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

80–495 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–5

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO INDIAN HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT AND FINDING SOLUTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 10, 2013

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 10, 2013 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 9

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 9 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 8

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 7

WITNESSES

Boyd, Rodger J., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ...................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Bryan, Annette, Executive Director, Puyallup Nation Housing Authority ......... 23

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

Causley, Cheryl A., Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing Council 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Iron Cloud, Paul, CEO, Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing, Pine Ridge Reservation ........................................................................................................................ 30

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

Sossamon, Russell, Executive Director, Choctaw Nation Housing Authority .... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX

Association of Alaska Housing Authorities, prepared statement ........................ 53

Brooks, Hon. Paul, Chairman, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina ........................ 74

Cooper, Gary J., Executive Director, Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation ........................................................................................................................ 69

Delgado, Hon. Ed, Chairman, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin ................. 72

Hoopa Valley Tribe and Housing Authority, prepared statement ....................... 57

Loza, Moises, Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 56

Navajo Housing Authority, prepared statement ................................................... 63

Response to written questions submitted to Rodger J. Boyd by: 

Hon. John Barrasso .......................................................................................... 77

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 80

Response to written questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to: 

Cheryl A. Causley ............................................................................................. 82

Russell Sossamon ............................................................................................. 86

Response to written questions submitted to Paul Iron Cloud by: .......................

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 76

Hon. Tim Johnson ............................................................................................ 77

Torres, Hon. Edward Paul, Governor, Pueblo of Isleta ........................................ 75

Worl, Ricardo, President, Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority 

(THRHA), prepared statement ............................................................................ 59

Zion, James W., Attorney and Jurisconsult, prepared statement ....................... 60

(1)

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO INDIAN HOUSING 

DEVELOPMENT AND FINDING SOLUTIONS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,

Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will 

come to order. 

This is an oversight hearing on Identifying Barriers to Indian 

Housing Development and Finding Solutions. I want to thank all 

the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

This afternoon, as I said, the Committee is holding an oversight 

hearing on Indian housing. This is the Committee’s first hearing of 

this session, so I am very much looking forward to working with 

all our committee members and Vice Chairman Barrasso, and addressing many issues that are important to tribal governments and 

will help improve the lives of Native Americans. 

One of these issues that we must address early this year is the 

Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act, 

which expires in September of this year. Since this Act was implemented in 1998, 31,000 Indian families now live in newly-constructed housing units and another 64,500 Indian families have 

been able to rehabilitate their homes through the Indian Housing 

Block Grant Program. 

Through the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program, 18,000 loans have been guaranteed for a total of more than $2.9 

billion to tribal recipients. Despite this progress, the housing needs 

in Indian Country remain great. Currently, American Indians 

make up 8 percent of the Nation’s homeless population, despite 

being only 1 percent of the general population. 

Nearly 64,000 American Indians live in overcrowded conditions, 

and nearly 25 percent live in housing units that have severe structural needs. So today’s hearing is an important first step in identifying areas where housing programs are working well and determining where improvements can be made. 

2

The Committee will look at programs across the Federal agencies 

to see where processes can be streamlined and run more efficiently. 

As you can see, there are going to be some examples today on the 

construction of homes that can involve tribal governments and four 

different, separate Federal agencies. 

We also want to make sure that tribes have flexibility that they 

need to make sure that the improvement in these programs comes 

along with innovation and improving housing conditions. Recently, 

the Makah Tribe in Washington State announced that it was using 

a combination of its block grant funding and low-income housing 

tax credits to develop 21 low-income housing units in Sail River 

Heights, a tribal housing development started by the Tribe in 2007. 

So we want to make sure that we are looking at what is needed 

in this reauthorization to ensure that all tribes and their members 

are provided safe and affordable housing, and that housing programs meet the needs of tribal members well into the future. 

Today we will hear from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Office of Native Programs on their recommendations 

for what can be done legislatively to improve housing programs. 

We will also hear from National American Indian Housing Council, 

the largest tribal organization representing tribes and tribal housing entities. Finally, we will hear from three tribal housing directors from the Puyallup Tribe of Washington, and I want to specifically welcome them, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Choctaw 

Tribe. 

These housing directors manage three different programs, and I 

am pleased that they are here today, because they are going to 

share a broad perspective of their experiences and recommendations for ways that the Committee can improve the housing programs in the reauthorization. 

Now I would like to ask the Vice Chairman, Senator Barrasso, 

if he has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. I do, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing on Indian housing. The 

National American Indian Housing Council estimates that there is 

a need for about 250,000 new housing units throughout Indian 

Country. This is a significant need, but tribes have been working 

hard to address it. The Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act is up for reauthorization this year. I know 

that NAHASDA is one of the most effective Federal Indian programs, not perfect, but very succesful. The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development estimates that in the last 15 years alone, 

which is about as long as NAHASDA has been in effect, tribes have 

used this funding to build or acquire more than 31,000 affordable 

housing units and rehabilitate more than 64,500 units. 

I want to emphasize that this is housing primarily for low-income Indian families. Much of this progress has been possible because NAHASDA is carried out 100 percent on the local level, by 

the tribes themselves, as opposed to by the Federal Government. 

From the planning phase to implementation, home design and conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
3

struction through management and ongoing maintenance, all carried out locally by the tribes. 

Of course, any program can be improved. So I hope to hear today 

from the witnesses on how this program can be made more effective and more efficient. In the past, a major bottleneck in the housing development process has been land leasing. That is why this 

past Congress I introduced Senate Bill 703, known as the HEARTH 

Act. The nearly identical House version of the HEARTH Act was 

signed into law last July. The law allows tribes to bypass Secretarial approval for leases, rendering NEPA inapplicable to the land 

leasing process. Instead, the tribes use their own environmental review process. So I anticipate that the efficiencies of the HEARTH 

Act will significantly increase home ownership on tribal lands. 

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today. I look forward to hearing the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. 

Do any other members have an opening statement? Senator 

Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, and Vice 

Chair Barrasso. 

I want to thank the Chair for holding this important hearing 

today. I look forward to working with you and the Vice Chair and 

other members of the Committee with the same spirit of cooperation that characterized the work of two former Chairs and longserving members from the State of Hawaii on this Committee: Senators Inouye and Akaka. While their decades of service to our Nation, the Congress and this Committee are unparalleled, I am committed to move forward their fight to ensure that the Federal Government upholds its trust responsibility to the indigenous people of 

what is now the United States of America. 

I am also determined to advance parity in Federal law and policy 

for Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people are the only 

federally-recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government. This injustice 

must be addressed by the Congress. 

American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face 

unique barriers to housing development, and their communities 

face the highest rates of national poverty. The Chair delineated 

some of those alarming statistics. While the national statistics are 

a stark reminder of existing housing disparities between Native 

and non-Native communities in the United States, the numbers for 

the State of Hawaii are even worse. A 2012 report on ‘‘The State 

of Poverty in Hawaii’’ noted that Hawaii has the third highest 

homelessness rate in the country. Native Hawaiians account for a 

far greater share of the homeless population than other groups. 

A recent study found that while Native Hawaiians make up 22 

percent of the population, they account for 48 to 59 percent of the 

residents in transitional shelters. According to a 2010 report, Hawaiian families rank last in the Nation in average annual pay, 

while Hawaii’s home ownership rate ranks 47th out of 50th. This, 

and a lack of affordable housing, disproportionately impacts Native 

4

Hawaiians who face the highest rates of inadequate housing, overcrowding and homelessness in the Nation. 

Just last month, the median sales price for a single family home on Oahu was $640,000. In 2011, HUD’s published rates for a onebedroom was $1,400, two-bedroom $1,700, and $2,500 for a threebedroom. Given this startling reality, it is critical to sustain and 

strengthen the HUD housing assistance and loan guarantees that 

have been successful in helping Native Hawaiian families and so 

many American Indians and Alaska Native families gain access to 

much-needed housing. 

In Hawaii, I have witnessed the success of these HUD programs, 

how they have benefited Native Hawaiian communities and increased home ownership, improved living conditions and changed 

lives. I would like to thank Rodger Boyd for his participation today 

and for his many years managing the Office of Native American 

programs, including Native Hawaiian housing block grant and Native Hawaiian loan guarantee programs. I appreciate his many 

years of collaboration with Native Hawaiians and the Department 

of Hawaiian Home Lands, and look forward to working with him 

and Secretary Donovan to improve further housing conditions for 

Native Hawaiian families in my State. 

I also want to recognize Ms. Cheryl Causley, Chair of the National American Indian Housing Council, for her work to promote 

self-determination and support for making culturally relevant and 

quality affordable housing available to American Indians, Alaska 

Natives and Native Hawaiians. We will need concerted and collaborative efforts of the Administration and the Congress, Native leaders, tribes, tribal organizations, and housing authorities, and the 

advocacy of all stakeholders, including the Chair and Vice Chair, 

especially, to improve housing opportunities. 

Thank you, Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Schatz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I want to thank the Chair for holding this important hearing today. I look forward 

to working with you, Senator Cantwell, and with Senator Barrasso, and the other 

members of the Committee, with the same spirit of cooperation that characterized 

the work of two former Chairs and long-serving members of this Committee: Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka. 

While their decades of service to our nation, the Congress and this Committee are 

unparalleled, I am committed to move forward their fight to ensure that the Federal 

Government upholds its trust responsibility to the indigenous people of what is now 

the United States of America. 

I am also determined to advance parity in federal law and policy for Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people are the only federally-recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government 

and this injustice must be addressed by the Congress. 

American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face unique barriers to 

housing development and their communities face the highest rates of national poverty. The most recent data available from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, the Census Bureau, and the Government Accounting Office illustrate 

the widely disproportionate unmet needs of Native Americans:

• Approximately 28 percent of reservation housing units lack adequate plumbing 

and kitchen facilities, a rate five times greater than the national average;

• Nearly 46 percent of Native households are overcrowded, a rate almost three 

times greater than the rest of the country; and,

• While Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the general population, 

they comprise 8 percent of the country’s homeless.

5

While these national statistics are a stark reminder of existing housing disparities 

between Native and Non-Native communities in the United States, the numbers for 

the State of Hawaii are even worse. A 2012 report on The State of Poverty in Hawaii, noted that Hawaii has the third highest homelessness rate in the country. Native Hawaiians account for a far greater share of the homeless population than 

other groups. A recent study found that while Native Hawaiians make up 22 percent of the population they account for 48 percent to 59 percent of the residents in 

transitional shelters. 

According to a 2010 report, Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average 

annual pay, while Hawaii’s homeownership rate ranks 47th out of 50. This, and a 

lack of affordable housing, disproportionately impact Native Hawaiians who face the 

highest rates of inadequate housing, overcrowding and homelessness in the nation. 

Just last month the median sales price of a single-family home in Oahu was 

$640,000. In 2011, HUD’s published rates for the Fair Market Monthly Rent for 

Honolulu County was $1,396 for a 1-Bedroom, $1,702 for a 2-Bedroom and $2,470 

for a 3-Bedroom. 

Given this startling reality, it is critical to sustain and strengthen the HUD housing assistance and loan guarantees that have been so successful in helping Native 

Hawaiian families and so many American Indians and Alaska Native families gain 

access to much needed housing. In Hawaii, I have witnessed the success of these 

HUD programs—how they have benefited Native Hawaiian communities, increased 

homeownership, improved living conditions, and changed lives. 

I would like to thank Mr. Rodger Boyd for his participation today and for his tenure managing the Office of Native American Programs, including the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee programs. I appreciate his expertise and many years of work in Native Hawaiian communities and 

collaboration with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I look forward to 

working with him and Secretary Donovan to improve further housing conditions for 

Native Hawaiian families in my State. 

I also want to recognize Ms. Cheryl Causely, Chair of the National American Indian Housing Council, for her work to promote and support self-determination, and 

culturally relevant, affordable, and quality housing for American Indians, Alaska 

Natives and Native Hawaiians. 

Thank you to all of the witness who traveled here to participate in this hearing. 

Your contributions will be important to the Committee as we move forward on Native American housing assistance reauthorization legislation. 

We will need the concerted efforts of the Administration, the Congress, Native 

leaders, tribes, tribal organizations and housing authorities, and the advocacy of all 

stakeholders, including the Chair and the Vice Chair, to sustain and improve housing opportunities, build stronger and more self-sufficient Native communities, and 

create a more vibrant national economy. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and to the 

Vice Chairman, thank you for the hearing this afternoon focusing 

on housing. 

I appreciate the attention that you are giving this in my State. 

Clearly in so many of those of us around the dais here, this remains a challenge. In parts of my State, it is an absolute crisis. We 

hate to use that word, unless it is truly that. I would like to take 

just a few minutes here to speak to some of the issues that we are 

facing in Alaska. 

First, I would like to make sure that the testimony of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities is made part of the Committee record. I do understand that the Association supports the 

work of the National American Indian Housing Council in drafting 

the reauthorization. I understand it has been a long process in 

coming. But I would want to make sure that testimony is included. 

6

The situation in Alaska is a tough one. In nearly 200 of our rural 

communities, I think it is fair to call housing a crisis. And a crisis 

in housing means a crisis in the safety and the education and the 

health care of our Native families. In rural Alaska, we have multiple generations living in substandard, dilapidated housing. I 

think all of us could share similar stories. 

But when I use the word substandard, I have learned that the 

definition is different depending on where you are. One-third, 

Madam Chairman, one-third of the homes in rural Alaska do not 

have a flush toilet, do not have running water. So when you talk 

about spread of disease, and you can’t wash your hands, you are 

talking about not only a housing situation, but you are talking 

about a health care situation. 

For far too many families in our villages in these remote communities, the chore for the children is not just taking out the trash, 

it is taking out the human waste that is in a bucket in the corner. 

We call it a honey bucket. And the kids, part of their job is to haul 

that honey bucket down the boardwalk or, if they have a road, haul 

it down the road and dump it. That is part of what they do. We 

have talked for decades about retiring the honey buckets to the 

museums. I wish that I could say that we are there, but we are 

not yet there. 

I had no idea, coming to the United States Senate 10 years ago, 

that one of my proudest moments would be when I got a call from 

an elder in Buckland, Alaska, letting me know that, Lisa, I got my 

flush toilet today. For eight years we had been working to get 

Buckland hooked up to water and sewer. And it has been at incredible cost. But when you go into a community and you sit down in 

the gym bleachers, and you have a tiny Native woman just kind 

of whisper in your ear and say, Lisa, all I want before I die is a 

flush toilet, I don’t think that is too much for me to be working on. 

So it has become an issue that, when I think about how we provide for the safety of our families, some of it is pretty basic stuff. 

Another area where we have some really very horrible statistics, 

and Madam Chairman, you helped lead on this issue just this past 

month, this is as it relates to domestic violence. Nearly one out of 

two women and one out of four men in Alaska have experienced 

physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. We have over a 100 

communities without law enforcement. part of the problem in keeping law enforcement is we don’t have housing for our law enforcement personnel. So how we are able to deal with that has been a 

critical challenge for us. 

Just last week, I was out in Bethel, Alaska, probably our fourth 

largest community in the State, major regional hub. Domestic violence issues that they deal with, but they have a very nice shelter, 

a really good shelter that we helped them get funding for. And they 

work with these women who come in from the villages, leaving 

their home, leaving the abuser. And they come into the shelter. 

But then, when they have healed and go to leave the shelter, 

there is no home for them. There is no housing in Bethel, there is 

no housing in their village. They can’t afford to fly to Anchorage 

or to Fairbanks and to live there. So what they do is they go back 

to live with their abuser. So we have this cycle where we are not 

able to help these victims, because of the lack of housing. 

7

So when we think about housing, it is such, so much a bigger picture than just a physical structure over our heads. So Madam 

Chairman and Vice Chair, I thank you again for highlighting some 

of this. We need to do better. I know that we will. It is not just 

the structures, it is what we do with weatherization, it is what we 

do with rehabilitation of our homes. In some of our homes, we have 

families that are spending 50 and 60 percent of their family income 

just to keep warm. We know that we can do more, we know that 

we do more to help these families who are paying more to keep 

their house heated on a monthly basis than they are paying for 

their mortgages. 

So when we talk about housing crisis in our Native communities, 

I think we need to remember that it is also a public safety crisis, 

a health care crisis, and we can do more. Thank you for your leadership and the leadership of so many who are working on these important issues. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Tester, did you want to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Yes, very quickly. And I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing on a very important issue, housing. 

Before I get to my testimony, though, I want to recognize someone sitting in the audience from Montana, Tom Acevedo, who is 

part of the management team of Salish and Kootenai Technologies, 

it is an Indian-owned company in Montana and really a bright 

light and a great example for other Indian-owned companies in the 

State. Thanks for being here, Tom. 

Housing is important, there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. We 

need it for safety, we need it for happiness, we need it for health, 

we need it for employment. Unfortunately, way too many places in 

Indian Country the housing does not meet the needs that are out 

there. 

And in places like Montana and other places around the Country, 

they face geographic challenges, far, far away from towns, economic 

centers where they can really put some economic advantage as far 

as building houses. The statistics are startling and they are not 

fun. And I have seen this my whole life. In Rocky Boy Indian Reservation, it is 20 miles from my farm, housing has been something 

that has been a concern forever. We need to deal with it, we have 

dealt with it in a couple of ways, with the HEARTH Act that the 

Ranking Member talked about, critically important. Once this 

thing gets implemented, I think there are some good things that 

will come of it. 

And I think most of the folks in this room understand that the 

NAHASDA, the Native American Housing bill, will expire the end 

of September. Before then, and that is probably why the witnesses 

are here, and thank you for being here, we need to hear from you 

about what the challenges are on the ground. We need to know 

what to do to be able to improve that law, to make sure that we 

are doing the right thing from a policy level to empower you on the 

ground. That is why this panel is so important here today. 

8

I know money is going to be a big part of the discussion. Everybody can use more, there is never enough. In a perfect world, we 

would have all the money. But this isn’t a perfect world that we 

live in. So I would ask you to realize, and I know you do, because 

you are at the front lines of sequestration, but realize that we need 

to figure out ways to do more with less. I need your help to do that. 

And this Committee needs your help to do that. 

There are a lot of states in this Country which do not have an 

Indian population, or don’t at least have an Indian reservation, 

let’s put it that way. We need to educate every member of Congress, we need to make every dollar count. We need to be able to 

streamline your programs so that they are easier for you to work 

with. We need to reduce administrative costs, we need to eliminate 

waste, fraud and abuse, all those good government things. And we 

need to identify the programs that can be cut and money can flow 

more to you for housing, because it does cost money to do. 

I just say thank you all for being here today. I look forward to 

your testimony. This is an important issue and hopefully we can 

find some solutions. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Senator Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, for holding 

this hearing on the housing crisis in Indian Country. 

I would like to welcome Paul Iron Cloud from Pine Ridge, South 

Dakota. Paul is Chief Executive Officer of the Oglala Sioux Lakota 

Housing Authority, serving the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

Paul is a dear friend, and is a tireless advocate for Indian Country. 

As you know, Madam Chairwoman, this a very critical issue, especially in my home State of South Dakota. Statistics have repeatedly shined a light on, and I have seen first-hand the critical need 

for housing in Indian Country. As an original House co-sponsor of 

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996, I look forward to working with you, Madam Chair and 

colleagues, to reauthorize the program this year. 

It is also vital that we engage tribes and relevant agencies in 

this process. As chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing 

and Urban Affairs, in last Congress I held two hearings addressing 

the dire state of Indian housing. In 2010, I chaired a joint Banking 

and Indian Affairs committee field hearing on Indian housing in 

Rapid City, South Dakota. HUD Secretary Donovan was able to see 

the immediate housing challenges on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation prior to our hearing. 

With a number of members overlapping on the Indian Affairs 

and Banking Committees, I look forward to our continued collaborative efforts to provide effective legislation for housing assistance. 

The testimony today will greatly help us in learning how we can 

improve housing for Indian Country. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Are there any other statements by 

members? Senator Franken? 

9

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to associate myself with all the remarks I have heard thus far, and Senator Murkowski, you are so 

right that housing has to do with so much besides housing. I wrote 

a housing provision in the VAWA bill that I was very proud of, because you are so right, that a woman shouldn’t have to decide between living with her abuser and living in a car, and her children 

shouldn’t have to live with that, either. And you are so right about 

when we have had hearings about law enforcement, about how difficult it is to attract law enforcement, good law enforcement people, 

because of lack of housing. Same with teachers. And the same with 

doctors. Because there isn’t the housing there. 

I don’t want to get between us and the witnesses. I thank all the 

witnesses for being here today and I am eager to listen to your testimony. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Heitkamp? 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Just quickly, we failed. You cannot look at 

the statistics of housing in Indian Country, certainly in my State, 

and not get an acute sense of failure. We have homelessness that 

far outstrips, even in my State, which we have a growing housing 

crisis, even in my State. And so I am very, very interested in your 

testimony. 

But I also would ask, Madam Chairwoman, if as we are talking 

and as we are thinking, if you can think about the other housing 

programs. I think way too often in Indian Country we think about 

that program that is NAHASDA, we think about the special program at the Small Business Administration or we think about the 

special Indian program, and we forget, we have first time homeowners, we have Section 8, we have all of the affordable housing 

programs that cities and counties and organizations across our 

boundaries are able to access. How are we using those programs? 

When I was attorney general in my State of North Dakota, I 

served on the board of directors for the housing finance agency. We 

tried for eight years to get a couple projects with first time homeowners on Indian Country. I would love to tell you that I was enormously successful, but I failed. I failed to make those programs accessible. 

So I am interested not only in what is happening right now with 

the programs that have been designated to encourage Indian housing, but how we haven’t been able to access traditional affordable 

housing programs and how we haven’t been able to leverage those 

programs. 

So I look forward to your testimony and look forward to having 

a dialogue after this opportunity. Thank you very much for bringing this very, very important issue to the forefront. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

So we are going to work on this in the reauthorization, but let’s 

hear from our witnesses. We are going to start with you, Mr Boyd, 

and go right down the line. We appreciate your submitting your 

written testimony, so you can sum up whatever you want to from 

10

that written testimony. We are asking people to keep within five 

minutes. You see a little clock there to help. We do want to get 

through everybody and we want to give members a chance to get 

questions. 

You certainly can be shorter if you want to be. We very, very 

much appreciate your being here and look forward to your testimony. Mr. Boyd, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS,

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BOYD. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso and Committee members. 

Before I start, I would like to commend and recognize my fellow 

panelists, many whom I have worked with in our respective communities and through negotiated rulemaking. I really commend 

their commitment and the hard work that they do within their 

committees, their communities and in working in partnership with 

HUD. 

This afternoon, I would like to talk about and focus on the Indian 

housing programs that provide the tools to us to work in this partnership with Indian tribes and to identify barriers and find solutions to further develop better affordable housing for Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Our programs are 

available to 566 Federally-recognized tribes, 5 State-recognized 

tribes and of course, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

From HUD’s perspective, our Indian housing programs provide 

solutions to the barriers to Indian housing development. These programs have and are making great progress in providing housing 

opportunities to Native American families across the Country, because we do not take a one size fits all approach to Indian Country. 

Our programs provide the flexibility of our grant and loan recipients to design their housing programs based on their unique tribal 

housing and economic development needs. We continue to build 

upon this program by identifying new ways to work in partnership 

with tribes, and we work together to build better living environments in Native American communities through creating greater 

sustainable economic communities. 

We do administer a number of programs. The details of those 

programs are in my written testimony. In implementing these programs, the Department recognizes the right of tribal self-governance and the unique relationship between the Federal Government 

and Indian tribes. 

One of the tools that we use, certainly, in working with tribes is 

negotiated rulemaking. HUD, in accordance with Section 106 of 

NAHASDA, has conducted negotiated rulemaking with tribes on 

three separate occasions and on both programmatic and formula 

issues. These sessions highlight and respect the government-to-government relationship that HUD has with these tribes. Using the 

collaborative approach, and a tool to overcome barriers in Indian 

housing development, HUD and the tribes have produced great results, bringing efficiencies to the program and resolving administrative challenges. 

11

The most recent negotiated rulemaking committee addressed the 

2008 amendments to NAHASDA. The committee was composed of 

25 tribal representatives and two HUD representatives and 

achieved over a 90 percent consent rate on all issues. Many of the 

issues with NAHASDA were addressed, including the adoption of 

a provision to streamline guaranteed planning and reporting requirements while at the same time expanding upon quality and 

data collection. 

A main barrier to Indian housing development is accessing capital on reservations. HUD, in partnership with tribes, has attempted to overcome this barrier by providing assistance in building capacity for tribes to gain private capital through the sources 

such as low-income housing tax credits and Title 6 within the program and Section 184, guaranteed loan program. A growing number of tribes are using these and other Federal and State tools to 

leverage private funding on reservations and tribal lands. 

Tribes are also looking beyond just individual housing units to 

expand the level of capital in their communities. More and more 

tribes and TDHEs are becoming strategic in their efforts to create 

sustainability in their economies and communities. As evidence to 

this, tribes have applied for and received HUD funding for sustainable planning and construction grants. 

In closing, HUD strongly supports reauthorization of NAHASDA, 

which authorizes the single largest source of Federal funding for 

housing in Indian Country. We have seen great strides and have 

seen many tribes under this legislation set great examples, not 

only for their communities but the other tribal communities 

throughout the United States. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and tribes to secure authorization this year. Thank you again, Chairwoman Cantwell and members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE

OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Introduction 

Good Morning Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to provide comments on how HUD’s Indian housing, loan guarantee, and community development programs provide the 

tools for us to work in partnership with Indian tribes to identify barriers and find 

solutions to further the development and prosperity of Indian and Alaska Native 

communities. 

It is a pleasure to appear before you, and I would like to express HUD’s appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the housing conditions of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. 

My name is Rodger Boyd, and I am Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Native American Programs (ONAP) at HUD. ONAP is responsible for the management, operation, and oversight of HUD’s Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs. 

These programs are available to 566 federally recognized Indian tribes; 5 staterecognized tribes, formerly eligible under the United State Housing Act of 1937; and 

the State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We serve these entities 

directly, or through their tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs), by providing 

grants and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community 

development activities, as well as identifying other HUD programs that our clients 

may access. Our partners are diverse; they are located on Indian reservations, in 

Alaska Native Villages, and on the Hawaiian home lands. 

12

From HUD’s perspective, our Indian housing programs are making great progress 

in providing housing to Indian families across the country because we do not take 

a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to Indian Country. Our programs provide the flexibility 

for our grant and loan recipients to tailor their housing programs to address their 

unique housing and economic development needs. We continue to build upon the 

programs by identifying new ways to work in partnership with tribes as we work 

together to help build a better living environment in Native American communities 

through creating sustainable tribal communities and tribal economies. 

Housing Need in Indian Country 

To effectively administer Indian housing programs, it is vital to understand the 

current state of housing in Indian Country. In order to do so, HUD, through its office of Policy Development and Research, is developing a study on the extent of 

housing needs in Indian Country and for Native Hawaiians in Hawaii. The last comparable study was conducted in 1996. 

Overview of Hud Native American and Native Hawaiian Programs 

Increasing homeownership and providing safe, culturally-appropriate housing in 

Indian Country is top priority. Our Native American housing and loan guarantee 

programs are the basis for accomplishing this within Indian Country. 

HUD administers four programs specifically targeted to American Indian and 

Alaska Native individuals and families:

• The Indian Housing Block Grant program

• The Federal Guarantees for Financing Tribal Housing Activities, also known as 

the Title VI Loan Guarantee program

• The Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing program, also known as the Section 

184 Loan Guarantee program, 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—the Native Hawaiian Housing Block 

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

for Native Hawaiians is administered through the State of Hawaii’s Department of 

Hawaiian Home Lands, and is augmented by the home loan guarantee program. 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as 

amended, or NAHASDA, provides formula-based housing block grant assistance to 

Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities through the Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG). Prior to NAHASDA, Indian housing authorities 

received funds under the authority of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 

amended (1937 Act). 

The IHBG is ONAP’s largest program, both in terms of dollars appropriated and 

population served. Grants are awarded to eligible Indian tribes or their tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) for a range of affordable housing activities that primarily benefit low-income 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 that 

are currently managed by the tribe or its tribally designated housing entity. 

The IHBG formula was developed by a negotiated rulemaking committee composed of representatives from HUD and from tribes across the country. Program 

regulations require that HUD periodically review the allocation formula with the 

consultation and involvement of the tribes. We are now in the process of reviewing 

nominations for the next formula negotiated rulemaking committee, and we expect 

to hold the first meeting this summer. 

The block grant approach offers each tribe the flexibility to design, implement, 

and administer unique, innovative housing programs, based on local need. Grantees 

have received more than $9.9 billion in 16 years of funding (1998–2013), and with 

few exceptions, have been using the funds in a timely and effective manner. Overall, 

the IHBG program has a 94 percent expenditure rate. 

13

Under the Recovery Act of 2009, our recipients spent nearly 100 percent of the $520 million received within the prescribed 3-year period. Recovery Act funds made 

possible the development of almost 2,000 new affordable units, and more than 

13,000 were substantially rehabilitated. Energy conservation enhancements made 

more than 2,300 affordable units energy efficient. 

As of March 2013, IHBG recipients had built or acquired more than 35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country, and substantially rehabilitated more than 

65,000 since the inception of the program in 1998. IHBG recipients also currently 

maintain more than 52,000 ‘‘HUD units’’ that were funded before NAHASDA was 

enacted. 

Tribal recipients have been very innovative in their use of IHBG funds, particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and green projects. For example, the HoChunk Housing Authority of Wisconsin has developed housing projects that include 

green, energy-efficiency enhancements, including super-insulation, passive-solar design, geothermal systems, and solar hot-water heaters. 

The Choctaw Housing Authority of Oklahoma has recently built 24 new units that 

are all Energy Star Certified. 

Just one year ago, the Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority, in Juneau, Alaska, celebrated the Grand Opening of its Five Star Plus, energy efficient Saxman 

Senior Center. And the Ketchikan community, in southeast Alaska completed a 12-

unit, condo-style building to house elders, which is the first building in that area 

to be certified LEED Silver. 

The Puyallup Tribe in Tacoma has 10 units of new affordable housing that is certified LEED Platinum. 

The Isleta Pueblo in New Mexico has used the innovative method of lava block 

construction to build 20 single-family homes. They realized a 50 percent cost savings 

over conventional construction techniques. The homes have maintenance-free exteriors, Energy Star appliances and fixtures, and the materials are termite-resistant 

and impervious to wind damage. The development created job training and employment opportunities for local community. 

These are just a few examples of the thoughtful, and forward-thinking designs 

that our tribal grantees have incorporated into their low-income housing projects, 

emphasizing sustainability and responsible stewardship of natural resources. 

We have seen the great strides that have been made in Indian housing under this 

seminal piece of Indian legislation, even in challenging fiscal environments. Therefore, HUD strongly supports the reauthorization of NAHASDA this year. 

Title VI Loan Guarantee Fund—Federal Guarantees for Financing for

Tribal Housing Activities 

NAHASDA also authorizes 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. 

Since its first year of funding, in the year 2000, 72 Title VI loans have been guar- anteed by HUD for about $180 million. These loans have financed more than 2,700 

affordable homes, and enabled borrowers to leverage almost $74.7 million for housing and community development. 

Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund—Section 184

The Section 184 program was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as amended. Like NAHASDA, HUD strongly supports the reauthorization of this program this year. Since its inception, the program has guaranteed more than 20,800 loans with a total value of $3.32 billion. 

