege of taking part 

in a ribbon cutting ceremony held by the Maliseet Tribe to celebrate their first 

multi-family apartment complex. Working with our State office in Maine, the 

Maliseet Tribe broke ground in November 2010 at a time when the Tribal Housing 

Authority had 40 families on a waiting list for housing. This six unit housing complex, the first Multi-family housing facility funded in part by USDA Rural Development on Maliseet land, is a step in the right direction toward providing affordable 

housing to this community. But we would like to do more throughout Indian Country, and we are working to develop additional solutions to increase the availability 

of our loan programs to Tribal lands. 

Over the last year, USDA staff have been meeting regularly with BIA staff to discuss land and lending issues that create challenges when extending credit for 

projects on trust land. As a result of these meetings a new MOU between USDA 

and BIA is currently being drafted which will improve the working relationships between USDA and BIA staff, allowing BIA personnel to better understand each of 

RD’s programs and the associated technical requirements for delivery to American 

Indians, Alaska Natives and Indian tribes, and our own staff to better understand 

BIA responsibilities On the subject of home ownership, the MOU will also foster collaboration to increase home ownership as well as home repair and rehabilitation opportunities by identifying and addressing barriers to leasing, mortgage approval, 

lien perfection, and foreclosure proceedings in Tribal courts. I am hopeful that this 

MOU will pave the way toward easier access to RD programs and ultimately provide increased homeownership opportunities in Indian Country. 

RD has also been working hard to reduce the burden of costs associated with 

homeownership on Tribal lands. Historically, insurance and insurance-like products 

have been unavailable, difficult to access, or expensive on trust lands owned by 

tribes and Tribal members. In some instances this lack of insurance may have been 

an impediment to utilizing Rural Development financing for projects on Tribal 

lands. In practice, Rural Development requires Federal and applicable State laws 

and regulations to be followed when insuring Rural Development financed projects, 

but barring those limitations there is no legal or programmatic reason to deny the 

use of an appropriate insurance-like product on any project financed through Rural 

Development’s Single Family Housing Direct Loan programs, and RD is working to 

develop solutions. The AMERIND Risk Management Corporation is a risk management agency that administers a tribally owned risk management pool for coverage 

of homes and other structures on Indian lands where there has been a lack of affordable insurance. Through discussions with AMERIND, RD is optimistic that we 

will be able to bring them into the insurer pool for RD projects, and normalize the 
27 

use of this product, which will make access to our housing products more amenable 

in Indian Country. A Rural Development Administrative Notice was published in 

November 2011 advising staff that the use of AMERIND coverage could save borrowers money and increase the available capital in Native communities. 

We have worked hard with the BIA, HUD, the VA and NAIHC on all of these 

issues over the years. But we still need to improve access to our programs in any 

way that we can. Hopefully, trust reform and the BIA’s new leasing regulations will 

help. But agencies, Rural Development included, will need to think creatively about 

how they can best provide their financing products to Tribal lands. 

We look forward to publishing a final rule on the Substantially Underserved Trust 

Areas (or SUTA) provision in the weeks ahead. RUS published a Proposed Rule in 

December 2011 and closed the comment period on January 17th, 2012. Once published, the final rule will allow RUS to make our water, electric, telecom and 

broadband programs more affordable and accessible for projects financed within 

Trust Areas. We need to do a better job of working across agencies, both in the field 

and in Washington, DC, so that we better know each of our missions and capabilities, which will better enable us to resolve issues when they arise. We also need 

to work more closely with tribes so that Tribal leaders, Tribal councils and Tribal 

courts better understand the steps that they can take on their own as well as in 

partnership with Federal agencies to create more homeownership opportunities on 

Tribal lands. And finally, we need to work more closely with lenders to make sure 

the proper incentives are in place so that Federal loan guarantee programs are also 

used on Tribal lands. Our recent work with Tribal communities and other government entities makes me hopeful that we can continue to make progress on these 

issues. 