Section 184 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, 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 (ICDBG) Program 

The ICDBG program provides federal aid for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to develop viable Native American communities. Competitive grants are 

awarded to eligible Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to improve the housing 

stock, provide community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, fund microVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
14

enterprises, and expand job opportunities. Eligible activities include housing rehabilitation, acquisition of land for housing, and assistance for homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons, construction of single- or multi-use 

facilities, streets and public facilities, and economic development projects—especially 

those sponsored by nonprofit tribal organizations or local development corporations. In the last 20 years, Indian Country has received more than $1.2 billion in 

ICDBGs. In the last 5 years, recipients have used ICDBGs for a variety of projects, 

including the substantial rehabilitation of more than 2,000 affordable housing units, 

and the construction of almost 200 community buildings for the benefit of low-income housing residents. In FY 2012, 76 recipients received more than $56.2 million to fund projects that 

will improve their communities. A tribe in Wisconsin plans to use its 2012 ICDBG 

to install solar photovoltaic panels on low-income, single-family homes and apartments to decrease energy costs. A tribe in Alaska will build a group home to reduce 

the number of homeless native youths. A tribe in California will upgrade its reservation’s old sewer lines. And a tribe in Iowa will construct a travel center/truck stop 

that will include a convenience store, a branch bank, and car and truck fueling stations. 

In FY 2012, more than $3 million in ICDBG funds were also awarded to nine recipients to address emergencies and imminent threats to their communities, such 

as floods, fires, windstorms, and contaminated water systems. 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program (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 

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. About 90 percent of NHHBG funds have 

been used to build new homes and develop the related infrastructure. 

In 8 years of program activity (2005–2012), more than 500 affordable homes have 

been built, acquired, or substantially rehabilitated on the Hawaiian home lands. Approximately 1,400 individuals and families have received pre-and post-homebuyer 

education, financial literacy training, and/or self-help home repair training to sustain safe, decent housing. Three community centers have been rehabbed, and more 

than 300 lots have been improved with infrastructure to support construction of new 

homes. 

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands continues to work successfully with 

many Hawaiian organizations, civic groups, and service agencies in the public, private, and government sectors. Partners have included the Habitat for Humanity, the 

County of Hawaii, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Rural Development, and many others. 

HUD strongly supports the reauthorization of this highly successful block grant 

program. 

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. In its 8 years 

of operation, the program has guaranteed 276 loans for more than $69.5 million. 

Helping Tribal Communities Succeed in Affordable Housing and Economic 

Development 

We would like to share with you some perspectives on how tribal communities 

overcome barriers to Indian housing development and succeed. 

We encourage tribes to look to federal resources such as HUD’s Indian Housing 

Block Grant and Title VI programs, but to also consider other opportunities. Tribes 

and TDHEs are looking beyond just building individual houses and are becoming 

more strategic in their efforts to create more sustainability in their economics and 

communities. 

Tribes from the southwest to the northeast have leveraged HUD programs outside 

of ONAP such as the those sponsored by the Office of Sustainable Housing and 

Communities, and Green Construction grants administered by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research. 

Additionally, Tribes are applying for and receiving assistance from federal and 

state programs that support housing, such as grants or loans from Federal Home 

Loan Banks, USDA’s Rural Development, and the Department of Energy. In addiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
15

tion, they are receiving allocations of Low Income Housing Tax Credits that can attract investment to Tribe-sponsored affordable housing projects. 

We have engaged in marketing and outreach activities designed to make tribes 

and TDHEs more familiar with our programs, particularly those with federal guarantees to lower the risks that have traditionally made the private sector shy away 

from partnering with tribes. 

We can also assist with advice on how to leverage private-sector capital to create 

more housing on reservations. As we move forward, we’re cognizant of, and will 

work within, the government-to-government relationship that exists between this 

Department and the Federally recognized Indian tribes we serve. 

For various reasons, housing development on reservations has been viewed by 

many as a ‘‘social program,’’ and not as an engine for economic development. We 

need to advance our collaboration with tribes, other Federal agencies, and the private sector to clearly establish housing development as a key component, a building 

block, in the creation of sustainable economies on Indian reservations. 

Over many years, we have concentrated on the development and management of 

HUD-assisted housing; now we need to develop the capacity to expand beyond that. 

Through the leveraging of federal financial resources with private capital, we can 

create greater opportunities for housing, new businesses and jobs... all contributing to the creation of sustainable economies. 

We have identified some key building blocks to establish the foundation for developing more sustainable economies. These are:

• creating institutions 

• investing in human capital 

• strengthening legal frameworks 

• leveraging sources of capital 

• fostering economic diversity

HUD’s goal is to use its Native American programs as catalysts for economic development, and to contribute to building sustainable economies within Native American communities. 

How do these programs contribute to sustainable economies? Homeownership programs build equity and promote asset building for Native American families. As a 

result, there is a greater level of commerce and expenditures within the community, 

and at Native American-owned businesses. Developing housing also greatly assists 

in creating permanent local jobs. 

Not only do these programs provide an influx of funds into Indian communities, 

but they can also be used to attract other sources of capital. This ability to leverage 

other federal money as well as state funds and private capital is key to building 

a sustainable economy that is not solely dependent on federal funds. 

Today, there are more ways to leverage federal funds than ever before, such as 

using low-income housing tax credits, other federal and state programs, and partnerships with the private sector. HUD encourages tribes to look beyond their grant 

funding and to use these resources and other sources of capital to make possible 

mixed-use development and the overall expansion of economic development to Indian Country. 

Indeed, there are dozens of tribes that are now using these strategies successfully. 

But overcrowding, substandard housing, and dire poverty are still prevalent in 

much of Indian Country, and these challenges will no doubt be with us for many 

years to come. The block grant program, and other federal support programs provide 

these Native communities with a solid foundation on which to build their futures. 

Closing 

Thank you again, Chairwoman Cantwell, and members of the Committee, for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. We 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.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 

Now we are going to hear from Ms. Cheryl Causley, who is the 

Chairperson of the National American Indian Housing Council. 

Welcome, thank you for being here. 

16

STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. CAUSLEY, CHAIRWOMAN, 

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Ms. CAUSLEY. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cantwell, 

Vice Chairman Barrasso, distinguished members of the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for conducting this oversight hearing. 

My name is Cheryl Causley. I am an enrolled member and Director of Housing for the Bay Mills Indian Community. 

I appear before you today in my capacity as Chairwoman of the 

National American Indian Housing Council. NAIHC was founded 

in 1974 and serves its members by providing invaluable training 

and technical assistance to its tribes and its tribal housing entities. 

Our membership is expansive, comprised of 274 members, representing 473 tribes and tribal housing organizations. 

NAIHC’s member tribes span the entire Country and reside in 

each State represented by members of this Committee. 

The barriers in the Indian housing development are many, but 

they can be broken down into four categories: Federal delays in 

providing necessary approvals and funding; lack of technical capacity enabling tribes to maximize scarce resources; lack of physical 

infrastructure; weak tribal economies that fail to provide jobs and 

income to Native families, resulting in an ongoing inability to finance homes and related capital assets. 

There is a consensus in Congress, the Federal Government, with 

tribal leaders and organizations that there is a severe housing 

shortage in tribal communities. Many homes, as a result, are overcrowded, in need of substantial repair, and many homes lack basic 

amenities, such as complete kitchens and plumbing. 

The estimate is around 250,000 new units of housing. We hope 

to have a better estimate at the conclusion of HUD’s needs study. 

These issues are further complicated by the status of Indian 

lands, which are held in trust or restricted fee status by the United 

States for benefit of the tribes and their members. As a result, private financial institutions are leery of lending for new construction 

or home improvements. Private investment, therefore, in real estate in Indian Country is virtually non-existent. Tribes almost entirely are dependent upon the Federal Government for financial 

support in meeting their growing housing needs. 

In 1996, Congress passed NAHASDA to address the housing crisis in Indian Country, by consolidating and block granting Federal 

housing programs directly to Indian tribes or their tribally-designated housing entities. NAHASDA represents a positive and a 

welcome change in Federal Indian housing policy and embraces the 

principles of tribal self-determination, including local decision-making and reduced administrative bureaucracy. 

The results have been impressive, with more than 110,000 new 

homes built, acquired or renovated for American Indian and Alaska 

Native families. However, because of the sheer scale of the need 

and lack of sufficient funding, housing conditions in Native communities remain some of the worst in the Nation. To further address 

ongoing barriers to the delivery of Indian housing, additional funding for our NAHASDA Indian housing block grant is required. In 

the absence of the additional funding, modest legislative reform, 

such as that within the draft reauthorization bill, presented by 

17

1There are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the United 

States, all of which are eligible for membership in NAIHC. Other NAIHC members include 

state-recognized tribes eligible for housing assistance under the 1937 Housing Act and that were 

subsequently grandfathered in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996; and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the state agency that administers 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. 

NAIHC, will provide opportunities to reduce barriers to the delivery of safe, affordable housing for Native communities. 

Some examples of the important reforms that will improve the 

delivery of housing are to simplify the environmental review requirements, eliminating conflicting Federal labor standards, modernizing the 30 percent rule. Tribal housing entities are encouraged 

to leverage their funds to secure sources of financing, such as Title 

6, 184 and low-income housing tax credits to combine funding 

streams from multiple sources, from USDA, CDFI, Federal Home 

Loan Bank, private foundations and commercial banks. 

Even a simple pooling of existing resources is difficult because 

compliance requirements actually vary from program to program, 

presenting barriers to efficient administration of multiple funding 

streams, and limit the ability of tribes to access multiple programs 

in an effort to reach adequate scale. 

In closing, I would like to congratulate you, Chairwoman Cantwell, as the first woman Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs. Thank you to all the members of this Committee for holding this hearing. I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Causley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. CAUSLEY, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN

INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to help the Committee to identify barriers to Indian housing development as well as propose solutions to these difficult challenges. 

My name is Cheryl Causley and I am the Executive Director of the Bay Mills Indian Housing Authority. I am an enrolled member of the Bay Mills Indian Community located in Brimley, Michigan, and am here today in my capacity as Chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). 

Background on the National American Indian Housing Council 

The NAIHC was founded in 1974 and for nearly four decades has served its members by providing invaluable training and technical assistance (T&TA) to all tribes 

and tribal housing entities; providing information to Congress regarding the issues 

and challenges that tribes face in terms of housing, infrastructure, and community 

and economic development; and working with key federal agencies to address these 

important issues. 

The membership of NAIHC is expansive, comprised of 274 members representing 

473 1 tribes and tribal housing organizations. NAIHC’s member tribes span the entire country from Florida to Alaska, from New Mexico to Maine, and reside in each 

and every state represented by the Members of this Committee. Our members are 

deeply appreciative of the consistent leadership this Committee provides in Congress related to issues affecting tribal communities. 

NAIHC’s primary mission is to support tribal housing entities in their efforts to 

provide safe, decent, affordable, and culturally appropriate housing for Native people. 

As this Committee knows, tribal communities suffer from some of the worst housing conditions in the United States. The causes are many, but can be broken down 

largely into four categories:

1. Federal delays in providing necessary approvals and funding;

2. Lack of technical capacity enabling tribes to maximize scarce resources;

18

2 Bureau of Indian Affairs Labor Force Report (2005). 

3Many of these reservations are in the state of South Dakota, which has one of the lowest 

unemployment rates in the nation. On some SD reservations, the unemployment rate exceeds 

80 percent. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2011. 

See http://www.census.gov.

3. Lack of physical infrastructure; and

4. Weak tribal economies that fail to provide jobs and income to Native families, 

resulting in an ongoing inability to finance homes and related capital assets.

Solutions include new and innovative partnerships between the federal and tribal 

governments—as well as the private sector—that could provide tribal communities 

the tools they need to meet the longstanding housing challenges and build better 

housing environments. 

Tribal Surface Leasing Authority: Potential for Expedited Lease Approvals 

In the last session of Congress, the NAIHC was the lead proponent of the Helping 

Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), one 

of only eight Indian tribal bills enacted into law in the 2011–2012 timeframe. The 

HEARTH Act builds on the Navajo Surface Leasing Reform Act of 2000, and authorizes Indian tribes in general to lease surface tribal trust lands pursuant to their own 

tribal surface leasing ordinances. Once a tribal surface leasing ordinance is approved by the Interior Secretary, the tribe may pursue surface leasing of its tribal 

trust lands for a variety of purposes, including home site leases, without the review 

or approval of the Secretary. 

While this may sound elementary to some, these amendments strengthen tribal 

self-determination and give tribes a tool they will assuredly use to expedite leasing 

decisions and to improve the approval process that housing development relies upon. 

General Economic Conditions in Indian Country 

Recently, our country has gone through an economic downturn that many have 

described as the worst recession since World War II. This economic reality is greatly 

magnified in Indian communities. The national unemployment rate peaked at an 

alarming rate of nearly 10 percent and still hovers around 8 percent. The rate in 

tribal communities is 49 percent. 2 The highest unemployment rates are on the 

Plains reservations, where the average rate is 77 percent. 3

Because of the remote locations of many reservations, there is a lack of basic infrastructure and economic development prospects are difficult to identify and even 

more difficult to pursue. As a result, the poverty rate in Indian Country is exceedingly high at 28.4 percent, nearly three times the national average. 4 These employment and economic development challenges exacerbate the housing situation in Indian Country. 

• According to the 2000 U.S. Census, nearly 12 percent of Native American 

households lack plumbing compared to 1.2 percent of the general U.S. population.

• According to 2002 statistics, 90,000 Indian families are homeless or underhoused.

• On tribal lands, 28 percent of Indian households were found to be over crowded 

or to lack adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities. The national average is 5.4 

percent when structures that lack heating and electrical equipment are included.

• Seventy percent of the existing housing stock in Indian Country is in need of 

upgrades and repairs, many of them extensive.

• Less than half of all reservation homes are connected to water sanitation facilities.

There is consensus in Congress, the Federal Government, tribal leaders, and tribal organizations that there is a severe housing shortage in tribal communities; that 

many homes are, as a result, overcrowded; that many of the existing homes are in 

need of repairs, some of them substantial; that many homes lack basic amenities 

that many of us take for granted, such as complete kitchens and plumbing; and that 

at least 250,000 new housing units are needed in Indian Country. 

These issues are further complicated by the status of Indian lands, which are held 

in trust or restricted-fee status by the United States for the benefit of the tribes 

or their members. As a result, private financial institutions are leery of lending for 

new construction or home improvements. Private investment, therefore, in real estate in Indian Country is virtually nonexistent, with tribes almost entirely dependVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
19

5 Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, down-payment assistance, property acquisition, new construction, safety programs, planning and administration, and housing rehabilitation. 6Section 703 of NAHASDA is titled, ‘‘Training and Technical Assistance,’’ and provides that 

‘‘(T)here are authorized to be appropriated for assistance for a national organization representing Native America housing interests for providing training and technical assistance to 

Indian housing authorizes and tribally-designated entities such sums as may be necessary [for 

subsequent fiscal years].’’ 25 U.S.C. § 4212. 

ent on the Federal Government for financial support in meeting their growing housing needs. 

Brief Summary of the Problems Regarding Housing in Indian Country 

The Housing Act of 1937 authorized local governments to organize public housing 

agencies that received federal subsidies to improve living conditions for low-income 

families. It was not until 1961 that the Public Housing Administration recognized 

tribal governments as local governing bodies that could establish Indian Housing 

Authorities under tribal law. The ensuing three decades led to improved housing 

conditions throughout tribal communities, however, enormous hurdles plagued most 

tribal housing programs. 

Numerous tribal leaders, tribal housing advocates and Members of Congress recognized a need for significant changes to federal law to provide tribes access to federal housing funds in a manner consistent with tribal self-determination. 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to address the housing crisis in Indian Country by consolidating and block granting federal housing programs directly to Indian tribes or 

their tribally-designated housing entities (TDHEs). For seventeen years, NAHASDA 

has been the cornerstone for providing housing assistance to low-income families on 

Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, and on Hawaiian Home Lands. 

The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) is the centerpiece of NAHASDA, and 

since its first fiscal year of funding in 1998, NAHASDA has been the single largest 

source of funding for tribal housing. 

Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

NAHASDA specifies which activities are eligible for funding. 5 Not only do IHBG 

funds support new housing development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and other housing services that are critical for tribal communities, they cover essential planning 

and operating expenses for tribal housing entities. Between 2006 and 2010, a significant portion of IHBG funds, approximately 24 percent, were used for critical 

planning, administration, and housing management and services. 

Despite advances made by some tribes since 1996, many tribes lack administrative capacity to manage their block grants in effective and efficient ways. After formal hearings and much deliberation, section 703 of NAHASDA reflects congressional authorizers’ thoughtful conclusion that T&TA is critical to the success of 

NAHASDA’s block grant regime. 6 Congressional appropriators share this view. In 

the Fiscal Year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development spending bill 

considered last June, appropriators acknowledged an enormous need for T&TA in 

Indian Country. 

One of the most important services the NAIHC has provided for more than a decade is T&TA to tribes and their TDHEs. Reflecting the importance of T&TA and 

the value they place on NAIHC-provided assistance, tribes have voted each year 

since 2006 to ‘‘shave’’ their respective block grant amounts and allocate the funding 

to NAIHC for its T&TA program. Despite the plain language of section 703, recent 

changes to appropriations bills have radically changed how training funds are allocated. 

Fiscal Year 2012 funding, for instance, was provided to NAIHC but also to other 

tribal organizations and at least one non-Indian organization. We point out that neither tribal leaders nor tribal housing managers were consulted before these changes 

were implemented by HUD. 

In addition to its key T&TA role, and in anticipation of NAHASDA’s reauthorization this year, NAIHC also undertook a comprehensive outreach process to encouraging open discussion about the Act from inception to the present, from the perspective of the tribes and their TDHEs. 

The outreach facilitated in-depth, ongoing discussions to assess the effectiveness 

of the Act, its individual components, and its rules and regulations in meeting its 

intended purpose(s). The objective of this extensive outreach process was to have a 

reauthorized Act that more effectively accomplishes its objectives. 

20

With this process now complete, NAIHC has shared a discussion draft bill with 

Members of Congress and interested stakeholders. NAIHC encourages the swift reauthorization of this important statute. 

Leveraging Housing Funds 

Relying on appropriated dollars to build and renovate homes has been the standard practice in Indian Country. Alternatives, such as leveraging existing funds with 

guarantees or investing borrowed money, can bring new opportunities to Native 

families in search of housing. 

The tools provided in NAHASDA have spurred several tribes into exploring partnerships with lenders or utilizing existing funds to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and success of housing projects. 

For example, tribal housing entities are increasingly encouraged to leverage their 

IHBG funding to secure other sources of financing, such as Low Income Housing 

Tax Credits. They are also beginning to combine funding streams from multiple 

sources such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, U.S. Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the Federal 

Home Loan Bank, private foundations, and commercial banks. Even a simple ‘‘pooling’’ of existing resources is difficult because compliance requirements vary from 

program to program, presenting barriers to efficient administration of multiple 

funding streams and limit the ability of tribes to access multiple programs in an 

effort to reach adequate scale. 

While tribes are doing their best to minimize these barriers and achieve economies of scale that accompany resource ‘‘pooling,’’ a better solution would be for the 

Federal Government to launch a demonstration project authorizing tribes to reach 

across the spectrum of federal programs to access currently disparate programs and 

resources. This is already being done in the realm of labor and employment training 

with the universally popular Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Act

(Pub.L. 102–477) otherwise known as the ‘‘477 Program.’’

It should also be noted that eligibility to receive funding available through various 

federal housing programs is not consistent. A number of organizations in Alaska 

and Oklahoma, for example, cannot be accurately characterized as either tribes, 

units of local government or 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. A simple solution 

would be to review eligibility requirements for federal housing programs and, whenever possible, extend eligibility to entities that have been designated as TDHEs for 

one or more Indian Tribes for the purposes of NAHASDA. 

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program 

Under Title VI of NAHASDA, HUD is authorized to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by tribes, or tribal housing entities, if approved by the tribe, for the 

purpose of financing affordable housing activities as described in section 202 of 

NAHASDA. IHBG funds may be used as security for the guarantee or other obligations. The objectives of the program are to enhance the development of affordable 

housing activities, increase access to capital to further economic growth, and encourage participation in the financing of tribal housing programs or financial institutions that do not normally serve tribal areas. 

Case Study: Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine 

The Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine has found creative approaches to maximize 

the impact of NAHASDA funds they receive. Using the Title VI loan guarantee program to attract other sources of capital, the Tribe successfully leveraged its IHBG 

funds to enhance its housing development strategies. The flexibility of the Title VI 

program criteria allows financing of any NAHASDA-eligible affordable housing activity for a period of up to twenty years. Title VI has also proven to be a cost-effective source of gap financing during initial stages of a housing project. 

The Tribe used Title VI to construct twenty-eight low-income housing tax credit 

units and a community center. The balance on the Title VI loan was paid down with 

the tax credits and Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston’s Affordable Housing Program funds. 

Section 184 Home Loan Program 

HUD’s section 184 program is a mortgage loan product designed to resemble a 

conventional or private housing loan, and there are no income limits for the section 

184 Loan program. Because the section 184 loan program is guaranteed by the Federal Government, the program has provided much needed access to capital to many 

individuals and Native families who might otherwise struggle to obtain home financing. 

21

Case Study: White Mountain Apache Tribe 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona utilized a blend of funding streams 

including NAHASDA, section 184 guarantees, and tribally-issued, tax-exempt bonds 

to develop a 250 unit single-family housing project. This project provides long-term 

rentals (amount paid determined on family’s ability) with the housing entity as the 

lessor and the tenants have the opportunity to purchase their units. 

Case Study: Bay Mills Housing Authority 

The Bay Mills Housing Authority of Michigan developed a tri-party agreement 

that included the Central Savings Bank, which was able to offer the section 184 

loan program, USDA Rural Development loans, or tribal loans to members of the 

Tribe. Bay Mills used NAHASDA funds as down-payment assistance of up to 10 percent of the loan (not to exceed $8,000) to families with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median. The Tribe provides similar opportunities to families with 

higher incomes. 

As the case studies above demonstrate, the 184 program has been a success when 

the program is viable and has funding available. In recent years, however, uncertainty caused by delay in congressional enactment of annual appropriations bills has 

prompted HUD to place restrictions on the 184 program. Most recently, on March 

8, 2013, HUD announced that it would no longer issue firm commitments under the 

184 program until Congress appropriated additional funds. This resulted in some 

borrowers and lenders being forced to secure alternative financing. 

Non-Profit Incorporations to Enhance Access to Funding 

Some tribes have created 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations for the purposes of establishing an independent organization that accesses additional housing funding opportunities. Forming a 501(c)(3) is a multi-step process. First, the concept must be 

endorsed by the tribe’s governing body. Once the concept is approved by the tribal 

government, a charter must be developed and submitted to the tribe and approved. 

Once approved and chartered, the non-profit must maneuver through a complex 

field of Internal Revenue Service rules and regulations to appropriately establish a 

non-profit entity. Based on multiple tribal housing examples, this process has provided increased access to a variety of funding possibilities and a greater ability to 

serve the individual housing needs of tribal members. 

Case Study: Yukon-Koyukuk Elder Assisted Living Facility 

The Yukon-Koyukuk Elder Assisted Living Consortium (YKEALC) is a 501(c)(3) 

organization founded to develop the Yukon-Koyukuk Elder Assisted Living Facility 

in Galena, Alaska. The facility is located on the banks of the Yukon River in central 

Alaska and was completed in 2011. 

Five federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes came together to create the facility: 

Nulato Tribal Council, Louden Tribal Council, Koyukuk Tribal Council, Ruby Tribal 

Council and Kaltag Tribal Council. Total investment in this assisted living center 

was $7.8 million. 

These tribes needed a closer facility to provide housing and services to their elders. Without a closer facility, elders would have been forced to move, and this 

would have put them far from their families, friends and culture. Through the development of YKEALC the elders can remain in their tribal communities and receive top quality housing and health care. 

The New Markets Tax Credit financing will allow the facility to purchase medical 

supplies, install solar panels on the roof and install a wood-based heating system. 

These energy efficiency measures are critically important due to the very high cost 

of energy in this very remote region. The financing also provides working capital 

to help fund operations at the facility. The project created twenty-eight construction 

jobs and ten permanent jobs. 

YKEALC will also work to keep the elders connected to the community-a crucial 

element of elder care. This is done through volunteer efforts of local residents bringing fish and game to the facility for community meals. 

Native Community Development Financial Institutions 

Increasingly, tribal housing programs are exploring the advantages of instituting 

and working with Native Community Development Financial Institutions (Native 

CDFIs) in an effort to leverage resources for homeownership. Native CDFIs were 

created when the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act 

of 1994 established the CDFI, whose purpose is to promote economic revitalization 

and community development through investment and assistance to fund-certified 

CDFIs. The Fund offers grants, loans, equity investments, and other forms of assistance on a matching funds basis. CDFIs are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department. 

22

These Native CDFIs must demonstrate their independence from tribal government and inclusion of the tribal target population on its board of directors to obtain 

funding from the Fund. This structure is intended to assure separation from tribal 

politics and sound lending practices. CDFIs may also attract financial support from 

banks and other lenders and are especially conducive to tribal housing programs 

that seek focus on homeownership loans. 

It is the goal of most Native CDFIs to bring in funding from various sources to 

lend back to tribal community members at favorable rates or provide the necessary 

financial education and credit counseling to increase tribal members’ access to lending products. Native CDFI’s not only help to boost homeownership through providing loan products and other services, but they provide tribal members with the 

knowledge and skills in building productive financial opportunities. 

Case Study: New Mexico Native CDFIs 

In New Mexico, 10.7 percent of the population is identified as American Indian 

and/or Alaska Native (AI/AN)—making it the third highest AI/AN populated state 

proportionate to the rest of the state’s population. Out of the twelve certified CDFIs 

in the state there are four Native CDFIs that provide varied services to the tribal 

communities of Laguna Pueblo, Ohkay Owingeh, Isleta Pueblo, and the Navajo communities near Gallup, New Mexico. They provide mixed lending products, such as 

home mortgage loans, home rehabilitation loans, and construction lending. In addition, they provide homeownership education, financial education, and credit counseling and repair. 

The financing of the Native CDFIs are diverse, and underscore the multifaceted 

contribution from various funding sources to meet the housing needs in the New 

Mexico tribal communities. Three of the New Mexico Native CDFIs receive direct 

funding from their respective TDHE, two CDFIs receive funding from the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (a state agency), and two CDFIs receive funding 

from non-profit entities. The Tiwa Lending Services (TLS) receives direct funding 

from the Pueblo of Isleta, which transferred its home loan portfolio and tribal funds 

to TLS. 

Case Study: Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation 

The Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation (HCCDC) is an emerging 

CDFI, and was formed by and partners with the Winnebago Tribe and its entities. 

The Mission of the Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation is to raise the 

socio-economic and educational levels of Native American communities and the people of Thurston County, Nebraska. A goal of HCCDC is to decrease substandard 

housing, increase housing opportunity, increase clients’ ability to access housing, 

and increase capital available locally. 

The Winnebago Reservation lacks affordable housing and tribal members who are 

able to afford a mortgage are forced to live elsewhere. Other tribal members lack 

the funds for the initial down payment to purchase a home. Using the Winnebago 

Tribe’s other private subsidiary, Ho-Chunk Inc., the HCCDC and the Winnebago 

Tribe have worked together to develop a Housing Down Payment Assistance Program that provides a significant portion of a standard down payment for a new 

homeowner. The homeowner is required to go through a special financial and homeownership education course and must meet other criteria to qualify. 

In 2010, Ho-Chunk, Inc. and the Winnebago Tribe authorized a $1 million Housing Stimulus Program to set aside Ho-Chunk, Inc. dividends and other tax revenues 

to offer $50,000 in down payment assistance to up to twenty new homeowners who 

build a home on the Winnebago reservation. Through these combined efforts, housing on their reservation is more affordable and tribal members can start building 

the traditional wealth that other non-Native homeowners have gained. 

Beyond their down payment assistance program, the HCCDC has invested in HoChunk Village, a modern comprehensive subdivision that incorporates their traditional village design. The Village will provide both commercial and residential development with a senior-living housing project, private homes, a 20-unit apartment 

complex, and 10 unit townhouses. On the commercial side, the Village will include 

a commercial office building, laser art panels, veteran’s park, sculpture garden, theater, playground, and public-use building. Beyond creating the needed affordable 

housing opportunities, the development of the Ho-Chunk Village is raising the tribal 

economy and creating much-needed jobs. 

Conclusion 

Given the funding constraints in the tribal housing arena and the need to not only 

maintain existing units, but keep up with growing tribal populations and meet the 

tremendous existing housing backlog, tribes have, out of necessity, been very creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
23

ative in developing partnerships and crafting innovative solutions to meet their 

unique housing needs and expand community development. 

In closing, I want to thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, 

and all Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity 

to highlight solutions that help meet the overwhelming housing needs in tribal communities. Your continued support of tribal communities is truly appreciated, and 

NAIHC is eager to work with you and your staff on these often-challenging issues.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much. 

Next we are going to hear from Annette Bryan, from the Puyallup Tribe. Thank you for being here, thanks for traveling all the 

way from the West Coast. 

STATEMENT OF ANNETTE BRYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PUYALLUP NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. BRYAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Cantwell, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on barriers and solutions to housing development in Indian Country. I lift my hands to each of you 

in thanks for all of the hard work that you do on behalf of tribal 

people. 

My name is Annette Bryan. I am the Executive Director of the 

Puyallup Nation Housing Authority for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians in Tacoma, Washington, the other Washington. And our tribe 

has over 4,000 enrolled members covering about 28 square miles. 

We have developed a number of successful economic development 

activities; however, poverty and inadequate housing are still endemic. 

PNHA was established to provide decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for low-income tribal members and other Indians 

in our service area. Our dedicated and wonderful staff prides itself 

in the work that we do, but every day we strive to do what we can 

in the enormous housing needs that we face. 

Under NAHASDA, we have been able to develop capacity, construct more than 50 new affordable housing units and increase 

safety by installing cameras and providing a full-time police officer 

with a canine unit dedicated to the housing. We have developed a 

broad range of services and programs, including rental and home 

buyer units, a rental assistance voucher program, a down payment 

assistance program and a self-sufficiency program. 

I will testify about certain barriers. The first barrier, inadequate 

funding; second barrier, redundant requirements; and the third 

barrier, total development cost limitations. I will then conclude by 

addressing reauthorization. 

The first barrier, inadequate funding. The President’s budget, re- leased today, flatlines NAHASDA at $650 million. To compound 

that funding issue, NAHASDA block grant does not provide any additional funds for operation and maintenance of our new units. We 

are at a point where we are not able to construct or acquire any 

more new units, because our grant funds need to be spent to maintain and operate those we already have. 

We need Congress to, at the very least, allow us to keep pace 

with inflation. Congress should increase the annual NAHASDA 

block grant appropriations to at least $875 million with subsequent 

annul increases in order to meet current inflation and keep pace 

with future inflation. 

24

The second barrier is redundant requirements. One of the necessary responses to insufficient funding is leveraging funding from 

other sources. When tribes combine sources from different Federal 

agencies, we are required, for environmental reviews, for example, 

to do an environmental review for each Federal agency in which we 

are given funding for. NAHASDA authorizes tribes to carry out 

their own environmental reviews and use their own tribally-determined prevailing wage rates in lieu of Davis-Bacon rates. However, 

other funding requirements on top of that require us to meet that 

obligation multiple times, creating redundancy. Puyallup supports 

amendments to NAHASDA that would allow for consolidation of 

environmental review and prevailing wage requirements in those 

situations to avoid redundancy and cost. 

The third barrier, total development cost limits on green building. At the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, we have developed two, all 

of our units are green, but we have a LEED Platinum certified 

building. There is a picture of it over here. We are using different 

kinds of technologies that are costing a little bit more. So we are 

asking for flexibility in the total development cost, 10 to 20 percent. 

We get a 10 percent waiver from HUD. However, it is time-consuming to ask for that and takes a little bit more process, process, 

process. So more flexibility in that would be helpful. 

One step Congress could take to facilitate green building would 

be to expressly authorize a waiver of greater flexibility around 

moderate design standards that have been promulgated in the 

NAHASDA regulations. 

NAHASDA reauthorization. If NAHASDA is not reauthorized, we 

will not be able to continue to operate our critically-needed programs and services. Like the VAWA Act, protecting Native women, 

the NAHASDA Act protects Native families. NAHASDA is fundamentally a success, and while there is room for Improvement, 

NAHASDA is critical to providing Indian housing for Indian people. 

Without it, we will be devastated. We strongly support reauthorization of NAHASDA to continue this successful program to meet 

these critical needs. 

On behalf of the Puyallup Tribal Council and the Puyallup Nation Housing Board of COMmissioners, I would like to thank you 

for this opportunity, and I am happy to answer any questions the 

Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bryan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNETTE BRYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUYALLUP NATION

HOUSING AUTHORITY

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Annette 

Bryan, and I am the Executive Director of the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority 

(PNHA) and have been at PNHA since 2004, first as a member of the Board of Commissioners and then as Executive Director. 

On behalf of the Puyallup Tribe and the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority, I 

would like to thank the Chair, Vice-Chair, and the Committee Members for holding 

this hearing and for establishing the reauthorization of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) as a priority legislative item for the 

113th Congress. I am honored to testify at today’s hearing concerning barriers to 

providing housing in Indian Country, and in support of the reauthorization of 

NAHSADA. Ensuring adequate housing is paramount to the quality of life in Indian 

Country, and this hearing will help us break down existing barriers so we can move 

25

forward on this important task. Furthermore, this hearing will lay the groundwork 

needed to enact a reauthorization for NAHASDA that builds upon its successes. 

We would like to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts to provide resources to 

meet the severe needs for housing and other assistance in Indian Country. The 

housing needs for the Puyallup Tribe, and across Indian country, are extreme. The 

NAHASDA has provided PNHA with tools to make notable progress in meeting the 

housing needs of our Tribe, but there is still a significant unmet need that is far 

too large. Reauthorization of the NAHASDA provides a necessary opportunity to 

strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and efficiency. I will discuss a number of barriers to providing effective housing assistance in Indian Country, many of 

which can be addressed through amendments in the reauthorization process and 

funding in accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian Country. First, I will 

provide some background about our Tribe and PNHA. 

The Puyallup Tribe and the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority 

The Puyallup Tribe is a federally recognized tribe located in the Southern Puget 

Sound area of Washington State. In our aboriginal language, we are known as the 

S’Puyalupubsh, meaning ‘‘generous and welcoming behavior to all people (friends 

and strangers) who enter our lands.’’ Our people lived in villages from the foothills 

of Mount Tacoma, along the rivers and creeks to the shores of Puget Sound. Our 

villages were scattered throughout the many islands, prairies and rich valley country of the Pacific Northwest. Historians often noted because of the abundance of 

salmon and shellfish that ‘‘When the tides were out, the table was spread.’’ 

Our people lived here for thousands of years existing by the bountiful gifts provided by the Creator. Our Mother, Mount Tacoma, provided the water that supplied 

our salmon. We were fed by the abundance of nature’s gifts: Salmon, shellfish, wild 

game, roots and berries. The cedar trees provided our homes, utensils, clothing and 

transportation. All of these gifts are part of our rich cultural heritage we have 

today. Our environment was rich in the wealth of natural resources, providing all 

our needs, allowing us to live healthy, happy lives. There were no worries of where 

the next meal would come from or where we would sleep. There was the freedom 

to practice our religion, train our children and take care of our elders. 

Today we are known as the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Times have changed and 

the conditions we live in have changed dramatically, but the Puyallup Tribe endures. The membership of the Tribe has grown considerably in recent years, and 

is now more than 4,000 people. A majority of tribal members live in the Puget 

Sound region; however there are members spread across the country. Tribal members play vital roles in many aspects of life in the Puget Sound region. Adult members work as attorneys and fisherman, doctors and construction workers. Some are 

entrepreneurs who operate successful businesses. Many members are active in sharing the rich Puyallup culture with the community through pow wows, art exhibits 

and other activities. Yet there are still many—too many—of our people who are in 

poverty. As a result many do not have access to safe, sanitary, and adequate housing. 

Recognizing this need, the Tribe established the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority in 1977. PNHA is the tribally designated housing entity of the Puyallup Tribe. 

It carries out the low-income housing program for the Puyallup Tribe, and is the 

recipient of the Tribe’s Indian Housing Block Grant under the NAHASDA. Our mission is to provide assistance and opportunities for eligible and qualified Native 

Americans within the Puyallup Tribe’s service area to obtain decent, safe, sanitary 

and affordable housing. 

PNHA was established to provide decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for 

low-income tribal members and other Indians in our service area. We endeavor to 

alleviate the acute shortage of decent, safe and sanitary dwellings in our area 

through the construction of new homes and the alteration and repair of existing 

homes. We also manage and maintain residential properties that are owned by the 

Tribe or the PNHA to provide housing to members and the Indian community. Our 

staff of 18 prides itself in our work, but we strive every day to do what we can to 

meet the enormous housing needs we face. 

Through NAHASDA, PNHA offers assistance to eligible participants through our 

Home Ownership Opportunity program, opportunities to live in low rent apartment 

or homes that are owned by the Tribe or PNHA, and our rental assistance program. 

Our Home Ownership Opportunity Program is a lease-to-own opportunity for eligible applicants. It is successful in several aspects. It not only provides safe and sanitary housing for the family or individual, but also the pride, stability and responsibility that comes with being a home owner. 

Unfortunately, many of our members and other intended beneficiaries are not eligible for our Home Ownership Opportunity Program. Thus, we have many people 

26

seeking on-reservation low income rental units. We manage 59 units that are available for low rent living. These include our 27 apartments and 22 townhouses along 

with our newly constructed ARRA-funded 10-unit Longhouse project. Significantly, 

our Phase I Longhouse project was recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council 

as its LEED for Homes 2012 Project of the Year. It is also one of six projects worldwide honored with a SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design) Award for Excellence in Public Interest Design. It also earned the rare LEED Platinum rating, 

the highest building certification for leadership in energy and environmental design. 

We are particularly proud of our Longhouse project and are pleased to offer it to 

our members as a housing opportunity. Phase II Longhouse will open in May, providing 10 additional units. 

Because it is important to us to make sure that our elders have a safe, comfortable place to live, we also manage our Elders Healthy Home and eight Elders 

units. In the effort to care for our elders, we also provide assistance specifically 

through our Elders’ Repair and Renovation Program. 

Our combined units that we manage or provide rental or homebuyer assistance 

to result in approximately 215 families and individuals being served. 

NAHASDA marks a significant step towards self-determination in the housing 

arena. This monumental Act has spawned much improvement and progress in the 

Indian housing arena. It has been a great vehicle for tribes generally and for the 

PNHA specifically to develop housing to meet the needs of tribal members and other 

Indians in its service area. If NAHASDA is not reauthorized, PNHA would not be 

able to continue to operate its critically needed programs and services. 

NAHASDA is a success. Nonetheless, significant need remains. Greater flexibility 

and efficiencies are needed. Amendment through reauthorization is not enough, 

however, for tribes and TDHEs to truly meet the needs of their service populations: 

NAHASDA must also be funded in accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian 

country. The specific barriers we face in carrying our mission to develop Indian 

housing and provide assistance for eligible persons to obtain decent, safe, sanitary 

and affordable housing are set forth below. The lack of sufficient funding is foremost 

among the barriers to effectively provide housing in Indian country. 

Barrier No. 1—Insufficient Funding 

Since the passage of NAHASDA, the PNHA has developed a broad range of housing services, using the flexibility in the Act to meet the needs of our service population in the most efficient manner possible. We have developed several programs 

to utilize the tools in NAHASDA intended to facilitate homeownership and provide 

affordable housing. As set forth above, we have leveraged our IHBG funding with 

a Title VI Loan Guaranty to construct 22 units of affordable housing serving lowincome Puyallup Tribal members and other Indians. We have developed a rental assistance voucher program, to assist with rental payments. This program currently 

serves up to 40 households per year, although this program is being reduced due 

to budget cuts. We have also established a down payment assistance program to eligible Indian recipients with loans or mortgages to improve existing homes or purchase or construct their own new off reservation homes. PNHA also provides financial and homebuyer counseling to its program participants. All of these programs 

are designed to assist low income members, but even with these benefits, only a 

small fraction of the families on our waiting list are financially capable of participating in these programs. 

As required by NAHASDA, PNHA maintains waiting lists for the various programs it offers. Currently, there are 240 low-income households on all of our waiting 

lists: Homeownership Opportunity = 31; Low Rent Program = 123; Rental Assistance Voucher Program = 86. While these numbers may not look alarming, we can 

only provide new housing as it becomes available and we are currently 98 percent 

occupied. 

To adequately meet the need for affordable housing for the low-income population 

we serve, we estimate that we would need to construct an additional 240 units. The 

levels of funding in our current IHBG do not provide us with the resources to construct anywhere near that number of units. To compound the funding problem, for 

each unit we construct with NAHASDA funds, we take on the responsibility to 

maintain and operate that unit. The NAHASDA block grant does not provide any 

additional funds for maintenance and operations. Thus, the more units we build and 

operate, the more of our annual block grant is taken up by maintenance and operation costs. We are rapidly approaching the point where we will not be able to afford 

to construct or acquire any more units because our grant funds need to be spent 

to maintain and operate those we already have. Yet that stock of housing is woefully 

insufficient to meet the overwhelming need. 

27

Further, the annual Indian Housing Block Grant appropriations under NAHASDA 

have not kept pace with inflation, and in real dollars the last few years of appropriations represent a significant decrease from the amounts initially appropriated 

in the early years of NAHASDA. The amounts adopted over the past few years have 

essentially remained flat, while both the need and the costs of serving that need 

have increased. The automatic sequester cuts have further impacted our operations, 

and continued cuts will have significant adverse consequences. The annual funding 

we currently have is nowhere near sufficient to meet the substantial need for housing services. The cuts would result in overwhelming unmet need. Further, such cuts 

would require us to reduce services and/or staff. In the current economy, these scenarios will be devastating to our people. 

We are also aware of Congress’ concern with the significant amounts of ‘‘unexpended’’ funds in the NAHASDA pipeline. While some tribes and TDHEs may have 

had difficulties spending down funds, we note that there are numerous bureaucratic 

and logistical barriers to quick spend down. NAIHC and other tribes/TDHEs have 

pledged assistance to those tribes, and NAIHC has set up a working group to further explore the issue and develop solutions. We note that, overall, the unexpended 

funds problem involves a small number of tribes, and that overall the NAHASDA 

block grant program has a very efficient spend-down rate. We also note that the 

Puyallup Nation Housing Authority has been able to spend its funds down in an 

efficient and effective manner. 

The annual IHBG appropriation is the budget we rely on to provide services yearin and year-out, any proposed cuts will impact us as an organization and our constituents in a dramatic way. Tribes and TDHEs need a longer term sustainable appropriation for housing, one that would at the very least keep pace with inflation. 

Solution: PNHA requests that, at a minimum, Congress appropriate sufficient 

funds in the annual block grant to keep up with inflation. That amount for this Fiscal Year would be approximately $875 million, with subsequent annual increases, 

to meet current inflation and to keep pace with future inflation. 

Barrier No. 2—30 Percent Maximum Rent Rule 

When an Indian-specific housing program was created through NAHASDA, certain aspects of the prior 1937 Housing Act were retained. One of these was the requirement that tribes may charge no more for rents than 30 percent of the adjusted 

annual income of households. NAHASDA Section 203(a), 25 U.S.C. § 4133(a). 

While this appears to be a common sense measure to ensure that affordable housing remains affordable, it is a concept that has not transferred over well to the 

NAHASDA framework. First and foremost, under the 1937 Act Public Housing program, there is a specific line item for maintenance and operation of managed premises. As noted above, there is no such appropriation under NAHASDA. Oftentimes 

the only funds that are available for maintenance and operations come from the 

rents that tribes and TDHEs are able to charge. But there are many low-income 

clients whose annual adjusted income (a term defined by the statute) is at or near 

zero, and therefore the rents that the tribe or TDHE can charge is zero or de minimis. Under the 30 percent rule, tribes and TDHEs are prohibited from charging a 

base administrative fee if that fee is in excess of 30 percent of income. Further, the 

work required to certify and recertify the annual adjusted income of each household 

in order to make appropriate adjustments to rent is substantial and burdensome. 

Moreover, the 30 percent rule applies where the tribe or TDHE is providing a 

rental or homebuyer subsidy to a tribal member in a unit owned or managed by 

another landlord. Thus, where a tribe or TDHE decides to undertake a rental assistance voucher program—like PNHA—we are required to provide a subsidy in a sufficient amount to ensure that the tenant or homebuyer is paying no more than 30 

percent of their income. We are prohibited from providing a flat voucher amount 

(such as a payment of $200 per month per household in the program), which would 

enable us to spread our resources among more households. 

Solution: PNHA supports an amendment to NAHASDA that would eliminate or 

modify the application of the 30 percent maximum rent rule to Indian housing programs. 

Barrier No. 3—Redundancy in Administrative Requirements Where

Additional Sources of Funds are Leveraged 

One of the responses to the insufficient amounts of funding under the NAHASDA 

IHBG appropriations is to blend additional sources of funding into construction 

projects, which PNHA and many other tribal programs have done successfully. 

Yet this blending of funds results in additional bureaucratic requirements, which 

are often redundant, and which therefore incur additional costs for administration—

meaning less money to spend on housing construction. There are two main areas 

28

where we see this problem: environmental review and payment of prevailing wage 

rates. 

Environmental Review. One of the innovations of NAHASDA was to allow tribes 

to exercise environmental review requirements that would otherwise be carried out 

by HUD. NAHASDA Section 105, 25 U.S.C.§ 4115. For those tribes, like Puyallup, 

that have the capacity in-house to conduct environmental review, it is both an exercise of the Tribe’s sovereignty as well as administratively more efficient to have 

such reviews carried out by the Tribe. Under the NAHASDA regulations, where a 

tribe does assume environmental review responsibilities, it must do so in accordance 

with the applicable HUD environmental review regulations at 24 CFR parts 50 and 

58. PNHA has worked with the Tribe to tool up for and carry out environmental 

reviews consistent with the HUD-mandated process. 

However, because our housing is built on and involves leasing of trust lands, there 

are in a number of cases additional, overlapping, and redundant environmental review requirements imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (in exercising their authority to review and approve residential leases on trust lands). Further, when 

PNHA leverages its NAHASDA funds by using grant funds from other federal agencies (such as USDA—Rural Development), that agency’s environmental review requirements will also apply. Thus, PNHA in such circumstances will be required to 

undertake three different environmental reviews—all of which are intended to meet 

the same federal statutory requirements under the National Environmental Policy 

Act—because each federal agency has its own guidelines and procedures. The resulting administrative and legal costs in doing so takes funds away from constructing 

houses. 

Solution: PNHA supports a proposal, which we hope to see included as an 

amendment in the reauthorization process, that would deem a tribe to have satisfied 

all applicable environmental review requirements that might apply to a multiplefunding sourced project if the tribe satisfactorily completed the applicable HUD environmental review process. 

Prevailing Wage Rates. NAHASDA, like many other federal statutes, requires that 

funding recipients pay laborers and other workers a minimum wage based on the 

prevailing wages in the locale where the project is being developed or operated. 

Such provisions are generally referred to as the Davis-Bacon Acts, which were a series of federal laws establishing such prevailing wage requirements on projects 

using federal funds. Those wage rates are determined by the Department of Labor 

(and, for certain activities related to operation of housing projects, by HUD). 

Another important innovation of NAHASDA was to allow tribes to develop and 

apply their own prevailing wage rates as the standard minimum wages to be paid 

to laborers and other workers on development and operations. NAHASDA Section 

104(b)(3), 25 U.S.C.§ 4114(b)(3). The Puyallup Tribe has exercised its sovereign authority under this section and has developed its own prevailing wage rates, which 

apply to PNHA projects. 

However, as with the environmental review requirements I just discussed, where 

a tribe uses multiple federal funding sources on a project, the Davis-Bacon requirements will apply to those other sources of funds—even if the tribally determined 

prevailing wage rates apply to the use of NAHASDA funds. Under such circumstances, the tribal housing program will have to separately track the expenditure of each set of funds and set up two distinct payrolls (and payment rates) for 

work done under each funding source. Doing so involves a substantial administrative and accounting burden, transferring costs from building houses to managing accounts. 

Solution: As with the environmental review issue, PNHA supports a proposal, 

which we hope to see included as an amendment in the reauthorization process, 

that would authorize a tribe to apply the tribally-determined prevailing wage rate 

to all sources of funds used in a project that was funded in part by NAHASDA block 

grant funding. 

Barrier No. 4—Delays in HUD Response to Requests for Approvals or

Waivers 

The HUD Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) has been a strong and reliable partner for the PNHA. In particular, the Northwest ONAP has been very helpful in providing technical assistance, advice, and oversight. But ONAP, like many 

federal agencies, is often short-staffed and underfunded, and in a number of instances may not be able to respond in a timely manner to certain requests. 

Where this situation has the potential to become a barrier is in those areas 

where—under the statute—HUD is given the authority to approve waivers of certain statutory requirements or timelines. For example, NAHASDA requires IHBG 

recipients to enter into Local Cooperation Agreements with local governments to 

29

provide for services in exchange for payments in lieu of taxes or user fees. In some 

instances, however, those local governments are uncooperative or simply unwilling 

to enter into such agreements. NAHASDA, therefore, gives tribes the right to ask 

HUD for a waiver of the Local Cooperation Agreement requirement if the tribe has 

made ‘‘a good faith effort’’ to enter into such an agreement and agrees to make payments in lieu of taxes. NAHASDA Section 101(c), 25 U.S.C.§ 4111(c). 

This provision, however, contains no timeline for HUD to act on such a waiver 

request. Yet, unless a tribe obtains an agreement or a waiver, it is unable to expend 

NAHASDA funds on a project in that jurisdiction. This is particularly a barrier for 

tribes like Puyallup that are located in areas with overlapping jurisdictions with 

other local governments. Other areas under the statute where HUD has similar 

waiver or other approval authority, but no enforceable timelines, include environmental review requirements, submission of Indian Housing Plans and response to 

comments on draft monitoring reports. 

Solution: PNHA supports a series of NAHASDA amendments that would establish a timeline for each of these approval processes. In addition, similar to the process involved in the approval of gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, these proposals would state that if HUD was unable to meet the applicable deadline, that the request for waiver or other approval would be ‘‘deemed approved.’’

Barrier No. 5—Lack of Flexibility in Total Development Cost (TDC) Limits 

Undermines Ability to Do Green Building 

One avenue that PNHA has explored through its NAHASDA funds is the development of energy efficient, ‘‘green’’ building designs, recently completing an ‘‘elder 

healthy home’’ demonstration project and a multi-unit low-income housing development with solar heating and other green design features. It is important for green 

buildings to be easier to construct or pursue. One step Congress could take to facilitate green building would be to expressly authorize a waiver or greater flexibility 

around the ‘‘moderate design’’ standards that have been promulgated in the 

NAHASDA regulations when it comes to green building. The NAHASDA regulations 

interpret the ‘‘affordable housing’’ requirements of the Act to require that homes be 

built within strict cost limits, known as ‘‘total development costs’’ (TDC). While this 

limitation is generally a good idea, it does not take into account that incorporating 

green building design elements increases the upfront development cost of construction, while ultimately saving money (for both the tribe and for the tenant/homebuyer). PNHA’s own recent experience bears this out: PNHA had to use funding 

other than NAHASDA to complete its elder healthy home because it could not meet 

the TDC limits—even though upon completion the home would cost less to maintain 

and less to heat than conventionally-built homes. 

Solution: PNHA would support an effort by Congress to add language to 

NAHASDA that would require exemption from or greater flexibility around the 

‘‘moderate design’’ and TDC limitations when a tribe or TDHE is incorporating energy efficient components in building construction. Again, the upcoming reauthorization of NAHASDA would provide an appropriate vehicle for such an amendment. 

Barrier No. 6—Disruption in Section 184 Loan Guaranty Program 

We join with other tribes in expressing our dismay regarding the oversight that 

resulted in the Section 184 program exhausting its resources. However, we applaud 

Congress in quickly resolving this matter by providing more than $12 million for 

the program in the recently enacted continuing appropriations act for FY 2013. This 

funding level is a little more than double previous funding levels and will allow the 

program to help—according to HUD—as many as 3,500 Native American families 

to either purchase a home or refinance between now and the end of FY 2013. 

Solution: While we are grateful for the increase in funding for the Section 184 

program, both Congress and the Administration must ensure that such an oversight 

does not happen again. 

Conclusion 

NAHASDA represents great progress toward the goal of self-determination and 

has provided tribes and TDHEs with important tools for meeting the vast housing 

needs in Indian Country. However, amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase flexibility and efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and TDHEs to do 

even more in this arena. We need the flexibility to identify and target our local 

needs, we need to be free of micromanagement and overlapping and duplicative 

oversight requirements and we need adequate funding. The need is there in Indian 

Country and we look forward to working with the Committee on the best ways to 

address it.

30

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Paul Iron Cloud, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL IRON CLOUD, CEO, OGLALA SIOUX 

(LAKOTA) HOUSING, PINE RIDGE RESERVATION 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. Thank you very much for holding this hearing 

today, which is very important to our Native Americans in all the 

States, and the State of South Dakota. 

I also want to thank the Committed for listening to some of the 

things that we are going to say. It probably won’t be the popular 

thing that you want to hear. I really thank somebody up there, of 

course Tim Johnson did a lot of work for the Oglala Sioux Tribe 

in many areas. He is going to be greatly missed when he leaves 

Congress. I just want to thank Tim for all the things you have done 

for us. 

Well, everybody had a little something to read. I want to speak 

from my heart today on the things that I see that everybody needs 

to hear. And I won’t be able to say it all, because I only have five 

minutes. But the big thing is in our Country is the worst housing 

conditions there ever were. We need 4,000 homes at Pine Ridge. 

Our houses need reconditioned. We can’t get new homes, because 

we don’t get enough money from NAHASDA. 

The big thing is, we are at, I would say, 630, 640, 650 million 

dollars, as long as I remember. And the thing is, that I see, there 

has to be more money put into the budget for Indian housing. We 

have a very tough reservation at Pine Ridge. We have approximately 40,000 people. And there are so many of them that need 

homes. I go through people sitting in my office with kids that don’t 

have a place to go. That just doesn’t happen one day, it happens 

all the time. 

We have two, three families living in a house. Living like that, 

the health hazard of that, as well as education. I am going to tell 

you a story about education. When you have two or three families 

living in a house, how do you expect the kids to do their homework 

when they come back from school? Our education, I will just tell 

you another statistic, we had about 64 percent on our reservation 

graduate from high school. Now it is down to 46 percent. So that 

tells you the social problem is high. 

The reason why I say that is, when I was president of the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had 110 police 

officers to cover 80 by 100 miles. Now we have, the last count I had 

was 44 officers. Now, how do we say we are going to protect our 

tenants that want a safe place to live? How in the world do we address that? 

Our families are hurting. Our families are crying. Our elders are 

crying. When you have to live under those conditions, we don’t deserve that, Native Americans. We had a lot of treaties that were 

made by the United States Government that were supposed to 

have taken care of us as long as the rivers flowed and the grass 

grew. That means forever. We gave up a lot of land. 

There is one thing that we are doing to show Congress the real 

numbers of our people. That is that needs assessment that we are 

doing now. It is going to show how many people are living in these 

31

houses, two, three families. We are doing all of that. We are going 

to be done with that program, I’d say, in June or July. That is 

going to be able to tell Congress how many people are actually in 

Pine Ridge. 

In Rosebud, Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, they are all doing the 

same thing. Our need is so great. People don’t have trust in us any 

more. I have 24 or 26 seconds left to try to say something in 26 

seconds. I am going to try to answer any questions that you do 

have for us, and I just come here with a good heart and I like to 

do things that are going to better the living of our people. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Iron Cloud follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL IRON CLOUD, CEO, OGLALA SIOUX (LAKOTA) 

HOUSING, PINE RIDGE RESERVATION

Good afternoon. My name is Paul Iron Cloud and I greet you all with a warm 

handshake. 

On behalf of Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing, where I am the Chief Executive Officer, and my Oglala Sioux Tribe I want to thank this Committee, Chairwoman Cantwell and particularly our longtime friend and supporter Senator Tim Johnson for 

holding this Hearing. It is critical for Congress from time-to-time to evaluate how 

federal tribal programs can be improved. It is particularly important in years like 

this when important programs such as the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) come up for reauthorization. I also want to express my personal appreciation to you for inviting me once again to testify. It has 

always been an honor to appear before this Committee. 

Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing was the first tribal housing program to receive federal funding in 1961 and fifty years ago we at Pine Ridge built the first publicly 

assisted low-income housing on an Indian reservation. We are today the 5th largest 

tribal population in the country, the 7th largest reservation and we and a significant segment of Indian country face a housing crisis that has not been seen for forty 

years. 

Worst Housing Conditions in the Country 

Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing has built over 2,200 housing units since 1961 but 

most of that was done before 1996 and the establishment of the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. Sadly in 2013 our housing, and 

tribal housing on many similarly situated reservations and Alaskan Native communities, is far worse today than 17 years ago. Though NAHASDA provides us and 

many other tribes and tribal housing entities valuable resources, because of stagnant and reduced funding levels as well as flawed funding allocation methods, we 

and a large number of other tribes today have the worst housing in the United 

States. 

For at least a generation now, many of our people, infants, elders, vets and families have had to live in housing conditions that no American should have to endure. 

For these land based tribes, these conditions are also caused by poverty and unemployment rates that in some cases exceed 80 percent. At Pine Ridge and many nearby South Dakota reservations for years now our counties have ranked in the top 

five in the entire country for poverty and unemployment. 

NAHASDA funding levels limit us to building on average no more than 30 to 40 

units a year, yet we currently need 4,000 new units and 1,000 homes repaired. The 

result is that we now have the most overcrowded housing in this country. We have 

many situations where 3 or 4 families are packed into a single two-bedroom home 

or a family of six tries to survive in a one bedroom apartment. This overcrowding 

affects the physical, social and mental state of our people. Schooling is impacted, 

health conditions suffer and the family unit is impaired. Imagine what it might be 

like to live with 12 to 16 people in a small home. These housing conditions also fuel 

our growing tragedies of suicides, sexual abuse, alcoholism, gangs and drug use in 

many of our communities. 

I and our tribal leaders are most troubled by what these housing conditions do 

to a child trying to do his or her homework, a young family starting out their married life, our honored vets and our tribal elders who are attempting to live out their 

lives with some dignity and safety. 

32

My Tribe, and other members of a coalition for land based and treaty tribes 

known as A Coalition for Indian Housing, understand that these extremely bad conditions do not exist for all tribes, not even for a majority of tribes. And we understand that they are not caused by unique problems or performance issues on our 

reservations but rather are directly related to poverty, unemployment, lack of economic development and, most importantly, a serious shortage of financial resources 

to develop new housing. We appreciate the NAHASDA program and its grants, but 

we believe its allocation methods do not adequately take into account the differing 

needs of tribes and that in the last sixteen years there has simply been insufficient 

funding appropriated for the NAHASDA program. 

The Dakota Housing Needs Assessment Pilot Project 

Federal efforts, including NAHASDA negotiated rulemaking, continue to inaccurately determine the varying housing needs of tribal members and, in our opinion, 

fail to allocate federal funding appropriately. It is for these reasons we and four 

other tribal housing programs have taken the unusual step of joining together to 

fashion a global positioning system and geographic information system based local 

housing needs assessment procedure. This is known as the Dakota Housing Needs 

Assessment Pilot Project. We will each conclude statistically accurate housing surveys later this spring on each of our reservations. The project is designed to improve 

tribal data and program management. It will also give each of us the ability to do 

the ‘‘census challenges’’ that NAHASDA permits us to make under its block grant 

allocation formula. However, if results should prove out, we believe that this Pilot 

Project could have nationwide application and could change how housing need is determined on reservations and result in better allocation of federal tribal housing 

funds. It is our hope that, later this summer, our Pilot Project will be able to report 

to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

Management and Budget, and our fellow tribes that there is in fact an effective, efficient and relatively inexpensive way that housing need determinations can be done 

universally. 

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that if a GPS and GIS needs assessment requirement was to replace the current defective U.S. Census method in the 

NAHASDA program, tribes, Congress, OMB and HUD would also then have an accurate, reliable and efficient way to better manage federal funding. 

The Need for an Emergency Housing Effort 

Understanding the limitations of NAHASDA, the disparity of housing needs on 

Indian reservations and Alaska Native communities, and the unacceptable and tragic housing conditions that exist on some reservations, we believe new federal Indian 

housing emergency funding grants need to be established. There are a number of 

ways that this could be structured. The critical aspect of such a funding program 

is to acknowledge that there are significant numbers of tribes and tribally enrolled 

members that have extreme and unacceptable housing conditions. Furthermore, 

that federal trust responsibilities and, in some cases, treaty obligations require the 

U.S. government to address these terrible housing conditions. 

This funding, possibly joined by other private funds, would be allocated in a new 

way. The total appropriation amount would certainly be less than NAHASDA 

amounts. Furthermore, grants would be awarded using a competitive process, based 

both on need and a requirement that all recipients clearly demonstrate their capacity to spend the money they receive. 

Amend the ‘‘Thirty Percent Rule’’

There is a third issue that I would like to address for the Committee and this 

directly relates to the reauthorization of NAHASDA. I am sure this Committee is 

particularly well aware; NAHASDA was fundamentally designed by Congress to be 

a government-to-government, self-determination, block grant program. When it was 

evolved from public housing thousands of 1937 Housing Act rules and requirements 

were stripped away and tribes were given the right to pretty much create their own 

programs. The statute pronounced that NAHASDA had to function based on selfdetermination and tribal self-governance. Furthermore, it set a rule making process 

that recognized this and dictated that in all rule making the Secretary of HUD has 

to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee so that local and tribal determination would be part of this process. 

Unfortunately Congress failed to omit one rather expensive and burdensome rule. 

Instead of allowing tribes to find for themselves the best method for ensuring that 

low-income homebuyers and renters would not be unduly charged for living in their 

NAHASDA tribal units, the law imposed the ‘‘30 percent rule’’ that had previously 

existed in the public housing program. From the start of NAHASDA, tribes realized 

the cost and damage resulting from this rule. Being unable to change or modify this 

33

* www.facebook.com/TrailofHopeforIndianHousing

statutory provision through rulemaking, over the past 16 years groups like National 

American Indian Housing Council, regional Indian housing associations, and many 

individual tribes have, with unanimous agreement, petitioned Congress to modify 

this statutory provision and permit the individual tribes and their housing entities 

to develop for themselves the process and procedure for charging their low-income 

tribal members. 

The current ‘‘30 percent rule’’ does much harm. It costs tribal housing programs 

an enormous amount of money to administer, it diverts tenant service representatives from performing important management and tenant counseling services, and 

it creates an unhealthy and adversarial relationship in Indian country that often 

poisons individual tenant and tribal housing entity relations. 

In closing, I would like to make mention that in the last two years Senator Johnson, members of your Committee staff and a host of other Congressional and administration officials have visited Pine Ridge and other similar South Dakota reservations to learn of our housing conditions. We are most appreciative that they did. For 

the many others who have not had the opportunity to see the worst conditions in 

Indian country, we, along with Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing have decided to bring that Indian housing to Washington. Our purpose is to show Congress 

and America the overcrowded conditions that far too many tribal members across 

this country have had to endure. Next week facades and pieces of a deconstructed 

home from our first Indian housing project are being trucked to Washington, D.C. 

and put on display. 