I want to thank you for the Committee for the opportunity to speak here before 

you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCSWAIN 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

MARCH 8, 2012 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Good afternoon. My name is Robert McSwain and I am the Deputy Director for 

Management Operations of the Indian Health Service (IHS). I am pleased to have 

this opportunity to appear before you today, and discuss the important issue of Native American housing and infrastructure development. 

We are keenly aware of the need for adequate housing throughout Indian Country 

and of equal importance is the requirement for adequate infrastructure to support 

new and existing housing. Housing and supporting infrastructure are critical factors 

for a healthy living environment. 

The IHS has the primary responsibility for providing water supply, along with 

solid and liquid waste disposal facilities for American Indian and Alaskan Native 

(AI/AN) homes and communities as part of delivering a comprehensive health program. The IHS provides sanitation facilities through construction projects to serve 

existing homes and communities, and for most new and like new homes. The IHS 

works cooperatively, as close partners, with tribes in providing these essential sanitation facilities. Enhancing tribal capabilities and building partnerships based on 

mutual respect are key factors in the success of this IHS program. The IHS also 

coordinates and advocates on behalf—of and in—cooperation with Tribes to seek resources from other Federal Agencies to support needed facilities. 

IHS/Federal Special Trust Responsibilities 

The IHS plays a unique role within the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), to meet the Federal special trust responsibility by providing health 

services and resources to the 565 federally recognized AI/AN Tribes. IHS provides 

comprehensive health services to approximately 2.1 million AI/ANs through a system of IHS, Tribal, and Urban Indian (I/T/U) operated health service units and programs, based on authorities founded in treaties, judicial determinations, and Acts 

of Congress. 

The mission of the Agency is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual 

health of AI/ANs to the highest level, in partnership with the population we serve. 

The Agency aims to assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and 

public health services, including traditional medicine, are available and accessible 
28 

to the service population. Our obligation is to promote healthy AI/AN people, communities, and cultures, and to honor the inherent sovereign rights of Tribes. 

The IHS seeks to work in partnership with the Tribal communities it serves and, 

as such, IHS health care facilities and their administration includes Tribal representatives who closely participate, as key stakeholders, in the health services preparedness and delivery system. Current public laws, Federal policies, and individual 

Tribal governance decisions determine the role and relationship IHS has with each 

Tribe, and the corresponding level and methods of health services delivery, support, 

oversight, control, and resources IHS provides. 

IHS Organization and Capabilities 

The IHS Headquarters (IHS–HQ) is located in Rockville, Maryland. The Agency 

has 12 strategically located Area Offices across the United States, which include 

IHS and Tribally operated hospitals and ambulatory health centers, as well as 34 

Urban Indian health programs, located in 36 States. The I/T/U health care system 

provides patient care and public health services within Indian reservations and communities, and has well-established ongoing partnerships with Tribal governments 

and programs. 

Role of the IHS in the Provision of Sanitation Facilities Infrastructure 

Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) is an integral component of the IHS disease prevention activities. The IHS has carried out this program since 1959 using 

funds appropriated for SFC to provide potable water and waste disposal facilities 

for AI/AN people. As a result, rates of infant mortality, the mortality rate for 

gastroenteritis and other environmentally related diseases have been dramatically 

reduced by about 80 percent since 1973. IHS Physicians and health professionals 

credit many of these health status improvements to IHS’s provision of water supplies, sewage disposal facilities, development of solid waste sites, and the provision 

of technical assistance to Tribally owned water and sewer utility organizations. 

Today, while less than 1 percent of the U.S. population is without access to safe 

water more than 12 percent or about 48,000 AI/AN homes, are without access to 

safe water or adequate wastewater disposal facilities and those families that live in 

these homes are still at an extremely high risk for gastrointestinal and respiratory 

diseases at rates similar to developing countries. Many of these homes without service are very remote and may have limited access to health care which increases the 

importance of improving environmental conditions in the home as part of a comprehensive public health program. 