Not everyone can go to our reservations to see these housing conditions, so we 

and our Trail of Hope * are bringing this housing to them. I hope that each member 

of this Committee and your staff will join us on April 17th near the Capitol to show 

America the type of housing that many American Indians and Alaska Natives have 

had to live in for far too long. 

Again, on behalf of President Brewer and the Oglala Sioux Tribe, I want to thank 

you for inviting me to provide this testimony and I would like to reserve the right 

to supplement this testimony in the next 20 days.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Paul Iron Cloud. We very 

much appreciate your speaking from the heart, very important testimony. 

Our last witness is Russell Sossamon. Thank you so much for 

being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CHOCTAW NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senator Johnson, Senator Udall, Senator Franken 

and Senator Heitkamp. Thank you for having this very important 

hearing today. 

My name is Russell Sossamon. I am an enrolled member of the 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. I have served there as the Executive 

Director for the past 17 years. 

To sum up my written testimony, I would urge Congress to reauthorize NAHASDA before September 30th, and also to preserve intact the statutory requirements for negotiated rulemaking in implementing NAHASDA. All of the details to implement the NAHASDA 

block grant under the NAHASDA law should be left to the tribes 

to decide through the tribally-driven negotiated rulemaking process. This process implements the government to government relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government. 

The most important issue we have, previously tackled through 

negotiated rulemaking, has been the allocation formula for the 

block grant. The formula is a result of countless discussions among 

tribal leaders and Federal officials which reached a careful balance 

34

of tribal interest. I served on each of these rulemaking committees 

as we continued to shape the program. 

The negotiated formula effectively serves diverse tribal communities and uses U.S. Census data to do so. Any changes to that formula must go through the same negotiated rulemaking process. 

NAHASDA reauthorization should be a top priority for Congress. 

Here is why. NAHASDA provides vital assistance to many people 

under challenging conditions. My nation, the Chocktaw Nation, is 

the third largest Indian tribe in the United States. Inside our service area, our population is 48,000, 41,000 of which are members of 

our tribe. 

Our land area encompasses 10 and a half counties in the southeastern part of Oklahoma, a land mass that is the size of the State 

of Massachusetts. We provide services to Native Americans who 

are not Choctaw but also who reside within this service area. Last 

year, through our health care, for instance, we provided services to 

members from over 148 different tribes. 

Our diverse and low-income service population has acute housing 

needs. We have a housing shortage of over 9,000 units. These units 

are in substandard condition and are not decent or safe or sanitary 

to live in. Many of the conditions that you have heard here today 

exist within our area. 

In my written testimony, I provided data regarding the Choctaw’s lack of sufficient housing and low-income housing, as well as 

the numbers of overcrowding and insufficient substandard housing. 

We provide a spectrum of services to address everything from 

homelessness to rental assistance to home ownership. As 

NAHASDA intended, we stretch our limited funding by thinking 

outside the box. For example, our Chocktaw Home Finance Corporation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is the lending institution 

created by the Chocktaw Nation that serves our Nation’s home finance program. It supports low-income home ownership by direct 

lending of NAHASDA funds and by leveraging funds from private 

lenders as well as utilizing the loan guarantees of the 184 program. 

Our home finance program averages 100 direct loans a year that 

now total over $38 million. Working with over a dozen other private lenders, like Wells Fargo, for instance, we originate an additional 84 loans per year. Over the last 15 years, we have leveraged 

over $58 million. We manage a loan portfolio of over $20 million 

as a revolving fund, so that the money can be used time and time 

again. 

Our loans help purchase, refinance or rehabilitate homes, or provide energy efficiency upgrades, thereby freeing up disposable income for our low-income families. We also provide counseling services to about 400 first-time home buyers, as well as home owners, 

each year. The benefits of the home finance corporation extend to 

tribal members living in Oklahoma, Texas, California, Oregon, 

Washington, Arkansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, to name a few of 

the States. 

The system helps Choctaw members add, and this assistance also 

adds to the property tax base in those communities. Just within 

our service area alone, last year the tribal members we serve paid 

in over $100,000 in local taxes. On top of that, an average of 10 

jobs were supported through each loan closing in the employment 

35

of appraisers, surveyors, title companies and legal services. This indirectly impacted 1,140 jobs in the local economies. Our loans made 

to Choctaw tribal members living in other States throughout the 

Country have an even greater multiplier effect, because we partner 

with those private lenders in those States. 

In conclusion, there can be no doubt that NAHASDA and other 

federally-funded tribal housing programs have dramatically improved housing conditions in Indian Country. But of course, there 

is always room for improvement. So we join with NAIHC in suggesting that Congress adjust the binding commitments requirement 

so that a lien must be applied only for work valued over an amount 

of $7,500. 

Thank you again, Madam Chair, and the other members of this 

distinguished Committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sossamon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHOCTAW

NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY

I. Introduction 

Good morning Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished 

members of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA). My name 

is Russell Sossamon. I am an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

and for the past seventeen (17) years have served as the Executive Director of the 

Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, located in Hugo, Oklahoma. I want to thank the 

Committee for holding this important oversight hearing this afternoon on Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions, which could 

not be more appropriate or timely as discussions begin here on Capitol Hill surrounding the reauthorization this year of the Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act, known as ‘‘NAHASDA.’’ It is an honor to be invited 

here to present testimony on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. 

I will first lay out some background on the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the 

challenges it faces in providing services to its members, as well as to members of 

dozens of other tribes who live within the Nation’s service area. I will then examine 

some of the reasons why the provision of safe, quality, affordable housing in Indian 

Country generally, and within the Choctaw Nation in particular, is such a challenge. This will be followed by background information on the federal legislative and 

administrative efforts to address that challenge, which ultimately culminated in the 

passage of NAHASDA. I will then provide some examples of the innovative and effective housing programs administered through the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, to show why this Congress should continue to support tribal housing programs and work to quickly approve the reauthorization of NAHASDA during this 

current fiscal year. Importantly, that reauthorization should include the affirmation 

of the negotiated-rulemaking process to maintain the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the Federal Government. Like all federal legislation 

that aims to accommodate the needs of many tribes across the country, NAHASDA 

has some minor shortcomings, so in conclusion I will point to an issue that Congress 

may consider examining for potential revision in the upcoming reauthorization of 

NAHASDA. 

II. The Choctaw Nation—Large-Scale Challenges and Opportunities 

The housing issues in Indian Country cannot be separated from the big-picture 

social and economic challenges it also faces, and the Choctaw Nation knows those 

challenges all too well. The Choctaw Nation is the third largest Indian tribe in 

America, with over 200,000 enrolled tribal members spread all across the country. 

In a word, the Choctaw Nation is immense. With that greater size and breadth 

comes even greater responsibilities that are placed on the shoulders of the Nation’s 

government to look after the welfare of its members. To add to that responsibility, 

the Nation’s service area encompasses 10° counties in southeastern Oklahoma, a 

land area larger than the entire state of Massachusetts, and within that service 

area are American Indian and Alaska Native constituents who may be far from 

their original tribal communities but to whom the Choctaw Nation nonetheless provides services. Just one example is the tremendous demand placed on the Choctaw 

36

Nation Health Services Authority (CNHSA)—in Fiscal Year 2012 alone, CNHSA 

provided healthcare services to patients who hailed from 148 different American Indian and Alaska Native tribal groups (including, incidentally, members from the Oglala Sioux Lakota tribe of my fellow witness here today, Mr. Paul Iron Cloud). 

With an increasing tribal population and stifling economic conditions that have 

hit tribal communities such as the Choctaw Nation particularly hard over the past 

five years during the Great Recession, the social and economic needs of the Nation 

and its members continue to grow. This increased need is particularly acute in the 

area of housing. 

III. The Housing Challenges in Indian Country and for the Choctaw Nation 

The challenges to providing quality, affordable housing in Indian Country generally and within the Choctaw Nation specifically stem mostly from the broader 

overriding economic realities that occur in tribal communities. While the country in 

general has experienced an economic downturn over the past five years, this trend 

is greatly magnified in tribal communities. Often there is a lack of basic infrastructure and employment opportunities. These employment and infrastructure challenges exacerbate the housing situation in Indian Country. As the other witnesses 

here today will testify has historically been the case at the national level, Native 

Americans face some of the worst housing and living conditions in the country, and 

the availability of affordable, adequate, safe housing in Indian Country falls far 

below that of the general U.S. population. 

The housing needs of members of the Choctaw Nation, especially given the large 

size and breadth of its population, reflects the great need across Indian Country. 

However, because there are also many tribal members from other tribes across the 

country living within the Nation’s service area, there are also unique challenges for 

the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, as shown by the following figures for Fiscal 

Year 2012:

• Nearly seventeen percent (17 percent) of the American Indian/Alaska Native 

population living within the Choctaw Nation’s service are tribal members from 

other tribes.

• Approximately 9,880 households within the Choctaw Nation’s service area are 

considered low-income, meaning they have annual incomes of less than 80 percent of the national median annual income. Of those households, an astounding 

29.7 percent earn only between 30 percent and 50 percent of the national median annual income, and even worse, 29.8 percent earn less than 30 percent of 

the national median annual income.

• Approximately 1,400 American Indian/Alaska Native households within the 

Choctaw Nation’s service area are overcrowded or lack a kitchen or plumbing.

• Of the American Indian/Alaska Native households within the Choctaw Nation’s 

service area, 1,939 households have a house cost burden greater than 50 percent of their annual income.

• In starkest terms, during the last fiscal year the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority had a shortfall of 9,080 low-income units.

In sum, there is a severe housing shortage in our service area’s tribal communities, resulting in overcrowded conditions. Many of the homes that do exist lack 

basic amenities that most Americans take for granted, such as full kitchens and 

plumbing, and even then many of the existing homes are in need of substantial repairs. 

As shown by the low-income numbers above that persist within our tribal communities, the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority (and more generally, the Nation 

itself) understands that, in order to address acute housing needs, it is necessary to 

take a holistic approach that addresses the poverty cycle more generally to make 

our tribal members and other constituents that we serve self-sufficient—this is how 

we move from homelessness to homeownership. And that is why the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority views its mission from a higher level with two prongs, one 

to address the lack of affordable housing and the other to address the poverty cycle 

that produces and reinforces such a lack of housing. The Nation and its Housing 

Authority truly believe that, to paraphrase a metaphor, although it may be necessary in the short run to give a man a fish to eat today, it is better to teach him 

how to fish so that in the long run he can eat for a lifetime. In order to pay a mortgage and become a homeowner, a person first needs a job to earn income, and that 

requires education, training, and career development. Like the partnerships laid out 

below that we use to address home financing with a variety of loan-assistance products, we likewise partner with other educational and social programs provided by 

the Nation as well as by the Federal Government and other local and tribal governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
37

ments to build the whole person in a variety of ways. The support we provide 

through NAHASDA funding and related programs is one of the critical pieces to 

building that whole person. 

IV. Background on Indian Housing Legislation and Administration,

Culminating with the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act (NAHASDA) 

Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance for Native American tribes and Alaska 

Natives was provided by various programs under the Housing Act of 1937 and other 

legislation. While these programs provided a broad range of assistance, they were 

administratively cumbersome and ineffective. They required separate applications 

and program administration, had different eligibility requirements, and were characterized by micro-management and detailed one-size-fits-all mandates. The programs were merely an extension of generic and often urban-oriented housing programs, failing to recognize the unique social, cultural, and economic needs of Native 

American communities. 

In 1960, in the aftermath of the destruction of Indian homes in California by fire, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs requested that the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) address Indian housing needs. In 1961, two major events 

changed the Indian housing landscape. First, the Public Housing Administration 

(PHA, HUD’s predecessor) recognized tribal governments as local governing bodies 

that could establish Indian housing authorities (IHA) under tribal law by approving 

a tribal ordinance. Second, PHA also determined that states could establish IHAs 

in cases where a tribal government was not federally recognized but exercised all 

necessary powers. Soon after, the self-help or mutual help concept took hold and 

was based on the idea that a homebuyer would contribute land, material, or labor 

(‘‘sweat equity’’) towards the purchase of a home. In December 1962, PHA announced the first mutual help housing program, and in 1964, the San Carlos Apache 

IHA launched the first mutual help project. Indian homes were developed under this 

program know as ‘‘Old Mutual Help’’ until 1976. 

In the early 1970s, there were high expectations for the Federal Government to 

work with tribes and IHAs to satisfy national Indian housing goals and to address 

the reality of inadequate management systems. In 1971, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a Congressional report on Indian housing that recommended a national Indian housing policy to stimulate agency coordination and 

accelerate the completion of projects. In 1984 HUD formally created the Office of 

Indian Housing (OIH) with its own staff to specifically oversee the development and 

management of Indian housing programs. 

In 1990, Congress established the National Commission on American Indian, 

Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, which two years later submitted to 

Congress a national blueprint plan for Indian housing. On October 1, 1993, the 

HUD Office of Indian Housing (OIH) at HUD Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

and the Regional Office of Indian Programs (OIPs) became the Office of Native 

American Programs (ONAP). 

In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to provide federal statutory authority to address the 

above-mentioned housing disparities in Indian Country. NAHASDA is the cornerstone for providing housing assistance to low-income Native American families on 

Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, and on native Hawaiian home lands. 

Since the passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and its funding and implementation in 

1998, the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG), the primary funding component of 

NAHASDA, has been the single largest source of funding for housing for Native 

American communities and in Alaska Native villages. NAHASDA also includes the 

Title VI loan guarantee program, which enables tribal members to more easily access home loans. Administered by HUD, NAHASDA specifies a wide range of activities are that are eligible for funding. These activities include but are not limited to 

down-payment assistance, property acquisition, new construction, safety programs, 

planning and administration, and housing rehabilitation. Not only do IHBG funds 

support new housing development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and other housing 

services that are critical for tribal communities; they cover essential planning and 

operating expenses for tribal housing programs. Between 2006 and 2009, a significant portion of IHBG funds, approximately 24 percent, were used for planning, administration, housing management, and services. Without critical federal funding, 

many tribal housing authorities would be unable to operate. 

While some members of Congress are now focusing on the unexpended funds in 

NAHASDA block grant accounts, and mistakenly conclude that the program is overfunded, they are wrong on the reasons for these funds being unspent and the conclusion they draw. In fact, despite the positive developments in federal law and the 

38

impact of NAHASDA, the funding it provides is plainly and simply insufficient to 

meet the existing and, in fact, growing housing need in our tribal communities. 

While NAHASDA funds are immensely appreciated by tribes and are tremendously 

helpful in beginning to meet tribal housing needs, they have never, in the history 

of the program, been sufficient to meet all of the basic housing needs of Indian 

tribes or to accomplish all of the purposes for which NAHASDA was designed. Like 

many government programs, it is consistently and continuously underfunded. Therefore, tribes and their housing departments such as the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority have been forced to think outside of the box and come up with unique and 

innovative tools to meet the housing needs in their communities. 

V. Innovations and Examples from the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority 

Out of sheer necessity and in the interest of promoting tribal self-determination 

and self-governance, tribes across the nation have begun developing innovative programs that complement NAHASDA programs in order to meet the tremendous housing backlog in Indian Country. The Choctaw Nation Housing Authority has been at 

the forefront of these innovations in Indian Country, in order to address the housing 

needs not just of our members but of Native American tribal members from across 

the country. 

A. United States Housing and Urban Development Section 184 Indian Home Loan 

Guarantee Program and NAHASDA Title VI Housing Activities Loan Guarantee 

Program 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to address the lack of mortgage lending in Indian 

Country. The HUD Section 184 program is a mortgage loan product designed to resemble a conventional, or private, housing loan program. There are no income limits 

for the Section 184 program. Local lenders become registered with the program and 

as such the Federal Government guarantees up to 100 percent of the home loans 

provided by such lenders to tribal members. Initially, the program gained acceptance in areas such as Oklahoma and Alaska, where much of the property in Indian 

areas has passed out of trust status and into ‘‘fee’’ status, meaning that the Federal 

Government no longer holds title to the individual parcel for the benefit of the tribe 

or the individual tribal member. Over time, the program has gained some traction 

on trust lands. Because the Section 184 Indian Home Loan program is guaranteed 

by the Federal Government, the program has provided much needed access to capital to many individual Natives that might otherwise find home financing difficult. 

The Section 184 program is the most successful Indian Country mortgage program. 

However, it should be noted that fewer than 20 percent of the Section 184 loans 

made to tribal members have been made on tribal trust or individual allotment 

land. More than half of the Section 184 loans have been made in Alaska and Oklahoma, and because of the unique non-reservation system of land tenure for most Indian and Alaska Native groups in those states, nearly all of those loans were made 

for homes on fee simple land rather than trust land. 

In March of this year, HUD temporarily suspended the processing of new Section 

184 loan applications because of an apparent exhaustion at the time of program 

funding for current Fiscal Year 2013. With the passage of the latest Continuing Resolution by Congress to fund the Federal Government through September of this 

year, funding for the Section 184 program, as well as the cap on the amount of loans 

that can be guaranteed under the program, were increased. As a result, HUD has 

stated that the suspension of the Section 184 program has been lifted and the program should be back in working order sometime this month. 

In addition to the Section 184 program, under Title VI of NAHASDA, HUD is authorized to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by Indian tribes, or tribal 

housing entities, if approved by the tribe, for the purpose of financing affordable 

housing activities as described in Section 202 of NAHASDA. Eligible borrowers 

must be a tribe or a tribal housing entity that is an IHBG program recipient. IHBG 

funds may be used as security for the guarantee or other obligation. The objectives 

of the program are to enhance the development of affordable housing activities, increase access to capital to further economic growth, and encourage the participation, 

in the financing of tribal housing programs, of financial institutions that do not normally serve tribal areas. 

I would ask that Congress in its FY 2014 budget process and beyond continue to 

support the Section 184 and Title VI loan guarantee programs with the necessary 

resources. To show you why it should, I would like to give you some background 

and examples of the effective good that the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority has 

been able to implement through these types of programs. 

39

1The delinquency figures provided here include the combined percentage of loans at least one 

payment past and seriously past due of 90 days or more. 

B. Choctaw Home Finance Services: On the Path from Self-Determination to SelfSustainability through Nationwide Direct and Leveraged Home Lending in

Indian Country 

Tribes are increasingly exploring innovative ways to utilize NAHASDA grant 

funds, combined with tribal funds and other resources, to maximize housing project 

outputs. The passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and its funding in 1998, as well as other 

complementary Indian housing programs, have spurred the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority to creatively partner with lenders or utilize existing funds to enhance 

the effectiveness, efficiency, and success of housing projects. There is no greater example of such creativity in Indian Country than the Choctaw Nation Housing 

Authority’s flagship program for home finance services offered through the Choctaw 

Home Finance Corporation. 

The Choctaw Home Finance Corporation (CHFC) was incorporated in 2002 as a 

501(c)(3) not-for- profit corporation to be the lending institution for the Choctaw Nation’s Home Finance Program activities. The CHFC is also a certified Community 

Development Financial Institution (CDFI) through the U.S. Department of Treasury, meaning the Federal Government recognizes it as a financial institution working in underserved and economically-distressed markets that are often times not 

served by other traditional financial institutions. The CDFI certification enables the 

CHFC to access financial and technical award assistance through such things as the 

Native American CDFI Assistance Program, among others. 

The CHFC is dedicated to successful private homeownership by offering affordable 

mortgage loans and counseling services to Native American families nationwide 

through its Home Finance Program, with a particular emphasis on serving low-income families who likely would not otherwise be able to own a home of their own. 

The Home Finance Program provides assistance through both direct lending as well 

as through the leveraging of funds with lending partners to increase the number 

of potential home loans throughout the country. (Leveraging funds is simply investing with borrowed money in a way that multiplies potential gains). The Home Finance Program has assisted not just members of the Choctaw Nation but Native 

American families throughout Indian Country with over $38,000,000 in direct loans 

for homeownership and down payment/closing cost assistance. The Home Finance 

Program also has leveraged over $58,000,000 through participating lending partners 

who provide mortgages as part of government guarantee programs such as the Native American Section 184, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development home 

loan programs. The private lending partners that CHFC has worked with include 

Wells Fargo, First United Bank, First Mortgage Company, First American Mortgage, Colonial Mortgage, Bank 2, Principal Mortgage Company, Arvest Bank, Gateway Mortgage, First Bank, BancFirst, Bank of Oklahoma, and Equity Bank. 

The CHFC has a number of loan products available to meet the variety of financing needs of the families we serve. These products include loans for purchasing, refinancing, construction, improvements, and energy efficiency upgrades. One of these 

loan products, a direct loan to purchase a new home or refinance their current home 

at a more affordable rate and/or term, helps families receive an affordable loan with 

manageable fees. It also includes extremely professional guidance by a staff whose 

mission is to enhance the lives of all members through opportunities designed to develop healthy, successful and productive lifestyles. 

Another loan product is a progressively subsidized homebuyer construction and finance service specifically for our low-income Native American families. The interest 

rate and terms are specific to low-income family needs, and the construction service 

is extremely valuable to those who need the added construction support from 

trained construction professionals. 

The CHFC also provides small, affordable streamline loans for home improvement, rehabilitation and/or energy efficiency upgrades. These loans help with necessary repairs to improve living conditions and property values, and also help with 

energy efficiency that results in lower utility payments, thereby freeing up more disposable income. 

The CHFC closes on average 100 loans a year for Native American mortgages and 

down payment or closing cost assistance. Additionally we leverage an average of 84 

loans per year with our private lending partners. CHFC manages a loan portfolio 

of over $20,000,000 with an average quarterly delinquency rate of 10.81 percent. 1

40

2See MBA Mortgage Delinquency Survey at www.mbaa.org.

This compares to the national average quarterly combined delinquency rate of 11.43 

percent, a full 62 basis points higher than the CHFC rate. 2

The Home Finance Program is designed to function as a revolving loan fund. 

Funds are loaned out to the Native American participant and paid back in the form 

of principal and interest payments. The funds are then loaned back out to other Native American participants. There is a multiplier effect at work within the Program—the more loans made, the more principal and interest is repaid and those 

funds are then used to provide even more loans. This truly creates a self-sustaining 

service that sets the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority and its program participants on the path to self-sufficiency. 

As a HUD-approved counseling agency, the CHFC also offers homeowner counseling services. Prior to extending a loan, each borrower is required to complete a 

homebuyer counseling session that provides education and information about the responsibilities and commitments required to be a successful homeowner. These sessions cover understanding, establishing, and maintaining good credit; personal financial planning and budgeting; and counseling to assist tribal members in becoming mortgage-ready. It prepares them for the reality of homeownership as to the necessities of paying for a mortgage, insurance, taxes and maintenance expenses. 

CHFC also provides post-loan counseling, include ongoing individual counseling as 

needed to develop the skills necessary to become a successful homeowner. The counseling and education that the Home Finance Program services provide help its Native American beneficiaries become more knowledgeable, less likely to become victims of predatory lending practices, and more likely to successfully manage their 

personal finances to become responsible homeowners. We serve an average of 400 

individuals per year through our counseling services. 

The benefits of the CHFC Home Finance Program extend well beyond just the Native American program participants, into their surrounding communities. Furthermore, the CHFC provides opportunities for Choctaw tribal members and others to 

attain home ownership nationwide by partnering with mortgage companies that 

offer Section 184, FHA, VA, USDA Rural Development, and even conventional 

loans, well beyond our service area in southeastern Oklahoma. The tribal members 

to whom we extend financing services—either directly or through our private lending partners—are predominantly located in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas, and Colorado, but also in many others, and 

these members add to the local taxes bases by paying annual property taxes. In the 

Choctaw Nation’s ten and a half (101⁄2) county service area in southeastern Okla- homa alone, over $100,000 was added to local real property tax bases in 2012 by 

the tribal members we serve. This too has had a multiplier effect—an average of 

10 jobs were created through each loan closing in the employment of appraisers, 

surveyors, title companies, and attorney services, totaling 1,140 new jobs in 2012. 

An even greater multiplier effect can be seen throughout the country, as the partnership of the CHFC with lenders in states that do not have tribes with their own 

Section 184 or similar Indian home loan guarantee programs means that the 

CHFC’s leveraging of monies from such programs can extend those programs’ effects 

to members in those states and likewise add to the their local tax bases, increase 

employment opportunities, and have other positive effects. By doing so, the Choctaw 

Nation’s positive effects are felt well beyond its service area in southeastern Oklahoma. For example, there are approximately 20,000 Choctaw tribal members living 

in the State of Texas, making it the largest tribal population in that state, and 

Home Finance Program assistance services have been provided to some of those 

members. In addition to such specific home finance services, since 1999 the Choctaw 

Nation has spent nearly $11.6 million towards the education and career development (including scholarships) of its members, not within Oklahoma, but within the 

State of Texas alone. 

These innovations and successes by the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority point 

to the effective good that can be done through federal Indian housing programs. 

They also point to reasons why Congress should timely reauthorize NAHASDA this 

fiscal year. 

VI. Congress Should Act Swiftly to Approve the Reauthorization of the

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, While 

Fully Supporting the Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Its

Implementation 

Congress enacted NAHASDA in 1996, establishing the Indian Housing Block 

Grant program for the benefit of American Indian and Alaska Native groups. The 

main goals of the bill were explained by one of its chief sponsors, Rep. Rick Lazio:

41

• Affirm tribal self-determination by giving tribes the ability and responsibility to 

strategically plan their own communities’ development.

• Provide the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of housing dollars, within 

strict accountability standards.

• Allow for innovation and local problem-solving capabilities that are crucial to 

the success of any community-based strategy.

• Avoid over-burdening tribes and housing authorities with excessive regulation.

NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 when Congress again reaffirmed the 

foregoing important purposes to be served by the legislation. That reauthorization 

of NAHASDA will expire on September 30, 2013. 

Congress must quickly and timely reauthorize NAHASDA prior to the end of this 

fiscal year. Without NAHASDA, is not likely that any of the success stories from 

the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority discussed above, or from many other tribal 

housing authorities across the country, would have been achieved. 

A. Negotiated Rulemaking Process: Keeping the Government-To-Government

Relationship 

Within the reauthorization of NAHASDA, it is not just incumbent upon, but morally, historically, and politically imperative that Congress refrain from statutorily 

changing programmatic features of the Indian Housing Block Grant program. Rather, those changes, if any, should be left to the tribes to decide within the context 

of the negotiated rulemaking process. 

This process has not only been used to effectively implement NAHASDA since its 

inception, but it is also the most efficient manner to achieve the original purposes 

of NAHASDA set out above. 

In accordance with section 106 of NAHASDA, HUD originally developed the regulations for implementing the Indian Housing Block Grant with active tribal participation and using the procedures of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 

§ § 561–570. The NAHASDA reauthorization legislation of 2008 amended section 

106 of NAHASDA to require HUD to initiate negotiated rulemaking. In accordance 

with that statutory directive, HUD provided notice in the Federal Register establishing the NAHASDA Reauthorization Act Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and 

asked for tribal nominations to serve on the Committee. The final Committee consisted of 25 tribal members and 2 HUD representatives, including tribal representatives from every region of the country, state-recognized tribal representatives whose 

tribes are eligible for NAHASDA funding, and the Assistant Secretary for Public 

and Indian Housing and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs. Six negotiated rulemaking sessions were held to achieve a final rule for the 

implementation of the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization amendments. 

Probably the most important issue tackled through negotiated rulemaking has 

been the development of the formula by which tribes are allocated funds under the 

Indian Housing Block Grant. That formula and the negotiated rulemaking process 

used to achieve it are the result of countless meetings and exchanges among tribal 

leaders and federal officials. A carefully-constructed balance of competing interests 

and ideals has been reached. The formula serves the diverse tribal communities affected and tribal leaders worked hard and long with federal officials to achieve that 

balance. Key to that formula’s effectiveness is the fact that it uses U.S. Census data 

to take into account the need of every tribal recipient of NAHASDA block grant 

funding. Any necessary changes to that allocation formula or to any other Indian 

Housing Block Grant regulation should be subjected to the same negotiated rulemaking process. 

The reason the negotiated rulemaking process generally, and the funding formula 

developed through that process in particular, must be kept in place is clear: the Federal Government has long since (and correctly) acknowledged that tribal representatives are the best decision-makers for policy choices that affect tribal communities, 

and even though the Federal Government has a trust responsibility towards tribes, 

that responsibility is best carried out by encouraging and supporting the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the Federal Government. That 

is exactly what the negotiated rulemaking process does—it allows representatives 

from tribes and tribal housing authorities to engage one another over the programmatic rules that govern their day-to-day operations, with federal representatives at the table to provide input, but most importantly, to listen and incorporate 

the tribal input into the final rule. This is exactly the type of scenario contemplated 

by Rep. Lazio and other original sponsors of NAHASDA legislation, because the negotiated rulemaking process without a doubt enables tribes to plan their community 

development, provides flexibility in the expenditure of resources while maintaining 

42

accountability for the good of all of Indian Country, encourages and spreads innovation among tribal representatives, and avoids unnecessary and irrelevant regulation. 

With the foregoing in mind, the timely reauthorization of NAHASDA, with the allocation formula and negotiated rulemaking in place to address any necessary substantive changes, should be one of Congress’s top priorities before the end of this 

fiscal year. Any lapse in the program would have far-reaching results in Indian 

Country. 

VII. A Possible Change in the Reauthorization of NAHASDA 

NAHASDA has undoubtedly improved the housing situation in Indian Country. 

However, like any national legislation aimed at addressing chronic and overarching 

problems in Indian Country, NAHASDA does have some shortcomings. Addressing 

at least one of these issues that has been a particular problem for the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority during reauthorization may help us and other tribal housing 

authorities more effectively address the needs of tribal members. 

A. Administrative Burden of the Useful Life Period 

Section 205(a)(2) of NAHASDA requires that housing units remain affordable for 

either the remaining useful life of the property, as determined by the Secretary, or 

for another period that the Secretary determines is the longest feasible period of 

time consistent with sound economics and the purpose of the Act. The Act also requires that this affordability be secured through binding commitments satisfactory 

to the Secretary. Unfortunately these provisions regarding binding commitments 

have been interpreted so as to result in the unintended consequence of creating a 

lien on an entire housing unit and thereby bind up a much-needed housing asset, 

for even the smallest binding commitments that were made for very minor maintenance or repair expenditures. Furthermore, this creates an unnecessary and heavy 

administrative burden for small maintenance and repair expenditures that are not 

even capitalized under generally accepted accounting principles. This is counterproductive and goes against the effective implementation of NAHASDA. We would 

suggest that, in line with the proposed amendments put forward by the National 

American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), the reauthorization legislation amend 

Section 205(c) of NAHASDA to make the binding commitment requirement applicable only to improvements of privately owned homes if they exceed $7,500. 

VIII. Conclusion 

Thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing me to testify here today regarding 

the challenges and potential solutions to meeting the housing needs of Native people 

throughout Indian Country, by sharing with you some of my experiences at the 

Choctaw Nation Housing Authority. Your continued support of our efforts, including 

a timely reauthorization of NAHASDA before the end of this fiscal year, is truly appreciated, and I and my staff at the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority stand ready 

to assist you in any way that we can. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions you may 

have.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much. 

We are going to start a round of five minutes for each member, 

in questions. I am going to start with Senator Barrasso, and then 

we will go from there, based on members’ arrival into the hearing 

room as the hearing started. Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to start with Mr. Boyd, if I could, reading through 

Ms. Bryan’s written testimony, she said there are concerns regarding some unexpended NAHASDA funds totaling, I think, $909 million; that represents a lot of potential homes for Indian people. She 

also notes there are a number of bureaucratic and logistical barriers to spending those monies. 