IHS plans, designs and provides professional engineering and construction project 

management services for approximately 400 SFC projects annually with a total cost 

of over $190 million, which includes contributions from other agencies. The program 

manages annual project funding that includes contributions from Tribes, States and 

other Federal agencies. SFC projects can be managed by IHS or by tribes under the 

Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act. All SFC projects are carried out from beginning to end in cooperation with the Tribes to be served by the 

facilities. Projects are funded and implemented through an agreement between the 

Tribe and IHS. In these agreements tribes agree to ownership of the provided facilities as well as operation and maintenance responsibilities. 

Annually, IHS works with Tribes to develop an inventory of needed sanitation facilities known as the Sanitation Deficiency system (SDS). The SDS data has sanitation deficiencies of homes by community and a priority ordered list of projects to 

address all of those deficiencies. As of November 2011, the list of all projects to correct sanitation deficiencies totaled almost $3.1 billion, with those projects that are 

considered economically and technically feasible totaling almost $1.46 billion. About 

231,000 or 60 percent of AI/AN homes are in need of new or improved sanitation 

facilities. Maximum health benefits are achieved by addressing existing sanitation 

needs and by providing needed facilities to new homes as they are constructed. 

Over 97 percent of IHS SFC funds are utilized for two types of projects. Regular 

projects to serve existing homes are selected in priority order from SDS. Housing 

projects to serve new and like new homes, serve Indian homes being constructed or 

rehabilitated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program, 

Tribes, individual homeowners, or other Federal agencies except for new HUD housing. Housing projects are funded based on a priority based classification system. 

Coordination with States, Tribes and other Federal Agencies 

The IHS has coordinated with States, Tribes, local government and other Federal 

agencies since the first sanitation facilities project at Elko, Nevada, in 1958 which 

led to the passage of P.L.86–121, the Indian Sanitation Facilities Construction Act, 

in 1959. Now coordination occurs at all levels of Federal agencies from HQ to the 

local level for specific projects. 
29 

In 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Department of Interior (DOI), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

and Health and Human Services (HHS) formed an Infrastructure Task Force (ITF) 

and signed two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to achieve the commitments 

made by the United States in 2002 under the United Nations Millennium Development Goals for improved access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in Indian Country. Specifically, the United States committed to reduce the number of 

tribal homes lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015. The ITF has Federal agency members as well as tribal representatives. A subgroup of the ITF was chartered to identify, prioritize and categorize barriers and recommended solutions. The barriers and recommended solutions developed by the subgroup can be divided into three major themes: 

1. Infrastructure Funding, 

2. Operation and Maintenance funding, including support for tribal capacity development, 

3. Programmatic Coordination 

The ITF continues to meet quarterly and have continued to work on these themes. 

To track progress in meeting the goal the agencies use IHS SDS data. A current 

priority of the ITF is to develop and implement strategies to support sustainable 

tribal operation and maintenance (O&M) organizations with the intent to target 

limited infrastructure funding specifically toward access. 

A positive outcome of the ITF was the coordination of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sanitation projects by IHS and EPA. Projects were agreed upon in 

consultation with tribes at the IHS Area and EPA Regional level and two agreements were developed to move the EPA projects and funding to IHS for nearly 160 

projects totaling $90 million. We have been able to agree upon standard reporting 

requirement which are now used for all IHS and EPA projects. We have also standardized and streamlined interagency agreements between the two programs. 

All members of the ITF have been working to streamline all paperwork and processes for tribal programs from the application process through National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determinations. Last year a process was developed in 

Alaska with EPA, IHS, USDA and the State of Alaska to streamline sanitation 

project implementation in Alaska. 

In Arizona, as a result of the efforts of the agencies under the ITF two regular 

coordination activities are ongoing. There is a Multi-Agency Tribal Infrastructure 

Collaborative which has representatives from various Arizona State agencies, EPA, 

HUD, USDA, DOI, the Navajo, Phoenix and Tucson IHS Areas, the Intertribal 

Council of Arizona, plus other participants. We also have seen a group of water and 

waste water system technical assistance providers start to meet and coordinate 

technical assistance for Tribal O&M groups. 

For IHS projects, coordination with other Federal agencies has always been a priority. We have historically handled this at the project level beginning with project 

preplanning. For projects serving existing homes, this begins in the SDS inventory 

of projects and is used by IHS and the Tribes to determine funding needs and possible contributions from the State, and other Federal agencies. This information is 

used by IHS and the Tribes to seek and secure these sources of funding before IHS 

can execute the project. Many projects on SDS require funding from more than the 

IHS appropriations because of the vast number and scale of the projects on the list. 

EPA uses SDS data to select EPA Indian Set-Aside projects to access Clean Water 

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds. So, coordination with 

other Federal agencies is imperative. 

Those projects that serve new and like new homes funded with SFC housing 

funds, are also often partially funded with outside contributions especially those for 

renovated homes also known as like new homes. IHS does not have the authorization to provide household plumbing, so, in many cases, other sources of funds are 

used to complete renovations and provide household plumbing. These projects also 

require advanced coordination and planning. 

Approximately 43 percent of all IHS SFC funded projects over the last 5 years 

are funded either partially or entirely with contributions from others. Using these 

contributions IHS is able to serve homes or buildings that are not eligible for IHS 

funding, such as using contributed funds for provision of offsite sanitation facilities 

for new HUD homes funded through the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). We use contributed funds to serve new 

NAHASDA homes because IHS is not authorized to use IHS construction funds for 

this purpose. 
30 

All projects require some coordination between IHS, the Tribes, States and other 

Federal agencies. In addition to funding, there is coordination that occurs under 

NEPA determinations which progresses to acquisition of easements. With mixed 

sources of funding in many IHS projects, the NEPA processes can become much 

more complex. After the systems are constructed, coordination still occurs to support 

long term technical assistance for operations. 

Challenges in Providing Safe Water and Waste Disposal Facilities in Indian 

Country 

The needs for sanitation facilities infrastructure grow every year. Growth is partially from population growth and inflation, but changing environmental laws and 

regulations have an impact on need which can create a long term O&M impact. This 

long term O&M impact is due to the operational cost and complexity of some of the 

facilities needed. 

For example, the arsenic rule went into effect in 2006 and promptly our data indicated 18,000 additional homes impacted in 38 communities. Currently, EPA data 

shows there are now 36 systems on tribal lands serving 42,700 people out of compliance for Arsenic. EPA data includes BIA and other systems that are not part of the 

IHS needs data. While treatment may be possible, in most cases, the types of treatment needed may double or more the costs of water service. In addition, treatment 

requires highly trained and certified operators who may not be supportable by a 

small rural water system. In many of these systems, we are working with the tribes 

to regionalize water systems or looking to new water sources to avoid treatment. 

It is necessary to balance upfront costs with long term operation costs. Arsenic is 

just one example. The groundwater and disinfection bi-products rules also add new 

complexity of operations for all of rural America. 

Tribally owned and operated water and waste water systems are aging. Much of 

the major infrastructure components were constructed nearly 30 years ago. Population growth, new environmental laws and the need for system repairs and replacement also affects the annual infrastructure need. 

IHS along with other Federal agencies is seeking a way to make the operation 

and maintenance of sanitation facilities constructed in Indian Country sustainable. 

This requires a multi-tiered approach, beginning with the design and construction 

of facilities appropriate to the operational capacity of the local community. Federal 

agencies need to support operator training, and necessary startup supplies and 

equipment to the O&M organization to improve the operating capacity of the community as we construct new facilities. To have sustainable facilities there needs to 

be sustainable O&M organizations that, in addition to operating the facilities, can 

set and charge user fees, along with disconnecting users for nonpayment. All Federal agencies are seeking ways to coordinate the activities of our O&M technical assistance providers to support this vision. 