I am wondering what your agency can actually do to help expedite the use of those funds in an efficient manner so the tribes that 

we have heard from today and other tribes around the country can 

actually build homes. 

43

Mr. BOYD. Certainly, Senator. First of all, the funds that tribes 

receive are no-year funds. So these funds can move from year to 

year. In some cases, one of the reasons that happens is that all of 

the developments that are on reservations are construction developments. So it takes three to five years to accomplish this, and in 

some cases even longer, especially for some of the smaller tribes 

who receive small amounts of funds. They actually sort of bank, if 

you will, those funds and carry that over for a couple of years before they can even build any homes within their community. 

Those tribes that do have some problems with regard to expenditures, we work with them directly. We employ our regional housing 

offices, we do have six regional housing offices around the Country. 

We have set up teams that will work with those tribes on almost 

a daily basis to help create expenditure strategies, realistic expenditure strategies and really assess maybe some of the issues that 

they may have administratively, to see if we can’t make recommendations to them to streamline the process within their communities. 

So we do that through technical assistance and if required, some 

training, that is also the administrative approach to help build the 

capacity to expend those funds on a more timely basis. 

Senator BARRASSO. That was one of the concerns, reading your 

testimony, is that there are some times in spite of this day to day 

activity there aren’t real timelines for how to act on certain tribal 

requests, such as a waiver of requirements. So I think we further 

note that if HUD fails to act, then tribes actually can’t expend their 

housing funds. 

So I am wondering if you think there should be clear timelines 

in the NAHASDA for HUD to act upon specific requests from the 

tribes? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. There are clear time lines. And it is, I think, 

what the witness was mentioning was time lines with regard to 

waivers. So we do have set time lines in which to work with tribes 

on those waivers. Some times it takes a little bit longer in some 

cases because maybe the application of the waiver does not have 

all the information that may be required. So we reach back and we 

work, so it is a back and forth kind of situation. We try to expedite 

that as much as possible. We understand the value of the time element. But we also want to be accurate and we also want to resolve 

the issues on a timely basis. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Bryan, is there anything you might want 

to add to this to help the panel? Senator Tester said earlier we 

want to be more efficient, more effective in how tribes can use this. 

Anything you would suggest? 

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, thank you, Vice Chairman Barrasso. 

The waiver delay that I speak of is, I believe in the NAIHC draft 

also, we are questing for the local cooperative agreements. That is 

pat of NAHASDA, it is required for development. When we do submit those to HUD, there is no time line for their response. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay, thank you. And then for Mr. Iron 

Cloud and Mr. Sossamon, just thinking of the written testimony 

from Cheryl Causley, where she talks about trying to, in terms of 

being more efficient and more effective, perhaps achieve better 

economies of scale and the proposals intended to improve streamVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
44

lining some of the administrative requirements from the multiple 

Federal funding streams. What do you think of the proposal she 

has talked about in terms of combining some of these issues and 

try to make it a little more smoothly operating for both of you? 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. I guess I look at the NAIHC, I used to be on 

the board. I kind of got out of it. Right now I guess I am an alternate for our region. 

But I look at NAIHC to probably reach out more to Indian tribes, 

to help them in their everyday doings with HUD. Actually, they are 

our spokespeople for us in Congress. And I really think that 

NAIHC could do a lot more than they are doing now. That is coming from my heart, because I live out there. It is always hard for 

us to do anything. 

I have good friends at HUD in Denver, and I communicate good 

with people here in Congress, with Senator Tim Johnson. I talk to 

Senator Thune, I talk to Christy Knowle. But something that I 

want to say is that our money is depleting, it is going some place 

else. Well, we are going to have a hard time, I feel, these next two 

years, of trying to get a budget that is going to meet some of the 

need that is out there. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Boyd, last year Congress enacted the 

HEARTH Act to help streamline the land title clearance process. 

Do you believe that this streamlining will lead to even greater demand for a Section 184 home loan guarantee program, and how is 

HUD preparing for increased demand in the already growing Section 184 program due to the HEARTH Act or other factors? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir, first of all I would like to thank those of you 

that worked on that Act to make it reality. It is going to help us 

out tremendously and it is going to help us out tremendously in a 

couple of situations. One, it certainly is going to give the tribes the 

opportunity on a more timely basis to make land available for development. Secondly, though, which is a combination, and we have 

been working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the issue of titles, and historically to gain a title on a reservation, on trust land, 

has taken a tremendous amount of time. 

So what we have done in working with the BIA is to try to minimize that time so that the lenders and the borrowers can obtain 

title on a much more timely basis, so that the HEARTH Act is a 

part of that whole process. So if you combine the HEARTH Act 

along with the improvement on accessing titles, those two really go 

hand in hand. That would help us out tremendously. 

We know that there is a very, very viable housing market for 

home ownership on trust land, on reservations. We want to work 

with tribes and other Federal agencies to do more home ownership 

on reservations, because we feel that the more people live on reservations, the more money they are going to spend within the community and those communities would be Native American-owned 

businesses, so the dollar would turn over a couple of times before 

leaving. 

Senator JOHNSON. Paul, it is good to see you again, and I want 

to thank you for making this trip out here from our home State of 

South Dakota. 

45

I understand that you are undertaking the Dakota Housing 

Needs Assessment Pilot Project. How will you use the data generated from this project to improve housing on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. Thank you, Senator. The thing is, we talked 

about dollars that are coming to our reservation, NAHASDA dollars. We always get the same amount of dollars based on their 

count or however they do that. We have 4,000 people and I don’t 

know how many of them are elders. I think our biggest majority 

is 21 years, or 18. Well, this assessment is done by our people, I 

think we have 12 people working throughout the reservation, going 

to these homes, finding out how many people are living in these 

houses. How is their house, is it critical or is it in good shape. And 

we look at the land. We are doing all kinds of things with this oversight. 

I know, I know people are going to realize that they need to do 

more to get the actual count on our reservations to get more 

money. But like I said, we get the same amount of money, this year 

I think ours is, well, I think we get $602 million or $603 million 

based on the budget this year. So that takes about a million dollars 

away from Pine Ridge. 

So we aren’t going to be in the best shape but with this oversight 

we do have. I’d say we have hope. 

The other thing is, I want to bring up, we are bringing a house 

actually to D.C. next week. We are actually bringing it for Senators 

and Congressmen, staff, to actually see, this house was built in 

1961, one of the first projects at Pine Ridge. I just want to ask you 

to come and see it. 

Senator JOHNSON. I will. 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. A big thing is, if you could say a few words, 

we have some guest speakers, or I am really looking at the Senate 

or our House people. One thing I want to mention, too, I want to 

thank the House Appropriations. They came to Pine Ridge. They 

were there for two days and actually seen what was going on at 

Pine Ridge. I really commend them for doing that. 

The other thing was, we had Sandra Enriquez, she came one 

day. And she did a tour. She looked and she said, Paul, what you 

have been saying is very true. And she had tears in her eyes, I had 

tears in my eyes. Because there is so much need out there, and our 

people are not feeling safe. That is what I really want to express, 

because we only have 34 officers. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Paul. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Heitkamp? 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Just a couple of points and maybe we can kind of elaborate on 

this or sit down and kind of do some thinking on this. I just did 

a major housing tour in my State, not just of Indian Country, but 

all across my State. Our most acute and most desperate need for 

housing is in Indian Country. 

What is true in Indian Country is also true in other parts of my 

State, which is that if we are going to look at single family, which 

we believe ultimately is a goal, that we have families living together, we think that is the healthiest outcome, that is the best in 

terms of building community, but yet Fort Berthold, which recently 

46

did an infrastructure development project, developed lots, the cost 

of those lots is $85,000 without even putting a shovel in the 

ground. Think about that. And then think about the average incomes, even middle class incomes in Indian Country, and what it 

would take to build a project or build a home that was in fact adequate to meet the needs of the family but also affordable. It is impossible. It is not possible. 

So one of the issues beyond the financing issue that we have already talked about here, beyond the kind of, whether it is trust 

land or not, and I want to make a comment about that as well, is 

these high infrastructure costs. We have already addressed it, but 

if we keep doing what we have always done, which is, let’s support 

these programs, maybe beg for a little bit more funding, which 

doesn’t seem forthcoming, we will get the same result. And it won’t 

be a hold even status quo result, it will be backsliding, it will be 

continuing to fail. 

So one of the issues that I would like a comment on right now, 

or maybe later, is on any unique projects that you have seen that 

can in fact reduce infrastructure costs on single family housing 

lots. 

Well, the silence is deafening. And honest, because I have 

thought about this and thought about this, and I have not been 

able to come up with an adequate explanation of how we do this. 

Ms. CAUSLEY. Actually, the only way that I have found on my 

reservation to be able to help our clients with that particular problem is the housing authority, when it gets enough funding, will develop, the last one was an 80-unit complex where I think we had 

55 units that we put on there. We ran the water and the sewer for 

them and tried to get the lots ready. 

So we couldn’t allow trailers, because we are trying to bring in mortgage products. And we don’t want a $100 trailer next to a 

$70,000 or $80,000 home. But that did lower their price, but the 

hosing authority had to pick up the price to develop them at once. 

But it was cheaper to develop them all at once than one at a time. 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Senator Heitkamp, one of the things that we 

have seen in southeastern Oklahoma is the local rural water districts have put together a band issuance and leveraged that with 

other Federal funding to extend 25 miles of rural water and sewer 

facilities. But of course, that local government has that authority 

to issue that bond. As they hook these customers on, then over 

time they will service the note on that bond. 

So I think perhaps when we see models like this that work outside of Indian Country that we take those models and apply them 

in Indian Country. That to me would mean we would need to create our own authorities within our tribal governments to be able 

to accomplish this. But to me, I think that is the key to advancing 

the issue that you brought forward. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Just one more question in terms of safety 

and reliability of the housing long term. When you step back and 

you look at what children need, this is obviously a huge component 

of community. And if we don’t look beyond, and you have a great 

committee here, because there are three additional members that 

I can count who also serve on the Banking and Housing Committee, including the Chairman. 

47

So what do we do, working within existing programs, and what 

do we do looking at financing? Chairwoman, if you will indulge me 

for just one comment. When I was in Bismarck, we were talking 

about housing. One of the things the Bismarck chamber of commerce is doing is putting together a land trust with the idea that 

then those embedded costs would go to the non-profit which then 

they would be almost a little like a trailer rent, but not really creating that kind of housing. It would be more permanent housing 

and they will have to work through the kind of financing. 

I was struck by that, because I turned to the housing finance administrator who was there when I was involved with housing and 

finance in North Dakota, and I said, how will that work with trust 

land in terms of financing? He said, oh, we shouldn’t have any 

problem. Yes. That was my reaction. We shouldn’t have any problem? Oh, really? Because this is what I have been told for years 

was the impediment to providing traditional financing, first time 

homeowner financing, low-cost interest financing onto the reservations. 

So I think there may be an opportunity to collaborate with members of the Banking Committee, taking a look at traditional financing mechanisms, so that we can do a better job in bringing private 

financing onto Indian Country in our States and in our communities. So I am really interested in all the silos, including infrastructure and financing and affordability. This could not be a more 

important issue that the Chairwoman has listed as our first Committee hearing, in my opinion. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Iron Cloud? 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. We are working with the Federal Home Loan 

Bank and we are getting grants from them for renovating some of 

our homes. We just renovated 15 homes. That is complete renovation and that is around $30,000. And we got another one to do our 

elderly homes at Pine Ridge. So we are going to do half of them 

and try another one and do the other half. 

So there are ways out there, but it is tough to get any money 

right now. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Ms. Causley, did you have a comment on 

that? 

Ms. CAUSLEY. Yes, I did. Thank you. 

If there is a way that the members of this Committee and the 

other one, what we really have problems with and we could definitely use help with is there are programs sometimes offered 

through the States, and depending on what State you live in, they 

will either help you out a lot or they won’t touch you. Because traditionally, tribes don’t get along real well with their State entities. 

If there is any way that you could look at a set aside for Native 

Americans, if we are eligible for the program to begin with, it 

would help all the way across Indian Country. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I am going to take a few moments here to ask some questions 

and follow up on the question that Vice Chair Barrasso started 

with on the unspent housing block grant funds. We have had some 

recommendations to the Committee to look at what other agencies 

have done, something like if HUD was unable to meet the deadline 

for that request, that after that deadline it would be deemed apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
48

proved. Is that something that you think would be helpful in this 

situation? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, Senator. I think deadlines would be very helpful. 

As a matter of fact, in 2012, the Appropriation Committee set a 

time line on 2012 funds. I think they set out a time line of ten 

years, so it is five years to obligate and ten years to expend. That 

could be very effective. 

I also know under ARRA, there was a strict time line in spending 

ARRA funds. The tribe, I think we received something like $510 

million under ARRA. Half of that went out on a competitive basis. 

And those tribes that received those funds, many of them, I think 

it was maybe a three-year time frame there. 

But many of them finished up their projects in two years. And 

I think the time aspect of it played a very important role. The total 

expenditure rate on that was like 99.9 percent, and I am almost 

positive the time had a big effect on that. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Anybody else want to add a comment on that? 

Ms. CAUSLEY. It can actually go both ways. I believe that within 

the NAHASDA draft language that we have language in there 

deemed approved through HUD, should they not meet any of their 

deadlines in a timely manner. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. What about the low income housing tax 

credit? Obviously this has been a successful program across the 

board. And obviously it is something that has been used in a few 

instances in coordination with other housing programs. Are we 

running into problems with the low income housing tax credit 

being used more aggressively in Indian Country? Because it has 

been a very, very successful program from many different aspects 

on non-tribal land. Not only the benefit of getting the new units 

but also stimulating the economy. The fact that the Federal Government is putting out a little bit of capital but leveraging much 

more private sector capital, for very, very needed housing units. 

I am just curious as to why this isn’t being used more in Indian 

Country. 

Ms. BRYAN. Chairwoman Cantwell, we looked into that at the 

Puyallup Tribal Housing Authority. We found that it was prohibitive in several ways for us. Tax credits really need a lot of units. 

So we need to have land, we need to have ownership of that land. 

And for us, it didn’t pencil out. But I think developing capacity 

among the tribes, once we developed capacity and learned about 

Title 6 and what it took for us as a tribe to get a Title 6 loan, 

meaning clean audits and just having our books clean and knowing 

what the banks would want us to do to finance this, then we begin 

that process. So it was a matter of educating ourselves about the 

Title 6 program and partnering with HUD. We were able to utilize 

that program. 

Tax credits are complicated. And for us, we looked at it for our 

10-unit development, but it just didn’t pencil out. We are not able 

to charge rents to sustain what we guarantee we have to charge 

in rents. So back to the 30 percent rule, 30 percent of zero is zero. 

If we can’t charge anything, and we are serving the lowest of the 

low income, you put them in a tax credit unit, we are required to 

pay a certain amount. We are obligated to pay that. 

49

So there are some barriers. I am certainly interested in it. I 

think it is a great program. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Boyd? 

Mr. BOYD. I agree. I think one of the challenges early on has 

been capacity, building that capacity within the designated housing 

entities. But that, over the past 10 years, as long as I have been 

in this position, it has really exploded, I think, in Indian Country. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. What has exploded? 

Mr. BOYD. The ability and the number of tax credits that tribes 

have applied for and have received. I recall, I was in a meeting one 

day and we were talking to some of the folks from the Blackfeet 

Reservation. They have excelled so well in doing tax credits it just 

became a part of their business. And they were taking that knowledge and experience and sharing it with other tribes. I know up in 

Alaska, the Cook Inlet Housing Authority had the capacity and the 

ability to do it, so they went over to Bethel, to another regional 

housing authority, and partnered with them to obtain tax credits 

in the State of Alaska. 

Of course, one of the challenges is the competition that the tribes 

have to work within, within that State. I think there was a comment, maybe, is it possible to get a set aside of some sort. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Because there is a problem with the States? 

Mr. BOYD. In some, yes, it is an interesting relationship. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. There is a problem with States saying they 

don’t want to do low income housing if it is on a reservation? 

Mr. BOYD. At least from what I understood, there are some 

States that work really well with tribes on financing. And there are 

some States that aren’t as aggressive perhaps. And tribes have 

learned how to work with that in that capacity building. I think 

that knowledge is extremely important. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I am just responding to my fellow colleagues 

on this Committee who were talking about the incredible need that 

still exists. Maybe one thing, Ms. Bryan, you are saying that not 

everybody has the volume or units that would benefit or pencil out 

from a low-income housing tax credit. But at the same time, there 

seems to be a very large scale need on some of these larger reservations. This would be something that could be beneficial and tied 

into these other programs. 

We need to identify what the real issue is here. 

Ms. BRYAN. I would like to agree with Rodger. In our State, 

tribes have a very hard time competing for those funds. They are 

very competitive, and housing authorities who are much more advanced in grant writing and working with the State for 20 years 

before the tribes showed up trying to get a grant have their position to get the tax credits, and they are lined up for it with their 

projects. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Do you mean there is just a knowledge base 

within various communities about how to use the program where 

there isn’t within Indian Country? 

Ms. BRYAN. That, combined with the competitiveness. Tribes 

don’t get any special competitive edge. We are treated as a local 

government within the State when we apply for those tax credits. 

50

The CHAIRWOMAN. But that is the way it is for all local entities. 

It has been a very successful program across the board. We will 

have to drill down more on this. 

Mr. Sossamon, you were talking about the 184 program and your 

use of it and its success, particularly in your State, but you also 

mentioned Alaska. Do you have recommendations on how we would 

better utilize that on trust lands? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. I think one of the big barriers to utilizing it on 

trust land has been addressed through the HEARTH Act. Now that 

creates an opportunity for tribes to develop their own laws and regulations that this rule of law is needed by private investors to mitigate the risk that they would face in dealing on trust land. So as 

far as giving the tribes the control to issue the leases, the longterm leases that they have, that plus other laws to regulate the industry and give these private investors that assurance they need 

to invest their money. 

So I think we really have an opportunity to even expand on the 

success that program has already enjoyed and more so on the trust 

land. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. How many units has the Choctaw Financial 

Corporation done, your finance program? How many homes have 

you helped finance? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. We finance approximately, we do about 100 loans 

a year. Of that, about 25 a year are direct first mortgages. So over 

the years we have done probably 400 or 500 units. I know we have 

a portfolio that consists of over 600 units just within our area. And 

we have leveraged about twice that many outside of our area. That 

is over the last 15-year period. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Is there anything else that we should be 

thinking about, this issue of streamlining and pooling resources to 

leverage the housing grant funds? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. I think back to Vice Chairman Barrasso’s question earlier, if we could streamline the reporting requirements and 

the other Federal requirements that we see, also Senator Heitkamp 

mentioned that we want to partner more with all of our local and 

State entities. In this environment that we work in, we can’t work 

alone any more. We have to partner. And we have to leverage 

among the tribes, the other agencies. Because part of the key in 

solving the affordable housing issue is going to be a long-term solution, which means investments in education and career development, to raise the incomes of our folks. That is how they are going 

to afford homes over the long term. 

So we have to look at even those other agencies within our own 

tribe as a partnership and it is something that we trying to break 

this poverty cycle over the generations. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Iron Cloud, you mentioned you are doing 

your own tribal assessment on need. Why is that? 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. Why am I doing that? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I get why you re doing, I am asking, why did 

you have to do it? Isn’t there data that is out there that is reliable? 

Mr. IRON CLOUD. The data that we have isn’t up to power. Now 

we are doing something that is actually going to show what is all 

there. I just wanted to comment on the tax credit a little bit if I 

can. We may do a first tax credit program at Pine Ridge. The reaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
51

son why we never did it, first of all, our unemployment is 80 percent. How are they going to pay for that? And if they default, then 

the housing has to pay that, and that would bankrupt our housing 

authority. 

Right now we are taking a chance, building 32 units of better 

homes, for the homeless and in about three other areas that we are 

trying to do. But I am a little leery about paying this loan back 

over 15 years. And there is a lot of things that you have to look 

at. I have talked to a lot of guys and they kind of recommended 

we didn’t do it, because we need homes, we need to do something. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Boyd, am I missing something here, why 

we don’t have an accurate assessment across Indian Country of 

what the need really is? Is there somebody that is collecting that 

data on the exact need? 

Mr. BOYD. Currently, the Policy Development and Research Office within HUD and our program are collaborating and doing a 

housing needs assessment. That whole process is taking place right 

now, because the last housing needs assessment that was completed was in 1996. One of the problems that they had with that 

assessment is the return rate on surveys that they did was quite 

low. So this go-round, one of the elements which they are employing is to work very closely with those tribes that will be surveyed 

to make sure that we get a much better return rate on the surveys. 

I understand that maybe, and I guess what they are shooting for 

is 2014 to have that completed. So there is a process, we will be 

receiving some information between now and when it finishes. But 

we are hoping that is really going to update that need throughout 

Indian Country. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And what do people think about looking backwards now at the 1996 assessment? Was that a successful assessment? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t think people really felt like it was a success, 

mainly because of the return rate on the surveys that they were 

doing. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I think this is something we are going o have 

to deal with, along with the various issues that you brought up 

today. But if we are going to match success of Federal programs 

to address the need, we are going to have to have an accurate assessment of the need. I think my colleagues, Mr. Iron Cloud, they 

spoke from the heart about this issue. As Senator Murkowski mentioned, as Senator Franken mentioned, as Senator Heitkamp mentioned, they are trying to deal with it on the ground. 

And their frustration, and I mentioned to my own staff, you can 

look at these various programs from a programmatic level and then 

you can visit Indian Country. And they don’t match up. On the one 

hand, you see programs that look like they can be taken advantage 

of, and then you go to Indian Country and you see poverty and people living in the conditions that are being described here. 

Somewhere we have to do a better job of connecting this, the 

needs and the programs. We have to do the streamlining, we have 

to make them efficient. But we also have to take advantage of 

these programs that are out there, like the low-income housing tax 

credit that is being successfully used by big cities, small cities, very 

diverse communities all across the Nation, and figure out ways to 

52

better leverage the private sector investment as well. And if that 

is a barrier, private sector investment on this as it relates to Indian Country, then we should have a hearing on that and discuss 

how we overcome that roadblock. Because we want Indian Country 

to be a government relationship with the private sector, as well as 

other government to government relationships, too. 

So with that, unless anybody has anything else for the good of 

the order, this hearing stands adjourned. Thank you again so much 

for being here and for your testimony. The record will stay open for 

two additional weeks in case members have anything else they 

want to ask. And we would appreciate your prompt response to 

those questions. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA HOUSING AUTHORITIES

The Association of Alaska Housing Authorities (AAHA) is comprised of Alaska’s 

fourteen Regional Native Housing Authorities and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Alaska is home to more than 240 tribes, and AAHA’s membership collectively provides housing assistance to many dozens of those tribes in hundreds of 

communities throughout Alaska. On behalf of the tens of thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian individuals we serve, AAHA greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the United States Senate’s Committee on Indian Affairs. 

The Committee seeks information regarding barriers to Indian housing development and solutions to address those barriers. While the need for safe, affordable 

housing in Native communities remains severe, changes in federal policy that began 

in the 1990s have had a positive impact on the ability of Indian housing organizations to address deplorable housing conditions in Indian areas. To further address 

ongoing barriers to the delivery of Indian Housing, modest legislative reform that 

advances the spirit and purposes of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) is necessary. This testimony includes specific 

examples of such reforms. 

Background 

Prior to NAHASDA, housing assistance for Native American tribes and Alaska 

Natives was provided by various programs under the Housing Act of 1937 and other 

legislation. These programs were administratively cumbersome and ineffective. They 

required separate applications and program administration, had different eligibility 

requirements, and placed distinct compliance obligations on tribal recipients. The 

programs failed to recognize the unique social, cultural, and economic needs of Native American communities. For example, Roger Biles described in the American Indian Culture and Research Journal how ‘‘[t]he clustered housing prescribed for rental units clashed with the traditional living patterns of many Indians and, according 

to some IHA officials, resulted in the creation or exacerbation of problems previously 

rare in Native American populations such as gangs, violence, and drug and alcohol 

abuse.’’

In 1994, HUD articulated its intent to strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and federally recognized Native American 

tribes and Alaska Native villages. This created momentum toward the development 

of NAHASDA, which in 1996 established programs specifically for the benefit of 

American Indian and Alaska Native groups. NAHASDA was introduced in the U.S. 

House of Representatives by Representative Rick Lazio. In his remarks, Representative Lazio explained:

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

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

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

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

any community-based strategy.

NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 for a period of five years, and its authorization expires on September 30, 2013. 

Summary of NAHASDA 

NAHASDA recognizes the unique relationship between the Federal Government 

and sovereign American Indian nations, authorizing tribes to address their distinct 

housing needs through various activities such as construction, rehabilitation, modernization, rental assistance, lending programs, crime prevention, and a host of 

54

other strategies. Unlike previous housing programs, NAHASDA recognizes the Federal Government’s trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native peoples and 

empowers tribes to exercise self-determination in the development and implementation of strategies to address their particular housing needs. 

Implementation and Impact 

NAHASDA is unique in that its recipients have the flexibility to use funding in 

a variety of ways, depending on which strategies will most effectively address the 

unique housing needs of the Native American people they serve. Many recipients 

use NAHASDA funds to rehabilitate existing housing and construct new units. In 

FY 2012 alone, the 369 tribal recipients of NAHASDA funding used that funding 

to build or acquire more than 1,450 affordable homes and rehabilitate 4,700 more. 

Since the inception of NAHASDA, recipients have built, acquired, or rehabilitated 

more than 110,000 homes. George Cortelyou wrote in the Seton Hall Legislative 

Journal that NAHASDA tripled the number of housing units developed or planned 

by Native Americans per year compared to the yearly average over the lifetime of 

the 1937 Housing Act. 

NAHASDA also authorizes recipients to use funding for a variety of activities that 

do not involve bricks and mortar if those activities will most effectively address the 

unique housing needs of the American Indian and Alaska Native people they serve. 

A 2010 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that ‘‘in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, approximately 50 percent of grantees used IHBG funds 

to provide tenant based rental assistance; more than 50 percent used IHBG funds 

to provide housing or financial literacy counseling; and approximately 30 percent 

used IHBG funds to provide down payment assistance.’’ The GAO survey found that 

NAHASDA and its implementation were highly regarded among Native Americans; 

nearly 90 percent of respondents held positive views toward the effectiveness of 

NAHASDA. 

In Alaska, NAHASDA enables the construction of 200 new homes each year. It 

funds the rehabilitation of 550 more annually. Recipients engage apprentices in construction trades, helping Alaska Native and American Indian individuals to learn 

job skills that they will carry with them for life. Through leveraging and the engagement of private sector contractors and vendors, NAHASDA also employs 2,250 Alaskans each year. 

NAHASDA has been administered not only effectively, but also efficiently. Some 

in Congress have asked whether the current balance of obligated, undisbursed Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds indicates that NAHASDA recipients are 

challenged to expend the funding granted to them. The answer to this question is 

a resounding ‘‘no.’’

The frequently noted figures include and are heavily weighted by FY 2012 funding. Like any other capital program, housing development is a multi-year process, 

and recipients should have a reasonable period in which to plan for and build new 

housing developments. It is AAHA’s understanding that when FY 2012 funding is 

removed from consideration, at least 94 percent of all IHBG funds have been obligated and disbursed. 

In other words, a very small portion of IHBG funds granted in 2011 and years 

prior remains obligated but undisbursed. Further, it is commonly known that of that 

amount, a substantial portion is attributable to only one of the program’s 369 tribal 

recipients. That particular tribe is recovering from a HUD-imposed three-year prohibition on expenditures for housing development, and it has developed a thoughtful 

strategy to spend down its obligated, undisbursed funding. It is AAHA’s understanding that when this one particular tribe’s balance is removed from consideration, the proportion of pre-2012 IHBG funding that remains obligated but 

undisbursed drops to only 3 percent. The remaining amount is less than $200 million—not even one-third of the annual Indian Housing Block Grant appropriation. 

When explained clearly and in context, the balance of obligated, undisbursed Indian Housing Block Grant funding is not an issue that causes legitimate concern. 

To the contrary, it becomes even clearer that NAHASDA is particularly efficient in 

delivering housing construction and development in Native American communities. 

Barriers and Solutions 

To those who have witnessed the deplorable housing conditions in American Indian and Alaska Native communities, the need for further investment is apparent. 

In the southwest, many tribes and pueblos experience a degree of overcrowding that 

forces two, three, or even four families into a single dilapidated home. In the northern plains, many homes are deteriorated, exposed to the elements and occupied by 

some of the most impoverished families in our nation. In rural Alaska, many Alaska 

55

Native families have no indoor plumbing. Human waste is carried in buckets from 

the home to a small, stinking lagoon at the edge of the village. 

Improving these conditions means developing new housing and improving existing 

homes through rehabilitation, modernization, and weatherization. The most effective 

means of accomplishing these goals is the provision of additional funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant program. Unfortunately, appropriations for the program 

have not come close to keeping pace with inflation, leaving tribes to compete fiercely 

over the few resources that are made available. 

Periodically, the tribes and HUD engage in a negotiated rulemaking process to 

review and update the Indian Housing Block Grant allocation formula. Preparations 

for such a process are presently underway. The tribes, HUD, and technical experts 

will employ a consensus-based process to evaluate complicated issues such as the 

factors that are used to determine a tribe’s level of housing need. The process is 

open, transparent, and equitable; however, it can also be frustrating. There is not 

nearly enough funding to come close to meeting the need for housing in all Native 

American communities. Every tribe understands intimately the conditions its people 

face, and every tribe must confront the stark reality that no matter how funding 

is allocated, there is not enough of it to go around. Each tribe and each community 

deserves to receive additional resources to address their housing conditions. 

In the absence of additional funding, modest legislative reform can enhance program efficacy by enabling tribal housing programs to spend less time navigating administrative bureaucracy and more time building homes. 

The draft NAHASDA Reauthorization bill being offered by the National American 

Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) contain numerous provisions that would break 

down anachronistic legislative and regulatory barriers to the delivery of housing in 

Native American communities. The product of more than a year of outreach by 

NAIHC to tribes and tribal housing entities across the nation, the draft reauthorization bill produced by NAIHC outlines numerous opportunities for Congress to empower tribes to more efficiently deliver housing. It should be noted that NAIHC’s 

draft bill is a consensus-based product that has achieved broad support among the 

hundreds of NAIHC member organizations. 

Though AAHA supports NAIHC’s draft reauthorization bill in full, it offers the following as specific examples of important reforms that will improve the delivery of 

housing in Alaska Native and American Indian communities:

1. Modernize the 30 percent Rule. The 30 percent rule provides that a recipient 

of NAHASDA funding may not charge residents a rent amount in excess of 

30 percent of their adjusted income. This rule both threatens the fiscal sustainability of some developments and presents an ongoing administrative 

challenge, since residents must be routinely recertified to determine appropriate rent levels. The 30 percent rule must be replaced with a more flexible 

rent ceiling with less onerous compliance requirements.

2. Simplify Environmental Review Requirements. Projects involving mixed funding or overlapping federal agency jurisdiction may have duplicative environmental review requirements. For example, when a housing project is funded 

in part by NAHASDA and in part by USDA Rural Development, it may be 

necessary to conduct two separate environmental reviews. NAHASDA should 

be amended to provide that an environmental review carried out under 

NAHASDA meets and discharges all other applicable federal ER requirements.

3. Eliminate Conflicting Federal Labor Standards. Combining federal funding 

sources can result in mandatory compliance with multiple federal labor 

standards. For example, the HOME program requires Davis Bacon wages, 

whereas NAHASDA permits the use of Tribally Determined Wages. The inclusion of funds from other federal sources should not trump a NAHASDA 

recipient’s ability to apply tribally determined wages, which already require 

the payment of prevailing wage rates.

4. Eliminate Mandatory Compliance with Section 3 of the HUD Act and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 3 and Section 504 represent administratively cumbersome federal requirements. Because of limited economic opportunities in many Native communities, recipients have a natural incentive 

to hire low-income tribal members. Similarly, tribes are accountable to the 

tribal members they serve, including those with disabilities. Section 3 and 

Section 504 rarely compel tribes to act differently that they would in the absence of such requirements, yet they impose upon tribes strict compliance 

and reporting requirements.

56

Summary 

NAHASDA represented a positive and welcome change in federal Indian housing 

policy. It embraced the principles of tribal self-determination, including local decisionmaking and reduced administrative bureaucracy. The results have been impressive, with more than 110,000 new homes built, acquired, or renovated for American 

Indian and Alaska Native families. However, because of the sheer scale of the need 

and a lack of sufficient funding, housing conditions in Native communities remain 

some of the worst in the nation. To further address ongoing barriers to the delivery 

of Indian Housing, additional funding for NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant 

is required. In the absence of additional funding, modest legislative reform such as 

that within the draft reauthorization bill presented by the National American Indian Housing Council will provide opportunities to reduce barriers to the delivery 

of safe, affordable housing in Native communities across the nation. 

The Association of Alaska Housing Authorities greatly appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs regarding 

barriers to the development of Indian housing and opportunities to address those 

barriers. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOISES LOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING ASSISTANCE

COUNCIL

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the oversight hearing on identifying barriers to Native American 

housing development and finding solutions. Before providing testimony, HAC would 

like to thank the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for their efforts and dedication 

to improve housing conditions for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiians across the country. HAC’s work with tribal housing organizations has 

helped us identify barriers that federal programs can inadvertently cause to Indian 

housing development and we appreciate your concern in this matter. 

Since its creation in 1971, HAC has provided financing, information, and technical 

services to nonprofit, for-profit, public, and other providers of rural housing. Because 

HAC works closely with local organizations around the country, including tribal 

communities, we know firsthand the housing challenges that rural Americans face. 

In addition, we have seen poverty and inadequate housing conditions most notably 

in certain areas and among certain populations, such as Indian Country. 

NAHASDA Re-Authorization and Funding 

The ability to self-govern was a hard fought battle for most tribes. The Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) was passed 

in 1996 to further increase sovereign tribes’ ability to self-govern. Prior to 

NAHASDA, housing assistance to Native American tribes and Alaska Natives was 

provided through various programs under the Housing Act of 1937 and other legislation. These programs were often cumbersome and were characterized by significant 

input by the Federal Government. NAHASDA simplified federal housing assistance 

to tribal lands through Indian Housing Development Block (IHDB) Grants and Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants. Through NAHASDA, regulatory structures 

were reduced and tribes were allowed to determine how to best use grants with less 

federal interference. 

HAC supports the reauthorization of NAHASDA. NAHASDA is successful because 

it allows tribal communities to have the ability to decide the best way to spend 

housing block grants. However, for NAHASDA to work, the funding it provides must 

match the need seen on tribal lands. Over the years, Indian Housing Block Grant 

appropriations under NAHASDA have not matched inflation. In real dollars this 

represents a significant decrease in funding—funding has remained stagnant while 

the need has increased. For the program to be most effective, funding needs to at 

least keep up with inflation. Many tribes rely on the annual IHBG appropriation 

to provide services each year, and this becomes increasingly challenging when the 

funds do not match the need. 

Stagnant funding levels for Indian Housing programs prohibited tribal designated 

housing entities (TDHE) and organizations from meeting the need that exists on 

their lands. As a result, numerous homes on Native American lands continue to be 

overcrowded. According to 2010 U.S. Census data, of homes on Native American 

lands, 8.8 percent are crowded compared to 3.0 percent nationwide. It is important 

to remember as well that census surveys typically undercount and under survey 

57

1 Brandert, Melanie. 2011. SD native leaders divided on census data. The New Republic. February 22. Available on the World Wide Web: www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/contentEmail/id/

50371.

populations on the reservations. 1 This reluctance to participate in surveys stems 

from remnants of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian mistrust 

of the Federal Government. For example, in Charles Mix County, South Dakota, 

home to the Yankton Sioux Reservation, census data indicate that 2,893 of the 9,129 

county residents are American Indian, but according to tribal enrollment on the reservation, the number should be closer to 3,500. As a result, the need on tribal lands 

is often more than appears in official statistics. 

Stagnant funding is a concern that will only grow with time as Native American 

lands have a significantly higher population of children than the nation overall. According to 2010 census data, 30 percent of the population on Native American lands 

is under 17 years of age, compared to 24.6 percent nationwide. Housing is more 

than shelter; it is directly linked to security, health, and social and mental wellbeing. Crowding on tribal lands exacerbates the substandard living conditions that 

often exist therein. Social issues including lower educational attainment, substance 

abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect can be influenced by crowded 

conditions. Crowding affects health as well. Diseases such as increased incidences 

of tuberculosis, pneumonia, gastrointestinal disorders, head lice, conjunctivitis, and 

hepatitis among others can stem from crowded living conditions. Not only do substandard and crowded conditions negatively affect children, but they will require 

even more housing as they get married and have their own families down the line. 

This will require more funding than what is currently available. HAC is aware that 

currently some tribal NAHASDA funds remain unspent. This is not due to a lack 

of need, however, but instead demonstrative of the importance and need for flexibility and training and technical assistance (TTA) for TDHEs. Increased flexibility 

will benefit tribes and allow them to shape TTA sessions around their needs. 

Due to undercounts, HAC worries that federal efforts to determine housing need 

across Indian Country may fall short. Through our work with tribal housing organizations and our analyses of Census and American Community Survey data specifically on tribal lands, we have seen glaring undercounts of tribal populations and 

housing needs. We suggest providing more flexibility to tribes to enumerate their 

populations to demonstrate their need. Tribal members may be less hesitant to respond to surveys from tribal leaders than those from the Federal Government. 

Tribal lands often have significantly higher unemployment rates than the nation 

as a whole and poverty is often wide-spread. In fact, according to American Community Survey data, poverty rates on tribal lands are nearly double the national rate. 

As such, rents are often burdensome for many residents who cannot pay minimal 

rates. HAC recommends more flexibility for TDHEs to use and spend funds in ways 

they determine to be most appropriate for their residents and housing operations. 

Conclusion 

HAC would again like to thank the Committee on Indian Affairs for holding this 

Oversight hearing to identify barriers to Indian housing development and for the 

opportunity to provide this testimony for the record. HAC asks the subcommittee, 

and the Congress, to reauthorize NAHASDA, but include amendments that further 

push Native American housing self-determination. Tribes themselves are best at 

identifying and determining their needs and should be allowed to do so with as little 

micromanagement as possible. For the program to see success, it must be adequately funded. The housing need in Indian country is great. We appreciate your 

efforts in addressing this issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE AND HOUSING AUTHORITY

The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Housing Authority are grateful for 

the opportunity to submit testimony for the Committee’s hearing on ‘‘Identifying 

Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions.’’ This topic is of utmost importance to us as housing needs are great on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. 

The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is the largest reservation in California, covering approximately 144 square miles in the remote and mountainous area of Humboldt County. We have approximately 3,006 tribal members, the majority of whom 

live on the Reservation. Our Tribal Government runs several programs, exercising 

our sovereignty and serving the needs of our members. The Hoopa Valley Housing 

Authority (HVHA) was created under tribal law in 1968 to address the housing 

58

needs of our people. The HVHA has been in existence since that time assisting eligible persons obtain safe, sanitary and adequate housing. 

The most significant act facilitating the promotion of housing development in Indian Country is the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA). NAHASDA’s goals include: (1) affirming tribal self-determination by 

giving tribes the ability and responsibility to strategically plan their own communities’ development; (2) providing the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of 

housing dollars, within strict accountability standards; (3) allowing for innovation 

and local problem-solving capabilities that are crucial to the success of any community-based strategy; and (4) avoiding over-burdening Tribes and housing authorities 

with excessive regulation. 

NAHASDA is unique in that its recipients have the flexibility to use funding in 

a variety of ways, depending on which strategies will most effectively address the 

unique housing needs of the people they serve. The Act is based on the concept that 

tribes themselves are in the best position to develop solutions to the problems they 

face. NAHASDA’s flexibility, local control concepts and strong root in self-determination are very important to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which was one of the first 

tier of self-governance tribes and the first in the nation to have its compact with 

the United States signed. 

NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 and expires on September 30, 2013. It 

has been a success for Indian Country housing; it is effective and efficient. But this 

hearing provides a perfect opportunity to identify areas where the Act can be improved so that we can do even more in our effort to meet the extreme needs for 

housing in Indian Country. 

The Hoopa Valley Housing Authority 

The HVHA is the Tribe’s tribally designated housing entity and is the recipient 

of the Tribe’s Indian Housing Block Grant Funds under NAHASDA. The HVHA has 

been able to use the tools of NAHASDA toward meeting the housing needs on the 

Reservation. The HVHA’s mission is to provide the tribal membership with the opportunity for safe, sanitary and affordable housing by way of new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation and maintenance of existing houses. Our work not only 

meets the fundamental housing need of families and individuals, but it also promotes jobs and economic self-sufficiency along with the enhancement of quality of 

life with a direct relationship to our unique culture and traditional values. 

The HVHA employs 15 people. It offers a range of housing programs and opportunities for eligible persons. These programs include the construction and management of units of affordable housing to serve low-income members, and rehabilitation 

and modernization of Current Assisted Stock and other homes. We also provide 

housing units to 222 Tribal member families; 155 are homeownership units and 67 

are low rent units. 

Nevertheless, even with our several programs and efforts, our needs are extreme. 

The housing market on the Reservation is nearly non-existent. Because the reservation is in such a remote area, there is very little housing stock to acquire and the 

homes that are available are in substandard condition. The majority of all housing 

on the Reservation has been financed through the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The HVHA has over 200 qualified applicants in need of a home and even more that are in need of rehabilitation 

or modernization on their existing units. 

Barriers to Indian Housing Development 

Inadequate Funding 

Inadequate Funding is the biggest barrier to providing safe and affordable housing in Indian Country. The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, the mechanism for funding housing programs in Indian Country, must be funded at adequate 

levels. Currently and historically, the appropriations levels have been far below 

need and have not even kept par with inflation, resulting in decreases in real dollars in the last few years. Sequestration adds to our concerns about the impact of 

insufficient funding on our programs. 

The allocation HVHA receives is far too small to meet the needs of our Reservation. The allocation for new development is only about $600–700k. This is simply 

not enough as it would only allow for the development of 2 to 3 houses. While this 

would be considered progress to get families in a home, alleviating our need does 

not truly occur as, by the time these few homes are ready for families at the top 

of the waiting list, that amount of families or more would join the bottom of the 

waiting list. Even with all our work, the need remains constant as new families 

come in requiring assistance and join the list. 

59

Further, the allocation that many tribes receive is not enough to complete a major 

project. The Hoopa Tribe is need of major projects to address the limited housing 

opportunities on the Reservation. The HVHA is currently working on a major new 

construction project along with three elder projects and modernization of Current 

Assisted Stock. Our allocation is just not large enough to complete a major project 

such as the one the HVHA is working on with one year’s worth of allocation. The 

HVHA needs to save its allocations up year to year to have enough funding to embark on a project such as our Campbell Field Subdivision Project, which will add 

up to 10 rental duplexes and up to 13 single family homeownership units to our existing stock of affordable homes. 

We understand that some in Congress have raised the issue of ‘‘unexpended’’ obligated IHBG funds. The majority of tribes, including Hoopa, do not have problems 

spending down NAHASDA monies in a timely manner. In fact, we understand that 

overall NAHASDA has a very efficient spend-down rate. However, we also understand that logistical and bureaucratic obstacles can slow the actual spending of the 

money. The HVHA complies with the LOCCS draw-downs, and runs on an accrual 

accounting basis. We do not draw funds until the back-up documentation is prepared to support the amount of the draw. Having said this, HVHA is prepared to 

draw down a substantial amount of funds based on processed payment and checks 

that have already been applied to the bank. Further and significantly, the HVHA 

has signed contracts in place for the Campbell Field Expansion project consisting 

of 3 single family rental units, the 3 private elder home rehabilitation projects and 

the modernization projects for our Current Assisted Stock. 

At Hoopa, however, the IHBG funds are planned for and the project depends on 

this funding. The issue has been that for small tribes the allocation is just not large 

enough for such major projects and funds need to be banked until a certain threshold amount is available to allow moving forward with the project. 

Duplicative and Inconsistent Federal Requirements 

Duplicative and inconsistent federal requirements in the housing arena create 

substantial administrative burdens for tribes and tribally designated housing entities like the HVHA. They also cause delay in project initiation and completion. Since 

IHBG funding amounts are not adequate to cover costs of entire projects, many 

times tribes will seek out funding from other federal agencies to add to the IHBG 

amounts. This is a good practice as it leverages funding from NAHASDA, but it becomes problematic in implementation because the federal regulations governing the 

funding often overlap, forcing the recipient to comply with two sets of requirements. 

Compounding the problem is that sometimes these different requirements are inconsistent. For instance, the regulations for the NAHASDA IHBG funds and the regulations for the Rural Housing and Economic Development Grant are inconsistent in 

several areas, including in the use of Indian preference and in environmental reviews. 

Further, for the HVHA most of our housing is built on leased trust lands. With 

this, the HVHA is bound by the leasing requirements imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs which has its own environmental review requirements. With this, 

HVHA projects can be subject to at least 2 and sometimes more environmental reviews, each of which must adhere to the specific criteria set forth by the different 

agencies involved. These circumstances result in administrative and management 

burdens and additional costs, which can lead to significant delay in embarking on 

or carrying out a project. 

HVHA would support an amendment to NAHASDA that would allow for the environmental review requirements of NAHASDA for the project even when funding is 

provided by other federal agencies. 

Conclusion 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the HVHA appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for this important hearing. We look forward to working with the Committee 

on the reauthorization of NAHASDA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICARDO WORL, PRESIDENT, TLINGIT HAIDA REGIONAL

HOUSING AUTHORITY (THRHA) 

My name is Ricardo Worl, I am the President of Tlingit Haida Regional Housing 

Authority (THRHA), and also a member of the Tlingit tribe and the Shungukeidee 

(Thunderbird) clan from the village of Klukwan. I started working for THRHA as 

the Mortgage Loan Program Manager in 1999, a year after NAHASDA was enacted. 

THRHA receives about $7 million annually in NAHASDA funds on behalf of 12 

tribes (villages) in the Southeast region of Alaska. The 12 communities we serve are 

60

spread out over an area about the size of Pennsylvania, have populations of less 

than 3,000 and can only be accessed by water or aircraft. 

NAHASDA Works In Our Region 

THRHA has put HUD money to work and into direct services for the roughly 

9,000 tribal members in our region. THRHA actively provides the following 

NAHASDA housing programs:

1) New Construction 

2) Mortgage Loan Financing 

3) Down Payment Assistance 

4) Rental Acquisition 

5) Senior Housing 

6) Student Housing Vouchers 

7) Energy Efficiency and Emergency Repairs 

8) Financial Literacy and Energy Conservation classes 

9) Transitional Housing 

10) Alternative Energy heating systems

The 20 percent allocated for administration is not sufficient to cover the actual 

costs of running this many programs in this many communities. THRHA is able to 

subsidize administrative costs with other grants and revenue sources. For every $1 

spent of NAHASDA funds, we are able to leverage with $3 to $4 dollars of other 

funds from the state or private sector. 

Flat Funding is a Barrier and Poses Financial Challenge 

Federal NAHASDA appropriation amounts have essentially remained unchanged 

since 1998. When we take into consideration the fact that there were no adjustments for inflation, the net effect is an 11 percent reduction in NAHASDA funds 

since inception. 

Adding to the challenge of flat funding is the fact that the NAHASDA funding 

formula does not provide subsidies for operating and maintaining newly constructed 

or acquired units. Regulations limit the units to low-income families and payments 

to 30 percent of household income thereby eliminating the ability to produce sufficient rent revenue to offset the cost of operations. The result is tribes are forced to 

use their annual NAHASDA allocations to pay for operating costs or rent subsidies 

instead of new development. Any further reductions to NAHASDA funding will pose 

even greater financial hardship on a housing program that is proven to be effective. 

Our NAHASDA Programs Are Designed to Break the Cycle of Poverty and 

Dependency 

THRHA’s NAHASDA housing programs and tenant policies are designed promote 

financial independence and self-reliance. We have eliminated outdated HUD policies 

that enabled a culture of dependence. THRHA provides incentives for tenants who 

learn the value of using the home as an asset to get ahead and break the cycle of 

poverty that has plagued Indian country for generations. 

In addition to housing, NAHASDA funds provide jobs and economic opportunity 

to our small rural communities. The NAHASDA allocations for each community are 

commonly greater than the local government’s total annual budget! THRHA 

leverages its funds with a strong partnership with the State of Alaska and through 

private sector financing with regional banks. 

The Solution: More Funding, Not Less, Please 

We finally have a system that works for tribal housing. NAHASDA is not perfect 

but we have maximized its efficiency and impact in direct services to clients while 

at the same time empowering tribes in the decisionmaking process. Placing a cap 

or reducing NAHASDA funding is a step backwards and will likely cost us more in 

the long run. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZION, ATTORNEY AND JURISCONSULT

During the course of yesterday’s hearing there was a discussion of tax credits and 

section 184 housing, and as you asked Rodger Boyd about the data base his department keeps to show needs assessments, and he explained its shortcomings, you observed that too often the Committee hears one thing in Washington, and it hears 

something quite different when visiting Indian Country. That is a very true comment, and I want to build on it as I relate the views of a client to supplement the 

record of the hearing. 

61

My client is the ‘‘Navajo Public-Private Partner,’’ called that after the provision 

in section 101 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996 that requires all grantees to ‘‘make all reasonable efforts . . . to maximize participation by the private sector, including nonprofit organizations and forprofit entities, in implementing the approved housing plan.’’ This organization is a 

coalition of ten Navajo grassroots organizations that came together for the common 

purpose of supporting Navajo Nation government in the case of Navajo Housing Authority v. Resources and Development Committee, No. WR–CV–218–2012 (Navajo 

Nation Window Rock District Court, 2013). 

The Resources and Development Committee of the Navajo Nation Council exercises oversight over the Navajo Housing Authority on behalf of Navajo Nation government and the Authority disputed committee action on the approval of commissioners on the ground that some of its commissioners had a ‘‘liberty’’ interest to office, although their terms expired. The District Court, exercising great caution, entered a preliminary injunction against the Committee and required it to enter into 

discussions with the Authority for six months. Members of the Navajo Nation Council rightfully introduced legislation to clarify the authority of the Committee over 

appointments to the Navajo Housing Authority’s board of commissioners, make 

oversight jurisdiction over the authority clear and consider a measure to strip the 

Navajo Housing Authority of its designation as the Navajo Nation’s tribally designated housing entity (under NAHASDA), so the Authority charged the Committee’s members with contempt of court. 

The Navajo Public-Private Partner entered the case to relate the Navajo Housing 

Authority’s failure to do equity and comply with the law as an equitable ground to 

deny relief and dismiss the action. There was a hearing, and on March 19, 2013 

Judge Carol K. Perry dissolved the injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs did 

not have standing to complain of any aggrievement. The Navajo Public-Private Partner is primarily a grassroots coalition of organizations and it has supporters who 

could not be named out of fear of retaliation by the Navajo Housing Authority. They 

include at least two community development corporations, some private developers 

and one builder, so the ‘‘Partner’’ is truly representative of ‘‘the private sector’’ of 

the Navajo Nation. We note that there is discussion about the re-authorization of 

appropriations under section 108 of NAHASDA and we believe that the hearing, and 

other activities on housing in Washington, signal the beginning of that process. 

To build on your comment about the disconnect between what the Committee is 

told in Washington and what is actually happening in Indian Country on housing, 

we raise these points:

1. There is no ‘‘partnership’’ or ‘‘public participation’’ as required by Section 101

Dine’ bi Siihasin, one of the members of the partnership, wrote to the Regional 

Director of HUD Indian Housing Programs in Denver (who has assisting the Navajo 

Housing Authority with budget issues) complaining of violation of the participation 

provision of section 101 and he agreed that the Navajo Housing Authority was not 

in compliance. 

It is unfortunate that the structure of NAHASDA is one where the only interface 

is between tribes or their designated housing entity and HUD, the public cannot 

rely on HUD to protect their interests (given ‘‘self-determination’’ provisions as a 

barrier), and there is no statutory command for effective public participation, notice, 

involvement, transparency or accountability. 

Public pleas to be informed of Navajo Housing Authority activities are ignored, 

the Authority regularly ignores requests for information under the Navajo Nation 

Privacy Act, one cannot identify the members of the Authority’s board of commissioners on its website, so the basic principles of good governance mentioned in the 

prior paragraph do not exist. 

We believe that the situation is the same throughout Indian Country, given the 

structure of the act and lack of enforcement of the participation command.

2. The Indian Housing Plan and Annual Performance Report Process is Badly 

Flawed

Section 102 of NAHASDA requires the submission of a one year housing plan for 

review and approval at least 75 days before the beginning of a housing program 

year. The plan has detailed information that proposes housing activities for a given 

program year and justification for the same. Section 103 has no provision for public 

comment or appeal when HUD reviews such plans. 

Section 404 of NAHASDA requires recipients to report on program progress in 

carrying out the Indian housing plan after the close of a fiscal year and that the 

report be made available to the public. 

62

The experience with the Navajo Housing Authority is that its Indian housing 

plans are developed in secret, there is no notice of review by the Board of Commissioners and there is no public input when the plan is presented for oversight committee review. 

The HUD Inspector General commanded the Authority to develop an adequate 

statement of needs, to genuinely describe the manner of geographical distribution 

of assistance under section 102(B)(2)(B) and the Navajo Housing Authority has not 

done so in any meaningful manner. It has spent millions of dollars for a purported 

needs assessment that does not describe the need of the five agencies and the chapters and the Navajo Housing Authority does not comply with capital improvement 

legislation that requires notice, involvement and needs identification by chapter governments. The Navajo Housing Authority set up an artificial and meaningless division of its operations in five in-house organizations and they are meaningless. 

Annual performance reports are published only on the Navajo Housing Authority 

web site and they are practically meaningless. Reviews of past such reports shows 

that they are defective but no one in HUD seems to be reading them and noting 

inadequacies. 

We feel that, given the structure of NAHASDA to practically exclude the public, 

Indian housing plans are meaningless and only a bureaucratic exercise and reporting to the public is wholly inadequate. There is no meaningful public involvement 

in either process.

3. Indian housing planning and implementation is not ‘‘locally-driven’’

There are a few federal court decisions on Indian housing plans, and at least two 

point to the provision in 24 C.F.R. § 1000.220 on the ‘‘minimum requirements for 

the IHP’’ that ‘‘An IHP should be locally driven.’’ That is not the case. 

The Navajo Nation is divided into five large agencies and 110 localities called 

‘‘chapters,’’ and many Indian nations have their reservations or Indian areas divided 

into districts or identified local communities. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee 

needs to ask whether this regulatory command to assure that the annual Indian 

housing plan is indeed ‘‘locally driven’’ is followed. 

As mentioned, the Navajo Housing Authority does not follow the command of the 

capital improvement statute that it notify the chapters of proposed funding, plans, 

needs assessments, etc. and there is no meaningful chapter input. This is likely the 

situation throughout Indian Country.

4. There is no accountability or competence

The annual performance plan requirement is an attempt to have accountability. 

One need only read the past annual performance plans that are published on the 

Navajo Housing Authority web site and particularly note the report of ‘‘no’’ goal accomplishments to wonder what HUD does with such reports. 

Another recent development in the Navajo Nation is the Navajo Housing Authority aggressively litigating its exemption from suit, including recent attempts to extend limitations to any private sector suit against the Authority, to the point that 

the Navajo Nation Supreme Court is speculating about the extent to which it should 

craft exceptions for tenant and participant litigation. 

The point is that HUD does not require that tribally designated housing entities 

must comply with statutory requirements, there is no protection of the public and 

there is no effective accountability. We do approve the concept of self-determination, 

but if there are no meaningful statutory provisions for accountability, access to court 

or access to remedies when the law is broken, then there is no real accountability. 

The Navajo Housing Authority has bungled several projects, as is apparent from 

at least two of its recent HUD Inspector General for Audits reports, but one of the 

worst disasters was its defunding of a project to complete a shelter for woman and 

child victims of family violence in Shiprock. When the Navajo Housing Authority 

withdrew its support, without adequate grounds or due process of law, Navajo Nation government falsely used a determination by the NHA to block construction. As 

a result, an expensive shelter for women remains unfinished, at a large cost, and 

women and children are left without adequate refuge. This is of course an issue related to violence against Indian women and VAWA reauthorization. The Shiprock 

Home for Women and Children has had no remedy against the Navajo Housing Authority, or Navajo Nation government, because of sovereign immunity and no one 

has held the Authority accountable for its actions.

5. The Indian Housing Program is not democratic or transparent

One of the apparent deficiencies in the federal Indian housing statute on the 

books is that there are no commands or restrictions regarding grantee transparency, 

effective notice, inclusion, involvement, public information, accountability or effecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
63

tive remedies such as to make Indian housing programs truly ‘‘democratic’’ and responsive to the Indian public. 

These are only small points that cover five subjects and we look forward to the 

introduction of legislation to renew funding authorizations for this program. Funding for Indian housing must not be cut. It must be increased. The legislation must, 

as this hearing brought out, encourage and command partnerships, leveraging of 

funding and more innovative use of limited resources. 

The problem, however, is that such is not done. These points were covered in my 

clients’ friend of court brief in the case described above and my clients do want to 

be heard on future Indian housing barrier and solution discussions. 

Senator Cantwell, it is obvious from your comments to Mr. Boyd that you know 

that something else is going on underneath the surface. The Indian housing program is vital and self-determination is a proper model. However there must be 

meaningful reforms to the program to make it more democratic and responsive. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY

The Navajo Housing Authority (NHA) is thankful for this opportunity to submit 

testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for the oversight hearing on, ‘‘Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding 

Solutions,’’ held on April 10, 2013. We appreciate the Committee’s efforts to highlight the importance of Indian housing, and to hold a hearing that examines the 

complexities and innovative solutions to providing housing in Indian Country. The 

NHA hopes that the Committee will find this testimony both informative in grasping the housing development challenges on the Navajo Nation, and to understand 

and appreciate the direction that NHA is headed in helping to build sustainable and 

vibrant communities. 

The NHA is the Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) for the Navajo Nation. NHA is the largest Indian housing authority, and is nearly the eighth largest 

public housing authority in the United States. NHA is comparable in size to the 

public housing agency for the City of Atlanta. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United States, with a total enrollment of approximately 300,048 

tribal members, and the reservation has a land-base of 26,897 square miles that extends into the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 

Comprised of 375 employees and staff, NHA manages 8,026 housing units that 

consist of approximately 3,882 public rental units and 4,144 homeownership units 

including 29 separate administrative facilities. There are fifteen separate field offices and one residential Management Corporation managed by NHA to deliver service to tribal members residing within 110 Chapters (local regional government 

units) and their surrounding communities. It is important to note that the NHA is 

an anomaly in the public housing sector—there is no large-scale public housing provider like NHA that operates in an expansive rural reservation area with unique 

land issues. 

The housing development challenges on the Navajo are complex because of our 

sheer scale of operation, tribal land status and socio-economic conditions. 

The mission of NHA is Housing our Nation by Growing Sustainable Communities. 

On May 1, 2013, the NHA will move into a new chapter in its history as it celebrates its 50th year in operation. The 50th anniversary of NHA will be more than 

a celebration of its past success, but it will be a commencement to inaugurate a new 

vision for the next 50 years to come. This year alone NHA is on track to build and 

modernize 537 homes across the Navajo Nation. After completing an expansive scientifically based housing needs assessment in 2011, the organization forged ahead 

on an initiative to create a sustainable community master plan for the entire Navajo 

Nation—a master plan that will help NHA execute large-scale housing development 

projects in the coming years. Even more, the organization is expanding the veterans 

housing program and transforming its homeownership program to include individuals from low, moderate and high incomes, so that all Navajo families can partake 

in the dream of homeownership. It is the goal of NHA to help build a home for every 

Navajo family while strengthening the socio-economic fabric of the Navajo Nation. 

Indian Housing Drives Community and Economic Development 

NHA understands that housing is a key component to community and economic 

development. It establishes a foundation for positive growth by increasing structure 

and security. As the availability of housing helps sustain a growing population, it 

increases the chances of establishing needs for better schools, better health care, 

more business start-up opportunities, in turn, creating more jobs. In brief, here are 

a few ways housing drives community and economic development.

64

• Grows Infrastructure: In many Navajo communities on the reservation there 

were no power-lines, telephone lines or even roads before houses were constructed. Housing created the infrastructure and helped further develop the 

communities.

• Better Schools: Indian educators say that the lack of housing impacts retention 

and recruitment of quality teachers, therefore impacting the value of an education received on the reservation.

• More Businesses: More development creates more business opportunities, such 

as gas stations, restaurants, fast food, and other small businesses.

• Creates Transportation: Housing creates transportation needs for the community bringing roads to access schools, businesses, and other developments. (i.e. 

roads need to be built which requires personnel to oversee and maintain roads.)

• Better Health Care: Indian health reports state that a major cause to poor 

health care in Navajo communities is the inability to attract and retain quality 

medical staff. This is primarily due to the lack of housing on the reservation.

• Grows the tax base: Housing facilitates business development and job creation. 

More businesses and jobs create a healthy tax base which in turn provides services to the Navajo people such as schools, hospitals, public safety and roads.

Since housing impacts the community development and economic growth, to fully 

build sustainable Navajo communities NHA is executing strategies to create largescale housing development that integrates larger community and economic development goals. 

Barriers to Housing Development on the Navajo Nation 

While there are many barriers to housing development in Indian Country, the 

NHA would like to focus attention on the larger unique housing development challenges that exist on the Navajo Nation. Those bigger challenges are the absence of 

large-scale land-use planning, numerous federal and tribal regulations on land-use, 

lack of infrastructure development, and scarcity of investment and funding for housing and community development. 

The Navajo reservation area is very rural and expansive, and most of the land 

is predominantly trust land which brings with it limitations on its immediate use, 

and this has been a major issue for any housing or community developments efforts. 

Much of the reservation lacks modern basic infrastructure, such as paved roads, 

electrical power-lines, telecommunications, and potable water and sewer systems. 

Providing this infrastructure is difficult because of the vast and varied rustic nature 

of the land. Moreover, many of the smaller Navajo communities do not have close 

access to healthcare or emergency response systems, and schools. It is not uncommon for tribal members to travel hours to see a doctor, seek social services, or to 

buy groceries. Many Navajo children can spend countless hours on buses to travel 

to-and-from their closest school. 

The numerous and pervasive federal and tribal laws and regulations over land 

use create undue delays in housing development projects. From a federal compliance 

perspective NAHASDA is a very technical program because any development requires complying with NAHASDA program statutes and regulations, and a myriad 

of other applicable regulations. The process of housing construction, including related infrastructure, triggers other federal laws and their compliance with regulations and oversight in several other federal agencies and funding partners. These 

include, but are not limited to, environment reviews and clearances (Environmental 

Protection Agency), procurement laws (Office of Management and Budget), labor 

laws (Department of Labor), architecture/engineering, contract laws and administration, building code compliance and inspections, and among many other federal agency laws and regulations. When it comes to leveraged financing, NHA must meet outlined funding requirements from several federal agencies—including the Department of Agriculture for rural housing, Department of Transportation for road construction, IRS for Tax Credits, etc. 