Since 1982, Congress prohibited the use of IHS sanitation facilities construction 

funds for HUD funded homes in appropriations bills. Before NAHASDA was passed 

in 1996, the IHS received funding directly from HUD to serve HUD homes. Afterwards, all funds went to the Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) across 

the country and reduced funding provided to the IHS through HUD to address infrastructure for HUD homes. This has reduced coordination between HUD and IHS. 

IHS is willing to assist in site selection, planning design and construction if the 

TDHE desires. We can also assist in the coordination with other Federal agencies 

to fund the needed facilities 

Summary 

In summary, IHS seeks to provide the best culturally acceptable health services 

to all federally recognized Tribes, while respecting their tribal sovereignty, and tribal self-determination. IHS is committed to providing comprehensive health services 

to Indian Country including the provision of sanitation facilities to support housing. 

In addition, IHS will continually seek opportunities to improve our communication, 

integration, and coordination with all Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners. 

Finally, IHS participates in forums to review, discuss, and improve Federal-level 

coordination of infrastructure to improve access to safe water supply and wastewater disposal facilities throughout Indian Country. 

This concludes my remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you. 
31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JODI GILLETTE 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 8, 2012 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jodi 

Gillette; I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I am here today 

to provide the Department of the Interior’s (Department) testimony on the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) role in assisting individual Indians in the pursuit of homeownership. While we recognize that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has primary responsibility for the development of new housing for the 

Federal Government and for development of affordable housing in Indian Country, 

my statement will provide some background information on the BIA’s Housing Improvement Program (HIP). I will also discuss the current process and procedures for 

obtaining a Title Status Report (TSR) within the BIA, and our efforts to promote 

homeownership. 

Housing Improvement Program 

The HIP addresses the Department’s strategic goal of serving Indian communities 

by improving the quality of life of eligible Indians by helping to eliminate substandard housing and homelessness in or near federally recognized reservation communities. The program includes housing repairs and renovations of existing homes 

and construction of modest homes for families who do not own a home but have 

ownership of or lease sufficient land suitable for housing. The BIA policy and methodology ensures that the neediest of the needy are provided housing assistance by 

implementing eligibility criteria that is identified in 25 C.F.R. Part 256.14. 

The HIP is 95 percent contracted or compacted by tribes. Tribes participating in 

the program must comply with regulations found in 25 of C.F.R. Part 256 (Housing 

Improvement Program). 

On September 28, 2004, the BIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the Departments of Agriculture and HUD for the purpose of establishing a 

framework for partnering among the agencies to improve assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives in the development and operation of affordable housing 

on trust or restricted lands, reservations, and in approved service areas. Our goal 

is to assist tribes in improving their living environment through the delivery of 

quality housing and in resolving issues that delay processing of mortgage loans to 

eligible Indians. 

Land Title Grant Procedures 

The BIA has Land Titles and Records Offices (LTRO) located at 8 of its 12 regional offices: the Alaska Regional Office in Anchorage, Alaska; the Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma; the Great Plains Regional Office in 

Aberdeen, South Dakota; the Northwest Regional Office in Portland, Oregon; the 

Pacific Regional Office in Sacramento, California; the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Billings, Montana; the Southern Plains Regional Office in Anadarko, Oklahoma; and the Southwest Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Each LTRO 

is the official Federal office for recording all title conveyance and encumbrance documents for Indian lands within the LTRO’s jurisdiction. The LTRO is also the Federal office for the examination and certification of title to Indian trust and restricted 

lands. The official Federal certificate of title to Indian lands is the Title Status Report (TSR). The TSR reports the legal land description, the current ownership, and 

the recorded liens and encumbrances on ownership for a specific tract of Indian 

trust or restricted land. The issuance of TSR’s for mortgages is the top priority of 

the Land Title and Records Offices. We strongly support programs that improve or 

develop housing on Indian lands for Indian people. 