Attaining land leases for housing and infrastructure projects has been a major 

barrier to timely housing development. However, the Navajo government was a 

leader in successfully pushing for federal reform of the federal land leasing guidelines in 2000 by having Congress enact the Navajo Nation Trust Land Leasing Act 

(25 U.S.C. § 415(e). The Navajo Leasing Act authorizes the Navajo Nation to negotiate and enter into lease agreements and renewals of leases of trust lands without 

the requirement that the Secretary review and approve such leases. The Act required the Navajo Nation to develop regulations governing such leases including, 

among other requirements, an environmental review process, before it could institute its own land leasing regime. In July 2006, the Secretary approved the Navajo 

65

Nation’s leasing regulations. The Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal 

Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), which became law in 2012, was modeled after 

the Navajo Leasing Act. Both laws change the face of leasing on Indian Country by 

providing tribes local authority over leasing on tribal trust land. 

While the Navajo government has pursued and gained federal reform, leasing on 

Navajo trust land still holds some internal challenges. Unlike other tribes, Navajo 

has a more traditional form of land-use management that includes grazing rights 

arrangements in which familial grazing areas continue to be recognized, and accepted. These ‘‘rights’’ to the land are afforded to some citizens. Moreover, the Navajo 

government structure is largely decentralized with 110 regionalized communities, 

called Chapter-governments, which have local authority over most development 

within their jurisdiction. When undertaking any housing project, the NHA consults 

and coordinates projects with the local Chapter-governments to not only ensure that 

the project is meeting its intended outcome, but to also coordinate land availability, 

leasing authority, and collaboration for joint infrastructure development. 

Another major internal challenge to housing development is the Navajo government’s own review process for any major development activity requiring tribal approval, and execution of contracts using federal funds allocated to the Navajo Nation, or amendments to those contracts. The process, known as the 164 review process, is outlined in the Navajo Nation Code and was created to ensure proper internal controls were provided for major activities. However, over the years the process 

has become cumbersome. For any one housing project NHA may engage in the 164 

review process for the following approvals: site selection and land withdrawal, execution of a memorandum of agreement with a local Chapter-government, review and 

sign contracts to procure an architectural and engineering firm and building contractor, and to make any amendments to major contracts. The process can take anywhere from a month to several months. According to an internal analysis, the 164 

review process takes 68 percent of a project’s time, leaving only 17 percent of the 

total time spent on actual construction. A housing project could be stalled for 

months should there be a modification to the project that requires an amendment 

to the contract. With short building cycles and project timelines the 164 process can 

greater delay a housing project—some projects may take anywhere from four to nine 

years to complete. 

The NHA was pleased to hear that on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, that Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly had signed an executive order that would streamline the 

164 review process. Through signing Navajo Nation Executive Order 07–2013 the 

Navajo President states that the review process will be shortened to take no longer 

than one month, and the measure strongly encourages the tribal government reviewers to provide more timely reviews. The new process, which will be operational 

on July 1, 2013 is encouraging news to the NHA, and if successful will help to shorten the internal delays caused by the tribal government review. It is important for 

the Federal Government to understand that, unlike other tribes, the Navajo Nation 

government is a large entity handling considerable duties and responsibilities and 

its operations are comparable in size to a state government. While NHA encourages 

the Navajo government to streamline its internal processes, it also understands the 

unique limitations that the government is placed in, and will work in partnership 

with the tribal government to overcome these internal challenges. 

How NHA is Addressing the Housing Need 

After experiencing a reorganization of the NHA in 2007, the new leadership (including the Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Commissioners) set on a path 

to create a multi-faceted approach to address the unique internal and external barriers to housing development on the Navajo Nation. NHA discovered that the organization needed to launch several initiatives that would lay the groundwork for 

large-scale sustainable housing and community development. First, the organization 

figured it would start by assessing and analyzing its current housing need on the 

Navajo Nation. From 2009 to 2011, the organization completed a comprehensive scientifically sound housing needs assessment study for the Navajo Nation. Simultaneously, the NHA built a technologically advanced land information management 

system that would provide a tool and resource for planning while meeting an unmet 

need for flood plain maps. With these resources in hand, NHA took the planning 

process a step further and began a monumental effort to complete a sustainable 

community master plan for the entire Navajo Nation that would aid in large scale 

housing development. And finally, the organization initiated the development of an 

expanded homeownership program that includes financing options for individuals 

and families from low, moderate and high income levels. 

66

Navajo Housing Needs Assessment Study 

In 2008, NHA began planning its housing needs study to build a gauge and a 

baseline to measure the housing need on the Navajo reservation. No prior study had 

ever been completed. The overall outcome that NHA desired was to have a comprehensive assessment conducted through surveys, and to house a database system 

that would serve as a repository of data that could be retrieved, sifted, screened and 

analyzed. Based on numbers from the 2000 Census, there were approximately 

44,000 households on the reservation and it was the goal to garner a 25 percent 

representative statistical sampling to achieve a 95 percent confidence level in the 

data. The firm Tribal Data Resources, Inc. was retained to assist in the development 

of the household survey instrument. 200 local Navajo community members were 

hired as enumerators. Surveyors used Global Positioning System technology to document rural Navajo home-sites that were not located in existing housing projects or 

available maps. 

The housing needs assessment study was completed in August 2011. It is the first 

study of its kind ever conducted for the Navajo Nation using a statistically sound 

representative sampling of family households on the Navajo reservation. The study 

revealed astonishing statistics—it showed that the Navajo Nation needs 34,100 new 

homes and 34,300 existing homes are in need of major repair. The total equates to 

$9 billion in unmet need.

It is ironic that subsequent to the launch of the NHA Housing Needs Assessment 

Study, the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act was enacted, which required HUD 

to perform a Housing Needs Study that will identify Native American housing 

needs. HUD launched its study in 2010 but has yet to even start its survey process, 

and is tied up in consultations because tribes are concerned about the methodology 

and planned approach of how the study is to be conducted and completed. The NHA 

will recommend to HUD to attach the Navajo Nation Housing Needs study as a supplement to the overall HUD Report, when completed. 

NHA Land Information Management System 

NHA undertook the daunting task and challenge of surveying the Navajo Nation’s 

17 million acres of mountainous high desert terrain to be incorporated into a sophisticated Land Information Management System (LIMS). The main goal of the project 

was to create, collect, maintain accurate floodplain delineation information and develop, implement and maintain a modern land and geographic information management system that is horizontally and vertically integrated and one that provides 

useful quality data for NHA’s housing development purposes. Prior to the completion of the NHA–LIMS, the organization had to procure entirely new floodplain 

maps for projects in a large portion of the reservation because no maps existed. In 

other regions of the reservation another problem existed because there were too 

many map systems with no standardization of information. NHA’s solution to both 

problems was to create a unique coordinate system that covers the entire Navajo 

Nation, thus in turn improving accuracy and efficiency all while meeting Federal 

Geodetic Control Subcommittee (FGCS) standards. 

Broken into two phases, the project required ground control surveying and digital 

aerial photography. Using a digital mapping camera NHA’s land survey department 

photographed the entire Navajo Nation at a 2-foot resolution. Once the images were 

taken the next step was to rectify the images for horizontal accuracy to meet Federal Geodetic Data Committee and FGCS data accuracy standards. A total of 3,229 

aerial images were taken which were then stitched together into 5,000 x 5,000 

meter tiles. The final deliverable was a seamless image of the entire Navajo Nation. 

Unlike other mapping applications such as Google maps, which can provide an inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK

410a1.eps
67

consistent mapping plane and odd discolorations, NHA LIMS offers a seamless 

image of the Navajo Nation with superior image resolution. 

The second part of the project, Land Information Management System and Data 

Integration, involved the analysis of certain computer system requirements to ensure the stability of the LIMS. Next, documents of the aerial data were then 

scanned into the LIMS programs followed by the identification and incorporation of 

existing Navajo data layers, which included Chapter-government boundaries, the 

Navajo road network provided by the Navajo Department of Transportation, and the 

integration of data on water, sewer, and electric infrastructure provided by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. 

Full implementation of the LIMS was completed in 2012. Some of the applications 

the LIMS can be incorporated to include is a baseline database for E911 and rural 

addressing, disaster recovery services, parcel mapping, flood plain studies, master 

and land use planning, cultural and historical preservation, utilities mapping, asset 

tracking (including title conveyance and home-site leases), project survey control, 

tree and vegetation delineation, Navajo Nation road inventory, natural resources 

management, residential development, realty, land records management, land title 

plant, topographic and planimetric mapping, elevation modeling, volumetric inventories, and NHA enforcement and geospatial data validation. The LIMS program 

will provide an array of professional land & geographic information management 

services. Its uses are limitless. Overall, the project will improve NHA land records 

accuracy and minimize overall costs by reducing duplication with promoting data 

compatibility to increase efficiency and yield land information readily available to 

NHA housing development projects. 

Navajo Nation Sustainable Community Master Plan 

The data revealed from the Navajo Housing needs assessment study showed a 

huge unmet need in housing, but it also painted an across-the-board picture of the 

demographics of the entire Navajo populace, and a snapshot of every community on 

the reservation. The impetus for this major first-ever initiative was due to the fact 

that NHA had no more withdrawn land to build homes, and development was limited to only in-fill development; however, there was a tremendous documented housing need. Additionally, infrastructure is the costliest component for development 

and NHA needed to share costs for integrated infrastructure for not only housing 

but local community and economic development in a regional setting approach. The 

NHA leadership understood that using smart growth principles optimizes land use 

with the underlying goal of sustainability in mind. 

The project was started a year ago, and to date Swaback Partners, PLLC, lead 

by Vernon Swaback, has completed 5 agency kick-off meetings, 24 regional workshops and has delivered 110 community master planning manuals to each of the 110 

Chapter-governments. In addition to the 5 agency meetings and the 24 regional 

workshops, Swaback also held a workshop for students at the Arizona State University to gather input and perspectives from the youth on what they envision their 

Navajo communities to look like in the future. ‘‘We wanted to hear from the youth 

because they are a huge part of the community,’’ said NHA CEO, Aneva J. Yazzie. 

‘‘The youth are our future leaders, they are going to be the future community members and workers.’’

For fiscal planning it was important for NHA to know how many houses the organization is going to build five to ten years down the road, and how much it is going 

to cost. In the past, NHA has focused its efforts on low income housing but the vision is to build apartments, employee housing, offer mortgage programs, and clustered housing to serve families from all income levels. Another goal with the master 

plans is to entertain and explore the idea of clustered style housing complexes. 

Vernon D. Swaback, managing partner of Swaback Partners is leading the project. 

At age, 17, Swaback was the youngest apprentice of Frank Lloyd Wright a famous 

American architect, interior designer, writer and educator. Swaback Partners 

brought together 30 years of extensive experience working with a broad spectrum 

of groups on community master plans within the United States primarily within the 

greater southwest. 

NHA Expanded Homeownership Program 

The NHA Housing Needs Assessment study showed that approximately 75 percent of the tribal population had very low income levels below the poverty level. 

This information correlates with the high unemployment rate of 65 percent on the 

Navajo Nation. The remaining 25 percent of the tribal population are non-low income and yet, there is no housing for those that had middle to high incomes—which 

include Navajo professionals and essential personnel like doctors, nurses, teachers, 

68

firefighters, police workers, etc. With the ever constrained federal funding level, 

NHA had to strategize on delivering housing among the two extremes of need. 

As a result, NHA developed a policy to expand its housing services to provide 

housing for ALL ranges of income. NHA had already adopted an Essential Personnel 

Policy and will soon adopt a homeownership program policy for non-low income families/individuals so that deep subsidies on one end of the pendulum can be offset by 

revenue stream netted from assisting the highest income families using private financing. NHA will also set internal controls to separate the revenue streams of income from public/private leveraged financing. 

The new homeownership program policy was adopted by the NHA Board of Commissioners in March 2013. NHA is now enhancing its in-house capacities with professions that have the particular skill-set for mortgage underwriting/financing, loan 

servicing and homeownership counseling. Once this capacity is fully attained, NHA 

will execute an intensive public education and outreach to its communities of the 

new homeownership program. Those having home site leases with utilities lines 

nearby will be amongst the first wave of clients to receive assistance. 

The leveraged financing will primarily be sought from the private financial sector 

via the HUD Section 184 mortgage loan guarantee program. Other federal program 

resources will be sought to leverage NAHASDA dollars to optimize and maximize 

housing services delivery. 

In light of the outcome of the sustainable community master planning initiative, 

NHA sponsored its first-ever Funders Forum in November 2012. Major banking and 

financing institution that have an established record of working in Indian housing 

attended the event, including representatives from the Department of Agriculture 

and HUD officials. All attendees expressed their interest in working with NHA 

given its demonstrated management and financial capacities. A minimum of half a 

billion dollars is expected to be attained through leveraged financing to build new 

homes and related utility infrastructure. 

Conclusion 

NHA strongly believes that the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) is an effective program, and overall tribes have spent 

nearly 90 percent of the federal funds allocated to the program—NHA itself has a 

fairly good expenditure rate of approximately 68 percent overall. However, it must 

be noted that whenever one compares the Navajo Housing Authority to any other 

Indian Housing entity they must consider the sheer differences in size, regions, and 

nature of the programs. It is known that NHA is an anomaly within HUD—it is 

the largest Indian housing authority and when compared to public housing it would 

be considered the eighth largest public housing authority in the nation. It also 

known that providing housing in any rural setting is grueling, but Navajo experiences unique, complex and large-scale challenges when providing housing over a 

27,000 square mile area. 

Like many of our colleagues in Indian housing, the NHA participated in the development of the consensus position for the NAHASDA Reauthorization. As part of 

that consensus position NHA believes that provisions of the position should be included in the reauthorization and that proposals to alter or change the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funding formula or the process of formula negotiated rulemaking should be vehemently opposed by the U.S. Senate. We believe that any 

changes to the formula should be made in negotiated rulemaking amongst tribes 

who are the IHBG recipients. Any attempt to change that process would violate the 

tribal government-to-government consultation process that is the foundation of federal Indian policy. 

The Navajo Nation experiences a severe need for housing, the recent comprehensive Navajo Housing Needs Assessment Study showed a need for 34,100 new housing units, and an additional 34,300 existing housing units need extensive major repairs—the total needs amount to a minimum of $9 billion. On average Navajo receives $90 million a year from the Indian Housing Block Grant, however, a large 

portion of those funds are used to maintain current existing housing units and the 

remaining amount is used for new construction, planning and administration, model 

projects, crime prevention, and other housing services. To meet the unmet housing 

needs on the Navajo Nation and within Indian Country, the Federal Government 

would need to make vigorous investment into housing development in tribal communities. Unfortunately it is the reality that without the direct federal investment for 

housing in tribal communities, Indian Country will struggle to continue keeping 

pace with the mainstream housing sector. 

NHA appreciates the opportunity to provide you this written testimony for the 

record, and would be please to answer any questions that the Committee or the Senate may have. 

69

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY J. COOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING

AUTHORITY OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

Introduction 

Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of 

the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA). My name is Gary J. 

Cooper and I serve as the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation. On behalf of the Cherokee Nation, the Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and the Cherokee people, thank you for holding this important oversight hearing, which could not be more appropriate or timely as discussions begin here on Capitol Hill surrounding the reauthorization of the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, known as ‘‘NAHASDA’’. 

On behalf of the Cherokee Nation, I submit the following comments for inclusion 

in the record of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing 

held on April 10, 2013, entitled ‘‘Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions’’. 

The Cherokee Nation (CN) is the federally recognized government of the Cherokee 

people and has inherent sovereign status recognized by treaty and law. The seat of 

tribal government is the W.W. Keeler Complex near Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the CN. With more than 300,000 citizens, over 8,000 employees and a variety 

of tribal enterprises ranging from aerospace and defense contracts to entertainment 

venues, CN is one of the largest employers in northeast Oklahoma and the largest 

tribal nation in the United States. 

The Housing Authority of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (HACN) is an Indian 

Housing Authority established in 1966, under the Oklahoma Indian Housing Authority Act. HACN is governed by a five member Board of Commissioners, nominated by the Principal Chief and approved by the Council of the CN. 

Both the CN and HACN provide services under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). Services are provided in 

the tribal jurisdictional service area of the CN which covers a geographical area of 

over 7,000 square miles in northeastern Oklahoma. It includes all of eight counties 

and portions of another six. The fourteen counties within the CN are: Adair, Cherokee, Craig, Delaware, McIntosh, Mayes, Muskogee, Nowata, Ottawa, Rogers, 

Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington. 

As an Indian Housing Authority, established under state law, HACN shares a 

unique relationship with the city and county governments across the CN. Intergovernmental cooperative agreements are in place with every county and most towns 

within this area. All land held in the HACN’s name is held in fee simple status, 

with HACN making annual payments in lieu of tax. Oklahoma is unique in that 

no reservations are in the state. Our assisted units are frequently located in the 

same neighborhood as non-Indians. 

Background 

The CN and all Oklahoma tribes are unique in that we do not have reservations 

or an exclusive land base. The CN operates within an area referred to as the Tribal 

Jurisdictional Service Area (TJSA), which stretches across 7,000 square miles of 

northeast Oklahoma. This area was the new home to the Cherokee’s after our forced 

removal from our homeland in the southeastern United States during the ‘‘Trail of 

Tears’’. 

Today, the Cherokees co-exist with people of nearly every ethnicity. Some Cherokee lands may be bordered on four sides by land owned by non-Cherokees or nonNative Americans. Cherokee children attend public schools with non-Cherokees and 

many non-Cherokees benefit directly and indirectly because of the good work provided by the CN. Infrastructure improvements to rural water systems that benefit 

Cherokees and non tribal members in the region are an example of the cooperative 

efforts that combine the resources of multiple governments to provide safe sanitary 

water for all. This ‘‘spill-over effect’’ has a tremendous impact that benefits all residents living in Northeast Oklahoma. 

Based on 2010 Census data, within the CN TJSA resides some 193,030 American 

Indian/Alaska Native households. The overwhelming majority of that number is estimated to be Cherokee. Census data also estimates that over 18 percent of the people residing within the TJSA are below the poverty level. The NAHASDA program 

uses 80 percent of the National Median Income (NMI) as a basis for services, while 

the Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program does not have an income limit. The Poverty Status in the 2007–2011 American Community Survey, estimates the poverty 

rate amongst Native Americans in CN to be 21 percent. 

70

HACN Managed Housing Units 

At the end of fiscal year 2012, HACN owned and managed over 2,000 housing 

units available for rent to Native American families. These units consist of 1937 

Housing Act units and NAHASDA units, available for rental or homeownership opportunities. 

HACN owns and manages 903 units that are over thirty-one years old, with the 

oldest being built in 1969. This number doesn’t include twenty-five units that were 

old Army barracks, trucked in and made available for housing in 1968. Those 25 

units were approved in an amended Indian Housing Plan to be demolished and rebuilt in another location. Many problems exist with those units, including some that 

have tested positive for asbestos. HACN has relocated the families who resided in 

these units, and is working towards being able to demolish and rebuild. 

Due to the aging stock of our rental units, maintenance costs continue to rise. Additional money is set aside to modernize these units each year. However, the fact 

still remains that as the units continue to age, costs for upkeep will continue to rise, 

and regardless of the improvements made, the units are still of a traditional style 

apartment comparative to the time constructed. 

At the end of the last fiscal year, HACN owned and managed over 1,135 homeownership units. Many families are now becoming elderly and require handicap accessibility. Some families still fall into the very, very low income category and many 

times cannot afford to perform basic maintenance. It becomes important to be able 

to invest modernization funds into these units to assist low income families with 

handicap accessibility and emergency repairs such as a leaky roof. 

Rental Assistance Program 

The HACN simply does not have enough units for every low income Native American that needs a place to call home. HACN operates a Rental Assistance Program 

(RAP) that is similar to the Section 8 program in public housing. Under RAP, a low 

income family’s rent becomes subsidized for rental units on the open market. Due 

to the ability to effectively manage housing programs, HACN ends up being able to 

assist many more families than planned. HACN also offers a temporary rental assistance program for families that need assistance for up to ninety days. Under 

these two programs, HACN is able to subsidize nearly $4 million towards rental 

units for over 2500 families. Because of the positive impact of RAP within CN communities, other public housing programs are better able to serve other low income 

families. 

Low Income Housing Tax Credit Projects (LIHTC) 

Historically, HACN has utilized LIHTC incentives to reduce the cost it would normally incur to provide low income housing to elderly and other low income families. 

This was accomplished by participating in four partnerships which have built 

LIHTC projects in four qualified areas of the CN. The projects comprise 155 housing 

units and are managed by outside parties under management agreements as provided by the partnership agreements. The HACN, through Cherokee Affordable 

Housing, Inc. (CAH) is the general partner in each partnership. The partnerships 

were created, applied for, and eventually received LIHTC’s through the Oklahoma 

Housing Finance Authority. The four projects consist of Jay Senior Housing (elderly) 

located in Jay, OK; Stilwell Sr. Housing (elderly) located in Stilwell, OK; Wisdom 

Keepers (elderly) located in Tahlequah, OK; and Northview Estates (single family) 

located in Vian, OK. These projects not only provide low income housing for Native 

Americans, but also for any eligible low income family. Because of the highly competitive nature, lack of a Native American set-aside, and limited funding of the 

LITHC incentives, HACN has not applied for the program in over a decade. 

NAHASDA Title VI Loan Program 

In July of 2002, the CN, HACN, Bank One, N.A. (now JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

N.A.) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development entered into a Title VI loan agreement, under the authorization of NAHASDA whereby 

the Nation was authorized to borrow up to $50 million for purpose of enabling 

HACN to construct single family residences within the TJSA. Through supplemental 

agreements and the final notes, the cumulative amount of funds drawn was 

$33,231,000 for the program. The final project allowed HACN to construct or acquire 

single family units for income eligible Native American families within the CN. The 

outstanding loan balance at September 30, 2012 totaled $13,039,002. 

Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program 

HACN has used the Section 184 program to acquire an additional $1.3 million in 

property to assist eligible families with housing opportunities. This includes one 

71

quad-plex rental unit that is located near the Indian Health Services Claremore Indian Hospital. 

HACN is currently working to construct homes under a new program. This program will allow for Section 184 Loans to be used to construct new single family 

units within the CN. The plan would allow for HACN to construct, through sub contracts for the construction, homes for Cherokee families. The plan allows for family 

owned land to be transferred to HACN for construction or to construct on land already owned by HACN. Repayment would be through a rent to own agreement, with 

the option for eligible families to assume the Section 184 mortgage in the future. 

At full implementation, this plan is estimated to construct at least 300 new homes 

per year, using Native American sub contractors for the construction. The use of sub 

contractors allows for small businesses to compete, but also for HACN to insure the 

quality of the construction of each home. The program takes the best aspects and 

practices of the HACN’s nearly fifty years experience in Indian Housing. 

Barriers That Exist 

Funding Availability 

Unlike other funding contracted or compacted under P.L. 93–638, Indian Housing 

funding has traditionally been at the discretion of the Federal Government to make 

monies available under NAHASDA. For example, we are now into our seventh 

month of the current fiscal year, HACN has requested 25 percent of last year’s appropriated funding and although requested, that amount has not been made available for drawdown. In fiscal year 2012, NAHASDA funds were not made available 

until the sixth month of the fiscal year. No compact, similar to ones through the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs or Health and Human Services, exists to maintain at least 

minimal levels of funding are available for Indian Housing activities at the beginning of each fiscal year. 

Accessibility to Other Funding Sources 

While the HACN has accessed Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding 

in the past, there are no guarantees in place that ensure funding specifically for Indian tribes. Therefore tribes must weigh the costs of preparing a project for a 

LIHTC application and the uncertainty receiving funding. 

The Section 184 Loan Guarantee program is an excellent program for tribes. However, the uncertainty of that program was realized recently when HUD took the extreme action of ‘‘temporarily’’ suspending the program. Not only were tribes affected, 

but many more individuals were affected. Horror stories have been relayed by families that were under contract and were forced to either seek funding somewhere else 

at higher costs, or give up the ‘‘American dream’’ of homeownership altogether. 

The ability to participate in other programs not traditionally offered to tribes 

would also be beneficial. This could include the HUD pilot program of ‘‘Moving to 

Work’’ and many others. Outside of NAHASDA, most housing programs are not offered to tribes for participation. The ability of tribes to have the accessibility to 

other types of housing funding would greatly increase the ability of all Native Americans to access other leveraging opportunities. 

Impact by Cherokee Nation During FY 2012

Although housing programs are offered to Cherokees and other Native Americans, 

the economic impact stretches far beyond our families. Rental assistance payments 

are paid on open market rentals, regardless of an owner’s ethnicity. Materials are 

procured from business that may employ both Indians and non-Indians. Public utility bills may be paid to utilities that employ non-tribal members or even support 

a state-wide public enterprise. The economic impact from housing dollars administered by the CN can have a dramatic impact in the regional economy. During previous fiscal year, CN impacted the jurisdictional area as follows:

• Employed the equivalent of 331.66 full time employees in permanent positions 

and 15.76 part time positions as part of direct program costs.

• Operated 944 low rent apartment units, across fifteen communities in the CN.

• Provided nearly $4 million in rental or temporary assistance for over 2,500 families.

• Provided for the rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of dilapidated privately 

owned homes for 299 families.

• Provided modernization funding to improve over 460 low rent apartment; 36 

homes; and handicap accessibility to 5 homes that were owned and managed 

by HACN.

72

• Provided drug awareness and crime prevention at 221 events, as well as law 

enforcement and patrol activities for 913 HACN owned/managed properties.

• Provided transitional housing assistance to 2,373 families to prevent homelessness or families from losing their homes.

• Provided credit coaching, household budgeting, and self-sufficiency counseling to 

585 families. With the intended purpose to increase credit worthiness and financial stability to secure and maintain affordable housing. Provided additional 

down payment and closing costs assistance to 117 families to obtain residential 

mortgages.

• Provided 1,423 youth, residing in HACN low income housing units, with traditional, cultural leadership, and drug elimination activities.

• Provided 455 residents with job skills, case management, and employment assistance programs.

• Provided a career literacy center to assist residents with basic skills to improve 

reading and math levels and GED preparation.

• Provided payment assistance to 605 families for assistance with emergency 

rental payments, utility payments, or other utility assistance.

• Provided 45 college students with project based college housing assistance at 

Northeastern State University as part of a ‘‘scholars program’’.

Conclusion 

Once again, thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing me to submit these 

statements regarding the challenges and potential solutions to meeting the housing 

needs of Native people throughout Indian Country. Your continued support of our 

efforts, including a timely reauthorization of NAHASDA before the end of this fiscal 

year, is truly appreciated. Myself and my staff at the Housing Authority of the 

Cherokee Nation stand ready to assist you in any way that we can to preserve and 

promote Indian Housing opportunities for future generations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED DELGADO, CHAIRMAN, ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS

OF WISCONSIN

The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs regarding the Native 

American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) Reauthorization. Oneida has made great strides in the area of affordable housing with federal funding 

received annually through NAHASDA, however, improvements are still needed and 

could be addressed through increased funding and modest programmatic changes. 

Oneida is supportive of the legislative reforms presented in the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) draft language and urges consideration and 

inclusion of these programmatic changes in order to streamline process and increase 

efficiency to maximize Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) dollars. We address 

below some of those proposals that most dramatically impact Oneida and our ability 

to adequately provide housing for our people. In summary, we are concerned about 

the following:

Inadequate Funding—Proposed FY 2014 funding is 23 percent below 1997 levels 

in today’s dollars.

Burdensome Regulations—A cross-agency universal application needs to be developed to reduce administrative burdens on tribal housing agencies and federal 

bureaucrats.

Low Income Tax Credit Program—More flexibility needs to be provided so tribes 

can meet debt obligations and encourage broader development.

Alternative Economic Indicators Needed—Census track data does not discretely 

define populations of Indian residents, causing some tribal communities to become ineligible for certain housing programs.

Inadequate Funding 

The initial authorization for NAHASDA when it was made effective in 1997 was 

$592 million. In the 16∂ years since passage of NAHASDA, funding has remained 

essentially flat, as evidenced by the President’s FY14 budget proposal that continues 

NAHASDA funding at $650 million. When accounting for inflation, a $650 million 

appropriation for tribal housing is actually less funding than when the program was 

initially authorized in 1996 ($841 million would be considered level funding). While 

73

the funding level has remained the same, the need in Indian Country is increasing. 

Grants through IHBG must be dedicated to the operation and maintenance of existing housing and therefore results in less funding to construct new units. There are 

many Oneida members who live in other areas of Wisconsin and throughout the 

United States who dream of making the reservation their home; however we lack 

the means to provide them the opportunity to return. 

The current Business Committee was elected to office in August, 2011, and has 

adopted the following mission for our term of office: In 3 years, this Oneida Business 

Committee will aggressively grow the Oneida Indian Reservation as a beautiful, vibrant community where hundreds of additional Oneida families live. 

The membership of the Oneida Tribe consists of 16,789 Oneida enrolled citizens. 

Of those, the amount of members 18 years old and above is 13,433. There are 4,409 

members living within the reservation boundaries with 2,777 living in the surrounding counties of Brown and Outagamie. There are 2,041 members who reside 

in the Milwaukee area and an additional 2,151 members who reside within the 

State of Wisconsin, outside of the reservation. Clearly, the Oneida Tribe has a vast 

Indian population living in Wisconsin who may have a desire to return home. 

Currently, Oneida families, single adults and adult couples in the low-to-moderate 

income level continue to be the largest demographic in need of housing. The Oneida 

Housing Authority (OHA) has two types of housing available: rentals and homeownership. Renting is a viable option for many families. 

Single adult units are an unmet need. To address this need, the OHA is in the 

process of constructing units for single adults. In addition, OHA is constructing elderly cottages and elderly duplexes in the newly developed Green Valley subdivision 

located in the heart of Oneida. 

Burdensome Compliance Requirements 

The OHA receives an annual appropriation from NAHASDA. However, OHA is 

limited in their project scope. OHA continues to research a variety of funding methods in order to leverage NAHASDA dollars. However, as highlighted in the NAIHC 

draft document and in a number of testimonies provided to the committee during 

the Tribal Housing hearing on April 10, 2013, the pooling of funds from various 

grant programs and federal agencies results in burdensome and redundant compliance requirements. Oneida supports the NAIHC recommendations to consolidate the 

environmental review process and prevailing wage requirements. 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits 

The Low Income Housing Tax Credits could be very beneficial to assist with the 

creation of the development of mixed use/mixed income neighborhoods, which would 

also offer a variety of resources for infrastructure development. However, this program includes an obligation to collect a certain amount of rental income; this is a 

significant liability for the Tribe as a result of the 30 percent rule. We cannot collect 

enough rent to sustain the amount that would be obligated under the LIHTC program. 

Census Data for Median Income 

The Oneida Tribe has made a concerted effort to create a quality of life in our 

community that provides our people with a vision for the future and an appreciation 

for the rich cultural history and traditions of our people. This is reflected throughout the Oneida community through our buildings and community programs. It is 

our hope that we will be able to continue to examine disadvantaged areas that are 

not being served as needed. One particular area that we feel needs to be addressed 

is the use of census data to allocate appropriate funding. The Oneida Reservation 

is divided into multiple census tracks and we believe the data from these census 

tracks greatly skew the American Indian population data due to the inclusion of 

non-Indians. For example, the median income, according to census data, is $65,962 

for the entire Oneida Reservation population, which includes American Indians and 

non-Indians. However, when this data is broken down further, the median income 

for when only the American Indian population on the Oneida Reservation is included is $40,662. This $25.000 difference often results in Oneida becoming ineligible for various State and Federal funding opportunities. 

We look forward to continued dialogue as the reauthorization of NAHASDA moves 

forward and would be happy to provide any additional information and answer any 

questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the 

Committee. 