The certified title is required by the lending institution to verify that the loan applicant has acquired a leasehold interest on Tribal land or that the loan applicant 

has total ownership of the trust land, and that the title is clean and clear of any 

liens against the property so the loan application process can move forward. 

Once the mortgage has been approved using the BIA-generated TSR, the document is sent to the LTRO for recording purposes with a request for a second certified TSR. HUD requires the subsequent TSR showing the mortgage as an encumbrance to the Title before the loan is guaranteed. Some lending institutions also require this additional TSR before releasing the funds. 

There are very few differences in the production of TSR’s from location to location. 

When there are, often those differences are dictated by the particular lending institution or Federal agency providing the loan. Requirements and standard operating 

procedures vary from Federal agency to Federal agency. The BIA LTRO’s strive to 
32 

accommodate these differences, as we support the mission to provide home loans to 

Indian people. Private lending institutions also have varying requirements and procedures, consequently our process for providing TSR’s may vary to accommodate the 

lender. 

Since the inception of the Federal loan programs, the mortgage requests for certified titles have been a high priority for the LTROs. We have made significant 

changes to our title program over the past several years aimed at improving our 

ability to deliver in an accurate and timely manner in all aspects of our Indian land 

title operations, including the processing of TSRs. Previously, the procedure to request a TSR for mortgage purposes required that all requests first go through the 

Agency Superintendent at the relevant BIA office through the Regional Director on 

behalf of the tribal member. Recently, the BIA Division of Land Title and Records 

(DLTR) and its Land Titles and Records Offices changed their business model from 

a passive model or ‘‘examine-and-certify-title-only when-requested’’ to a proactive 

business model of ‘‘title-on-demand’’ that requires the title to all Indian trust and 

restricted lands be maintained in an up-to-date certified status at all times. In December, 2011, the DLTR redesigned the TSR to improve its readability and to make 

it similar to commercial title products. The redesigned TSR is produced and certified 

as a completely digital title report that is stored in a TSR repository as part of the 

Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS). The certified digital 

TSR can be retrieved from TAAMS as an electronic digital image file that can be 

printed and mailed or can be attached to an email message and sent directly to the 

TSR requestor, whether the requestor is a BIA agency office or a mortgage lender. 

Beginning in January 2012, the LTROs began the process of producing digitally certified TSRs for more than 212,000 tracts of Indian trust and restricted land. The 

title ownership to each tract of land is re-certified and a new digital certified TSR 

produced after any conveyance of ownership, whether by deed or probate order. We 

have additional changes planned in the near future which will further improve the 

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

In the 2004 MOU between the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, 

Agriculture, and the Interior, the BIA’s Realty and LTRO programs agreed to provide the necessary products and services within 30 days to keep the process moving 

forward to assist Indians in becoming homeowners. Lenders can utilize the information in those TSR’s to insure that the lands are free of liens and are available for 

mortgaging. 

The BIA Division of Land Titles and Records has partnered with the HUD Office 

of Native American Programs to provide training to lenders in order to educate the 

lenders concerning the title process for Indian mortgages, and to facilitate and improve the efficiency of the mortgage process. Anytime a mortgage is approved it has 

the potential to improve the quality of life for Indians. As stated earlier, requests 

for title status reports for mortgage purposes are and will remain a high priority 

for the Bureau. The implementation of TAAMS has increased efficiency and cost 

savings in the management of Indian lands and in the production of TSRs for mortgage purposes. 

Proposed Leasing Regulations and the HEARTH Act 

Indian Affairs is in the process of revising leasing regulations as part of the effort 

to return control of land use decisions to tribal management and to streamline surface leasing processes to promote homeownership, economic development, and clean 

energy. The comment period on those proposed regulations ended over a month ago, 

and we anticipate issuing final regulations later this year. 

In addition to proposing revisions to existing leasing regulations, the Department 

strongly supports the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), both the House and Senate versions, H.R. 205 and 

S. 703 respectively. The HEARTH Act would restore tribal authority to govern leasing on tribal lands and to promulgate regulations for the governance of those leases, 

while preserving the statutory tools available to the Secretary for carrying out the 

trust responsibility to tribes. This model ensures that tribal regulations provide a 

mechanism for environmental review and public comment, exempting the Secretary 

for liability from claims by parties to the lease, and authorizing the Secretary to 

cancel a lease that is not in accordance with approved tribal regulations. 

Both versions of the HEARTH Act would amend certain sections of 25 U.S.C. § 

415 (the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act) to permit tribes that choose to develop 

their own leasing program to approve and enter into certain leases without prior 

express approval from the Secretary of the Interior. Under both pieces of legislation, 

willing tribes would initially submit their own leasing regulations to the Secretary 

of the Interior for approval. Following Secretarial approval of such leasing regulations, tribal governments would process leases for tribal trust land at the tribal 
33 

level, pursuant to their own laws, without a requirement for further approval of the 

Secretary. This has the potential to significantly reduce the time it takes to approve 

leases for homes and small businesses. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

(35) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

FROM SANDRA B. HENRIQUEZ 

Q.1. Ms. Henriquez, I’d like to get your thoughts on the question 

I posed to Mr. McSwain regarding health effects of poor housing 

conditions. As I’ve said, I’ve seen far too many inadequate homes 

on reservations that house two or more families, which cause a 

number of problems such as black mold. Tribal leaders and those 

involved with the schools have also raised the issue that kids living 

in overcrowded conditions have trouble finding places to study or 

even rest at night. 

Can you give us your sense of the negative impact unsafe and 

overcrowded housing has on the health and well being of Native 

communities? 

PIH Response 

A.1. The Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) has received 

anecdotal evidence about the negative impact overcrowded housing 

has on the health and well-being of Native American families, and 

in particular, children. Children living in overcrowded homes are 

more likely to have immediate health and safety issues. Children 

are often doubled up in bedrooms with siblings or other family 

members, or sleep in other areas of the house, such as the living 

room or kitchen. Poor ventilation in overcrowded conditions 

spreads disease and contributes to mold growth. 

Children in overcrowded housing conditions are often exposed to 

drug and alcohol abuse at a much younger age—either within the 

household by a family member or outside the household as the 

child is seeking to avoid the overcrowded situation. The stress created by overcrowded living conditions can contribute to increased 

verbal and physical abuse as well. 

Overcrowding affects learning and education. There is often no 

space or a quiet place for a child to do school work. Without an appropriate place to sleep or study, these children do not perform well 

in school. Some tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) have 

made a connection between children living in overcrowded conditions and high truancy rates. Ultimately, families and children living in overcrowded units suffer long-term financial consequences. 

From a housing management standpoint, overcrowding conditions make it more difficult to maintain a home and causes additional wear and tear on the unit, which contributes to such factors 

as mold growth. Mold growth can cause respiratory illness and exacerbate asthma symptoms. Children, the elderly and pregnant 

women are the most vulnerable to mold-related illnesses. 

To combat this situation, Tribes and TDHEs have developed 

youth programs to give children a place to go after school. However, the most effective measure to combat the negative effects of 
36 

overcrowding is to provide additional units to reduce the number 

of overcrowded units. 

HUD’s Indian Housing Needs Study will attempt to quantify the 

number of overcrowded units and delineate between units that are 

overcrowded due to a lack of housing options (i.e., homelessness) 

and units that are overcrowded by choice—through 

multigenerational living. To address the latter, TDHEs are constructing units to take into consideration cultural preferences such 

as multigenerational living, cooking, heating and storage needs. 

HUD has taken a proactive stance on mold abatement and remediation in Indian Housing. This includes annual training on mold 

prevention in each ONAP region and site visits and technical assistance in areas hardest hit by mold and poor air quality. ONAP 

has also provided Imminent Threat grants through the Indian 

Community Development Block Grant program for severe mold infestation.