74

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL BROOKS, CHAIRMAN, LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

The Lumbee have been working for decades to address housing disparities for 

tribal members. The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina has a population of approximately 55,000, of which approximately 42,000 live within the tribal service area in 

Southeast North Carolina. Since 2010, the Lumbee have constructed 35 homes and 

rehabilitated 110 homes. In 2008, the Tribe leveraged $400,000 of NAHASDA funds 

to create a $7.5 million low income housing tax credit project. The project is comprised of 50 single family energy star certified units with three bedrooms and two 

baths. This was the first project of its kind in North Carolina. On behalf of the 

Lumbee people, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide this testimony 

to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 

The purpose of this hearing is the ascertain information regarding barriers to Indian housing development and solutions to eliminate those barriers. Americans 

across the Country deserve to live in safe, sanitary houses. In 1996, Congress recognized that the disparity of housing in Indian Country was so great that new legislation was created to address those needs. This legislation was unique in that it allowed Indian Nations the ability to meet those needs in the most culturally sensitive 

manner. In these economic times, Tribes understand that the federal dollar is 

spread thin. However, legislative reform is necessary to address the process of administering the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 

1996 (NAHASDA) allowing more resources be spent on program activities rather 

than on reporting and navigating administrative bureaucracy. The following testimony will address some specific examples of the referenced reform. 

Background 

Prior to the enactment of NAHASDA, housing for Indian Country was addressed 

through the 1937 Housing Act and other federal legislation. These programs were 

rigid and cumbersome to use because the programs lacked the flexibility required 

to meet housing needs in Indian country. Tribes were forced to adopt housing models designed for urban public housing programs who had differing population densities, differing construction costs, and dramatically different cultural issues faced 

by the population to be served. When NAHASDA was passed, Indian country 

breathed a collective sigh. In one piece of legislation, Congress strengthened the 

government-to-government relationship between the United States and Tribes, reduced excessive regulation by implementing tribal self-determination measures, and 

provided tribes flexibility to determine the most efficient way to address their individual tribal needs. The legislation maintained accountability for federal funding by 

requiring strict reporting by Tribes and auditing processes conducted by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Summary of NAHASDA 

NAHASDA recognizes the unique relationship between the Federal Government 

and sovereign American Indian Nations, authorizing tribes to address their distinct 

housing needs through various activities such as construction, rehabilitation, modernization, rental assistance, lending programs, crime prevention, and a host of 

other strategies. Unlike previous housing programs, NAHASDA recognizes the Federal Government’s trust obligation to promote the wellbeing of Native peoples and 

empowers tribes to exercise self-determination in the development and implementation of strategies to address their particular housing needs. 

Implementation and Impact 

Tribal recipients of NAHASDA have the flexibility to use funding in the manner 

that will most effectively address the unique housing needs of the Native American 

people they serve. NAHASDA has enabled recipients to build, acquire, and rehabilitate more than 110,000 homes. Recipients have tripled the number of housing units 

that have been developed or planned by Indian Country each year compared to 

those planned or developed under the 1937 Housing Act. 

NAHASDA allows recipients to use funding for activities other than construction 

and development, including rental assistance, home loans, housing or financial literacy counseling, and down payment assistance. The Lumbee Tribe has used housing funds to create 50 units by leveraging block grant funds with private dollars 

through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. We led the country in the 

number of HUD guaranteed Section 184 loans to allow individuals to attain mortgage funds from private lenders. We have also used funds to provide transitional 

housing for individuals who have lost their home due to natural disaster. 

HUD, through the Office of Native American Program, effectively administers the 

program through technical assistance and being available to discuss potential 

75

projects. HUD also performs detailed audit site visits and monitors fund expenditures. With these protocols in place, funding is both obligated and expended in an 

appropriate manner by the tribal recipients. 

When looking at the unexpended, unobligated funds issue, those tribes have specific impediments preventing their expenditure of funds. Those tribes have developed a plan to spend down the money, have discussed this plan with HUD and have 

a timeline for accomplishing the same. Tribes have regional obstacles to expend 

funds. Housing development is a multi-year process and tribes should be given a 

reasonable time to plan and build housing units based on the regional obstacles facing their individual housing program. In general, tribal spend-out rates are good. 

Barriers and Solutions 

Tribes have proven since the inception of NAHASDA that the program works. The 

insurmountable obstacle for tribes is that funding for the program has not kept up 

with inflationary rates. In order to address housing needs in Indian Country, the 

NAHASDA program needs to be funded at an appropriate level. Tribal Housing professionals see the need in our tribal communities on a daily basis: homelessness, 

multiple families crowded into one single family dwelling, and housing without adequate utilities (heat, water and sanitation) are just a few examples. Tribal leaders 

are heartbroken to see children born into and elders die in these conditions. 

NAHASDA appropriations simply do not provide enough money to go around. This 

funding insufficiency unfortunately pits tribe against tribe, not because of commonality of circumstance, but because each tribe has a fiduciary responsibility to 

its membership: provide adequate housing. Everyone would like to get more money 

from the process. It can feel like the process is broken because each and every program is trying to meet a dire need and is not getting enough money to do so. Everyone deserves more money, but the funds that Congress provides are just too limited. 

While tribes understand that in this economic environment additional funding 

may not be a realistic goal, modest legislation changes could enhance programmatic 

efficacy by reducing bureaucracy. NAIHC’s draft NAHASDA reauthorization bill 

contains numerous provisions that would break down legislative/regulatory barriers. 

NAIHC’s draft bill is the result of more than a year of tribal outreach and is a consensus-based product with broad support from the hundreds of NAIHC member organizations. The draft provides Congress with various opportunities to empower 

tribes to more efficiently deliver housing. The Lumbee support the NAIHC reauthorization bill in its entirety, but the following are key examples of changes suggested 

for the reauthorization: (1) reform the 30 percent rule, (2) simplify the Environmental Review Requirements, and (3) consolidate the federal labor standards (TDW/

Davis Bacon). 

Summary 

NAHASDA represents a point in history that will be remembered as a date of 

positive change for Indian housing. The results speak for themselves and cannot be 

equivocated. However, because of the lack of funds and the level of need, housing 

conditions in Indian Country remain some of the worst in the nation. To even make 

gains on the worsening conditions, Tribes must be given more funding. In the absence of additional funding, modest legislative reform must be adopted to provide 

a modicum of opportunity to reduce barriers to the delivery of housing in Indian 

country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD PAUL TORRES, GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF

ISLETA

On behalf of the Pueblo of Isleta, located in Isleta New Mexico, I am writing to 

ask your support of the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 (Public Law 104–330) in the 113th 

Congress. Since 1998 when NAHASDA was implemented, NAHASDA has been the 

primary means of developing housing for low income Native American families. In 

the Pueblo of Isleta, NAHASDA is the primary source of funding for the development of new homes and the rehabilitation of traditional homes and homes built 

under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 

The Pueblo of Isleta is one of nineteen Pueblos in New Mexico with a population 

of over 5,200. The Isleta Pueblo is on an Indian Reservation whose land is primarily 

held in trust by the Federal Government. Isleta has 261 housing units for its resident population. It has a housing shortage of 95 units. Approximately 50 percent 

of Isleta households live in overcrowded conditions. Approximately 30 percent of all 

occupied homes are in substandard condition. Many occupied traditional homes are 

76

in dire need of structural and other improvements to meet habitability standards, 

including lack of infrastructure. 

The primary source of funding for housing development on the Isleta Pueblo is 

the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) authorized under NAHASDA. Isleta receives approximately $1 million of IHBG funds each fiscal year to manage and 

maintain 90 units and build 7 new homes per year. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the 

Pueblo of Isleta received $1,004,463. 

Isleta leverages its IHBG funds with program income and tribal funds. Within the 

past two years, the Pueblo of Isleta Housing Authority, who administers NAHASDA 

funds on behalf of the Isleta Pueblo, has constructed 22 new homes using a combination of NAHASDA and ARRA funds. The Isleta also used IHBG funds to rehabilitate 21 homes. 

In calendar year 2012, Isleta completed 31 housing development and rehabilitation projects for its community using IHBG funds. Isleta also began with the construction of 9 new homes in 2012. 

NAHASDA was drafted with the support of Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities. NAHASDA recognizes the government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NAHASDA 

is the primary means by which the United States fulfills its trust obligations to provide safe, quality, and sanitary housing for low income Native Americans. 

The Isleta Pueblo Housing Authority is a member of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), which represents the housing interests of Native 

people who reside in Indian communities, Alaska Native Villages, and on Native 

Hawaiian Home Lands. NAIHC has developed a legislative proposal for the reauthorization of NAHASDA in FY 2013, which includes amendments to NAHASDA. 

The amendments are proof that NAHASDA is a living document, evolving through 

its use by Indian tribes and in the spirit of cooperation between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The views of the Isleta Pueblo are represented in NAIHC’s 

legislative proposal for the reauthorization of NAHASDA which has been submitted 

to Congress. We ask that you support the reauthorization of NAHASDA in 2013 and 

the amendments to NAHASDA which have been submitted by NAIHC. 

I invite you to visit the Pueblo of Isleta to see firsthand the homes being built 

and rehabilitated through NAHASDA. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

PAUL IRON CLOUD

Question. Why do tribes find it necessary to do their own housing needs assessments? Is accurate data available from HUD or other federal agencies and, if not, 

why. 

Answers. Federal efforts, including NAHASDA negotiated rulemaking, continue to 

inaccurately determine the varying housing needs of tribal members and fail to allocate federal funding appropriately. The U.S. Census was a temporary data source 

selected by the NAHASDA Negotiated Rule Making Committee in 1998. However, 

it does not by its design works well in remote areas where most tribes are providing 

housing services and therefore, undercounts the need and population. Also, the Census, because of legal restrictions, cannot accurately identify enrolled members of federally recognized tribes, who are by statute are to be the primary beneficiaries of 

NAHASDA programs. Over the past fifteen years HUD has not been able or willing 

to identify other sources of uniform data for Indian areas that are capable of alleviating these problems. 

Today in many federal programs, funds are to be primarily awarded based on the 

needs of enrolled tribal members. However, when U.S. Census figures are used they 

do not count enrolled members, they no longer determine things like housing conditions, they continue to inaccurately count the number of persons on Indian reservations and they are based on responses from people who self-identify themselves as 

being Indian. Since local needs are not being properly determined, grants and program funds are being inequitably and ineffectively distributed among tribes. 

It is for these reasons we at Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing and four other tribal 

housing programs have taken the unusual step of joining together to fashion a global positioning system (GPS) and geographic information system (GIS) based local 

housing needs assessment procedure. This is known as the Dakota Housing Needs 

Assessment Pilot Project. After a year of joint activity we will each conclude five 

local statistically accurate housing surveys and an accompanying analysis this summer. If all NAHASDA recipients were required to do this, and in a like manner, 

these tribal needs assessments can produce accurate and useful local, regional and 

national needs figures. More importantly, NAHASDA, and in particular the Indian 

77

Housing Block Grant funding, could then be more accurate and appropriate to the 

purposes of the Indian Housing Block Grants program. 

We are also providing this Committee, along with others, a recently-completed 

video of the Dakota Pilot Project which explains how the Pilot Project has been implemented on the participating reservations and what impact it can have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TIM JOHNSON TO

PAUL IRON CLOUD

Question. How will tribes use the data collected by the Dakota Pilot Project to improve reservation housing? 

Answer. If this approach is utilized universally by all NAHASDA recipients it will 

provide an economical, efficient and effective way to satisfy the tribal member population and need count for the Indian Housing Block Grant Program. In addition it 

can produce the following additional benefits.

1. Provide accurate and appropriate formula data for other federal funding allocations (e.g., transportation and roads),

2. Build on reverse 911 mapping programs to produce an invaluable mapping 

and data collection process that tribes can tailor and customize to address a 

wide variety of community programs,

3. Establish a process that can be easily and periodically repeated and updated,

4. If universally required of NAHASDA recipients, it can provide not only a national picture of tribal member housing needs but also give tribes, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Congress the ability to better 

direct housing funding and monitor the success of the NAHASDA program.

5. For the first time it will establish an accurate methodology to quantify multiple households in a single housing unit and better assess the overcrowded 

housing that plagues many tribal populations,

6. Provide a platform and resources for conducting HUD’s national homeless 

count,

7. Give tribal housing programs incredible tools and capacity to modernize their 

planning, development and management of housing, and

8. Until universally mandated by NAHASDA, it allows tribes to use it to efficiently perform a ‘‘census challenge’’ in the Indian Housing Block Grant Program.

We believe that this Dakota Housing Needs Assessment Pilot Project has nationwide application and can change how housing need is determined on reservations 

and result in better allocation of federal tribal housing funds. It is our hope that 

later this summer our Pilot Project will be able to report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Management and Budget, 

and our fellow tribes that there is a housing needs assessment model that can be 

universally conducted by all NAHASDA recipients. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

RODGER J. BOYD

Question 1. In her written testimony, Ms. Cheryl Causley [Chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing Council] suggests that the various Federal housing 

resources be ‘‘pooled’’ to achieve better economies of scale. This proposal is intended 

to improve efficiencies by streamlining burdensome administrative requirements 

from the multiple Federal funding streams. It is already being implemented in labor 

and employment training programs for Indians. What are your views on this proposal? 

Answer. HUD supports streamlining programs and relieving burdensome administrative requirements. The 2008 amendments to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) authorized ways in which 

this could be accomplished for Indian housing while maintaining the appropriate 

level of oversight of the program by HUD. HUD is currently exploring ways in 

which the environmental review process among agencies can be streamlined along 

with working closely with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) on land and infrastructure matters.

Question 2. Ms. Annette Bryan [Executive Director, Puyallup Tribal Housing Authority] states in her written testimony that when tribes undertake construction 

projects involving multiple sources of Federal funding, additional bureaucratic reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
78

quirements and administration costs are incurred. For example, when funding from 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Departments of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) and Agriculture is blended for a construction project, three separate environmental review requirements and different prevailing wage rates apply. According to 

Ms. Bryan, the resulting administrative and legal costs reduce the amount of funds 

available for constructing homes. 

She proposes that a tribe should be deemed to have satisfied all applicable environmental review requirements that might apply to a multiple-funding sourced 

project if the tribe satisfactorily completed the applicable HUD environmental review process. 

Ms. Bryan also proposes that a tribe be authorized to apply the tribally determined prevailing wage rate to all sources of Federal funds used in a project which 

is also funded in part by the NAHASDA block grant funding. What are your views 

on Ms. Bryan’s proposals? 

Answer. HUD generally supports streamlining the environmental review process 

and labor standards when multiple sources of funding are used for a project. Please 

see the answer to Question 3 for further detail on HUD’s efforts regarding the environmental review process.

Question 3. How does HUD coordinate with other Federal agencies on the environmental review processes for recipients blending funding from these agencies for a 

construction project? 

Answer. HUD agrees that requiring grantees to submit duplicative environmental 

reviews for the same project is an administrative burden. HUD supports the idea 

of having a single environmental review for all Federal requirements. However, 

each agency must comply with current rules and meet the minimum standards in 

the authorizing or regulatory language that makes the funding available. 

It is most common for HUD-funded housing projects (especially larger projects) to 

be funded jointly by the Indian Health Service (IHS) and HUD. HUD funds are used 

for the construction of housing while IHS funds are used for infrastructure-bringing 

water to the site and constructing provisions for sanitation and the disposal of waste 

water. Due to joint funding, it is common for HUD and IHS to coordinate the environmental review as well. The environmental review process used by HUD is the 

most comprehensive, and is unique in that HUD regulations permit tribes to be the 

responsible entity. Under 24 CFR Part 58, tribes are responsible for completing the 

environmental reviews of projects. However, the process that IHS uses meets about 

90 percent of HUD’s requirements. In these cases, HUD asks the tribe for what is 

missing in the IHS review but required by HUD. 

There is a difference in the methods and procedures used across federal agencies 

to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 

102 (42 U.S.C. § 4332) of NEPA mandates that ‘‘(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall—... (B) identify and develop methods and procedures... which 

will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations.’’ As a result, each federal agency has developed its own unique 

methods and procedures. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), and Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) all have different checklists for their environmental reviews. For example, noise is a factor in a HUD environmental review, and HUD will not permit a home or structure to be constructed 

adjacent to a railroad or heavily travelled freeway without mitigation. Other factors 

that are considered only in HUD environmental reviews are flood insurance because 

of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, compliance with the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, and compliance with airport runway clear zones and clear zones disclosures. 

Also unique to HUD is that, after HUD awards grants to tribes and tribally designated housing entities, the tribes carry out the construction of the project including entering into grant agreements with other agencies.

Question 4. As noted at the Committee’s oversight hearing, ‘‘Identifying Barriers 

to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions,’’ on April 10, 2013, the obligated, unexpended balance of Indian Housing Block Grant funds totals over $900 

million. You testified that HUD will work with those tribes that have problems regarding expenditures to create realistic expenditure strategies and assess their administrative issues to find recommendations to streamline the process within their 

communities. Please identify the various reasons or causes for this large, unexpended balance of Indian Housing Block Grant funds. 

79

Answer. Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, through FY 2012, Congress has ap- propriated more than $9.4 billion for the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program authorized under title I of NAHASDA. Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities have expended approximately $8.6 billion of those funds, 

or approximately 92 percent. 

On balance, very few recipients have large amounts of undisbursed IHBG funds. 

The vast majority of tribes expend their funds quickly and in the same year that 

funds are appropriated. One recipient in particular accounts for 53 percent of the 

unexpended balance. Excluding this tribe from the equation, the overall expenditure 

rate of IHBG funds would rise from 92 percent to over 95 percent. 

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) works with the tribes that 

are slower to expend their funds, and it provides them with capacity-building training and technical assistance whenever requested. Additional action is taken if problems are discovered during monitoring reviews. HUD ONAP continues to employ all 

the tools available under NAHASDA to address these types of situations while still 

respecting tribal sovereignty and the ability of recipients to carry over IHBG funds 

from year to year. HUD ONAP has provided extensive technical assistance to the 

recipient with the highest balance of unexpended funds, and is now moving to enforcement action against this tribe for failure to carry out its planned NAHASDA 

activities in a timely manner. HUD is pursuing the repayment of a portion of the 

unexpended funds held by the recipient through this enforcement action while also 

affording the recipient due process. In program requirements, any funds recaptured 

by HUD must be reallocated under next year’s NAHASDA allocation formula to all 

recipients in the program.

Question 5. At what point does HUD consider an Indian tribe to have ‘‘spent’’ its 

Indian Housing Block Grant funds? 

Answer. Funds are considered spent when all funds are drawn down from HUD’s 

Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) for the grant. After drawing down funds 

from LOCCS, recipients have 3 business days to expend the funds. 

Question 6. Please describe the administrative process required for an Indian tribe 

to spend its Indian Housing Block Grant funds, beginning with when congress finalizes the appropriations through the point when the funds are considered ‘‘spent’’ in 

HUD’s accounting system? 

Answer. Within 10 days of budget enactment, HUD sends an Apportionment Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval within 30 days. 

After HUD’s Chief Financial Officer receives the approval, an Advice of Allotment 

is sent to the Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Budget Office. After the Advice of 

Allotment is issued by HUD’s PIH Budget Office, the IHBG formula can be applied 

to determine each grantee’s award amount, and recipients are notified in writing. 

Fund assignments are issued to the six Area ONAPs. The Area Offices send grant 

agreements to each recipient for execution (assuming the recipient is eligible and 

has submitted a compliant Indian Housing Plan). Once HUD has received a signed 

agreement from the recipient and Congressional notification of the impending grant 

has been made, HUD can enter the funds into its LOCCS accounting system and 

make them available for drawdown by the recipient. 

This year, FY 2013, the appropriations were enacted March 26, and the funds 

were made available in mid-June.

Question 7. What can be done, either administratively or legislatively, to help expedite the use of these funds so that the tribes can build houses? Please be specific. 

Answer. The majority of the tribes are spending their funds in a timely manner. 

HUD has proactively taken administrative measures to more quickly distribute the 

funds to tribes so they may access their grant funds earlier in the FY. While there 

is no specific statutory requirement in NAHASDA for IHBG recipients to expend 

their funds by a certain set date, HUD has authority to take enforcement action 

against a recipient that is failing to carry out eligible activities in a ‘‘timely manner.’’ Up until FY 2012, there were no restrictions placed on IHBG funds by annual 

appropriations. The FY 2012 Appropriations Act contained language that required 

FY 2012 IHBG funds to be expended within 10 years. This language was also included in the recently passed FY 2013 Continuing Resolution. Given the ability of 

recipients to carry over grant funds from year to year, HUD’s main tool to assist 

recipients with using their funds is through training and technical assistance. In response to an FY 2012 Notice of Funding Availability, HUD recently awarded $7 million to seven organizations to provide training and technical assistance

Question 8. The February 25, 2010, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvement, 

found that HUD was not tracking the information needed to fully assess the impact 

80

of NAHASDA on housing development in Indian country. The GAO made several 

recommendations including revisions to the Indian Housing Plan/Annual Performance Report [forms] required to be submitted from tribally designated housing entities. How does HUD now track the data necessary to fully assess the impact of 

NAHASDA on housing development in Indian Country? 

Answer. HUD ONAP relies on two critical tools for tracking NAHASDA-funded 

housing and related infrastructure development in Indian Country: The Performance Tracking Database (PTD), and the Annual Performance Report (APR). 

The PTD is an Access database used to collect, analyze, and import housing and 

infrastructure development data. The PTD consists of multiple modules, and staff 

in each of the six Area ONAPs perform routine data entry and quality control. 

Headquarters creates a weekly roll-up of national data. The APR module is used 

to collect and track housing and infrastructure development data that recipients of 

IHBG funds submit in the APRs to ONAP. 

The APR is used by each IHBG recipient to report, among other things, on the 

number of housing units and infrastructure developed during the previous 12-month 

period. The APR is available in Microsoft Word and Excel versions, and will be 

available soon on HUD’s EPIC website. The Excel and EPIC versions have numerous automated capabilities to ensure data quality and expedite the completion and 

review of the report. APR housing and infrastructure development data in the Excel 

and EPIC versions is imported directly into the PTD for regional and national assessment. 

The APR was revised in FY 2013, and the new form, among other things, collects 

information on infrastructure development for the first time in a comprehensive, organized way. HUD can evaluate the data to identify trends, set goals, and take appropriate management actions.

Question 9. Has HUD experienced any additional problems in maintaining effective reporting from tribes? If so, what is being done to address these problems? 

Answer. In FY 2012, the format for reporting in the APR was revised to greatly 

ease the recipient’s reporting burden while collecting more specific information on 

IHBG activities and accomplishments. The reports using the new format have only 

been submitted for two quarters, but the data available to HUD appears to be much 

improved. Once a year’s worth of data has been submitted (end of calendar year 

2013), HUD will conduct analysis on the data, and will have a clearer picture of 

the effectiveness of the format change. 

HUD would like to collect additional information from recipients; however, tribes 

must agree to share this additional data. During the negotiated rulemaking conducted for the purpose of implementing statutory amendments, HUD proposed regulatory provisions based on the recommendations of a tribal workgroup that would 

require IHBG recipients to report items such as housing construction unit costs, 

services to elders, and reductions in criminal activity (due to crime prevention and 

safety activities funded under IHBG). The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was 

unable to reach consensus on the collection of this data, and it was removed from 

the reporting requirement in the revised IHBG regulations that became effective on 

January 2, 2013. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

RODGER J. BOYD

Remarks: In Alaska, NAHASDA enables the construction of 200 new homes each 

year. It funds the rehabilitation of 550 more annually. Recipients engage apprentices in construction trades, helping Alaska Native and American Indian individuals 

to learn job skills that they will carry with them for life. Through leveraging and 

the engagement of private sector contractors and vendors, NAHASDA also employs 

2,250 Alaskans each year. This is a very critical program for the Alaska Native community.

Question 1. Will you please provide your perspective on the Negotiated Rulemaking process that is used to determine, among other things, the allocation formula for the Indian Housing Block Grant program? 

Answer. HUD believes the negotiated rulemaking process used to implement 

NAHASDA and determine the IHBG allocation formula is essential to the success 

of HUD’s Indian housing programs. Central to NAHASDA and the way HUD does 

business is the respect for and belief in tribal sovereignty and tribal self-determination. The negotiated rulemaking process provides a forum for Indian tribes to make 

important decisions on how the statutory language of NAHASDA is implemented, 

particularly in the allocation of IHBG grant funds. HUD will conduct negotiated 

rulemaking on the IHBG allocation formula in FY 2013 and FY 2014 with tribal 

81

representatives from the six HUD ONAP Areas representing small, medium, and 

large tribes.

Question 2. What are some of the ways that tribes are successfully leveraging Indian Housing Block Grant funds to secure other sources of funding to address housing needs in Indian communities? 

Answer. Tribes are leveraging their IHBG funds by combining these funds with 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grants, Low Income Housing Tax 

Credits (LIHTC) and the Affordable Housing Program sponsored by the Federal 

Home Loan Bank. Tribes are also leveraging IHBG funds through the Title VI program. Under the Title VI program, borrowers pledge a portion of IHBG funds as 

security for private financing and can use their IHBG funds to pay the debt service 

on the loan, thereby maximizing the amount of IHBG funds by as much as five 

times the original grant amount. This program has provided an incentive for lenders 

to get involved in the development of tribal housing. 

HUD, through ONAP’s Office of Loan Guarantee, encourages and facilitates the 

investment of private capital for the purpose of meeting tribal housing and infrastructure needs. Through the use of the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee and Title 

VI of NAHASDA, tribes are able to leverage the IHBG with other federal, state, 

foundation, and private capital to successfully finance tribal projects. Federal agency 

dollars are the seed money necessary to attract other funding sources. Federal loan 

guarantees provide additional stability to housing projects to mitigate the perceived 

risks associated with tribal development projects because there is less concern about 

default and ability to cover the loss. 

Ohkay Owingeh, formerly known as the San Juan Pueblo in New Mexico, has 

shown outstanding innovation in obtaining sources of funding for housing. The tribe 

and its housing authority have leveraged LIHTC with IHBG funding, Rural Housing 

and Economic Development funding, HOME funding, and other sources to develop 

the 40-unit Tsigo Bugeh Village. They have also pursued an extensive housing rehabilitation program using a combination of IHBG funding and Indian Community Development Block Grant funding. Currently, they are pursuing New Market Tax 

Credits to develop additional housing that will support their economic stability. 

The Puyallup Tribe’s reservation in Tacoma, Washington is one of the most urban 

Indian reservations in the country. In 2012, the housing authority dedicated 10 

units of low-income rental housing, a new community center, and a maintenance 

building. The energy-efficient units (an LEED Platinum project) were built using 

the tribe’s IHBG and funds from the ARRA. 

The Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, in El Paso, Texas recently constructed 30 duplex 

units, 34 single-family homes, and the related roads, sewer, water, sidewalks, gutters, and street lighting. The $16 million project was funded by HUD’s IHBGs, Recovery Act funds, a HUD guaranteed loan, the BIA, the IHS, the Federal Highway 

Administration, tribal contributions, and LIHTC. 

Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine leveraged $272,000 in Title VI finances with LIHTC and grant funds from the following: Boston Federal Home Loan 

Bank, Affordable Housing Program, HUD HOME funds, BIA Roads, IHS, and 

USDA Water and Sewer funding to build 28 single-family homes and a community 

center. 

IHBG is considered seed money for those tribes that are able to do more development. In FY 2012, 100 percent of LIHTC for the state of Alaska was awarded to 

the Cook Inlet Housing Authority.

Question 3. Understanding that each tribe faces unique circumstances, what are 

two or three of the most common issues that delay Indian housing projects that are 

beyond recipients’ control? What, if anything, can Congress do to address those 

issues? 

Answer. Projects can be delayed due to the following: lack of recipient capacity; 

turnover in staff and leadership on the tribal level; severe weather including natural 

disasters such as floods, fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes; complications and delays 

related to non-HUD funding sources; slow approval of some leases by the BIA on 

trust property; and environmental review discoveries such as contaminants or artifacts. Additionally, because recipients rely on their IHBG awards to sustain their 

housing programs, they must carefully plan for the use of these funds. Some recipients totally exhaust their prior year funding because of their great housing needs 

and the lack of annual funding that does not include an inflation adjustment factor. 

A delay in annual appropriations causes some to have to secure bridge loans to 

cover costs until annual funding is available.

Question 4. This funding environment is, as we all know, very difficult. In addition to ensuring that funding levels are appropriate, it is imperative that we work 

to identify as many budget-neutral ways as possible to improve Indian housing proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
82

grams. What, in your opinion, is the best means for Congress to engage in that sort 

of meaningful reform? 

Answer. Tribal recipients and HUD have partnered over the years to identify and 

implement budget-neutral ways to improve Indian housing programs in light of level 

funding that does not account for inflation. Congress has assisted in this effort with 

adopting many provisions as part of the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization which 

streamline reporting requirements and allow tribes more flexibility to tailor their 

housing programs to meet their needs. NAHASDA is once again up for reauthorization this year which provides Congress with an opportunity to consider meaningful 

reform. 

NAHASDA is successful in Indian Country. Tribes strongly support the 

NAHASDA programs, and can produce results with the funds that are awarded to 

them. HUD, through its program administration and negotiated rulemaking with 

the tribes, has taken measures to improve the efficiencies and outcomes of the program. In partnership with the tribes, HUD has streamlined reporting requirements 

while it has increased the amount of data received from grantees. 

IHBG funds are now managed so that the oldest grant funds are the first to be 

expended, and most tribes can now get their IHBG funding with 4 months of Congressional appropriation. Previous to administrative changes implemented in 2012, 

it could take up to 10 months for a tribe to receive a given FY’s funding. In January 

2013, a final rule was published implementing negotiated regulations that implemented the changes of the 2008 NAHASDA reauthorization. Budget-neutral ways 

to improve the program include support of NAHASDA reauthorization and streamlining environmental requirements as discussed earlier in this response. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

CHERYL A. CAUSLEY

Maintaining statutory and regulatory compliance in Indian housing programs is 

a key feature of the NAHASDA. In your testimony before the Committee on April 

10, 2013, you stated that recent appropriations bills have ‘‘radically changed’’ the 

manner in which funds are allocated for Indian housing training and technical assistance. 

Question 1. Please elaborate on whether, how, or to what extent those changes 

have improved tribes’ compliance in their housing programs? 

Answer. This question calls for a two-part answer. First, the language of section 

703 of NAHASDA is clear and provides that ‘‘(t)here are authorized to be appropriated for assistance for a national organization representing Native America housing interests for providing training and technical assistance to Indian housing authorizes and tribally-designated entities such sums as may be necessary [for subsequent fiscal years].’’ Italics supplied, 25 U.S.C. § 4212. 

For more than a decade, all Training and Technical Assistance (T&TA) funding 

has been routed exclusively through the National American Indian Housing Council 

(NAIHC)—the only national housing organization dedicated to building capacity in 

tribes for purposes of administering assistance under the NAHASDA. 

Despite the plain language of section 703 of NAHASDA, congressional appropriators radically changed the allocation of T&TA funds by opening an already limited 

amount of T&TA funds ($2 million to $3.5 million), to ‘‘national or regional organizations representing Native American housing interests.’’ Section 703 language was 

negotiated among tribal leaders and Indian housing professionals and has been supported each year by the stakeholders of the Indian Housing Block Grant funds. 

In turn, and without tribal consultation, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) recently awarded Fiscal Year 2012 T&TA funding to no fewer 

than 8 entities, several of whom have little to no experience working with Indian 

tribes, let alone experience in providing T&TA to tribes and their tribally-designated 

housing entities. The FY2012 distribution is as follows:

• Association of Alaska Housing Authority—$1.5 million 

• National American Indian Housing Council—$1.35 million 

• ICF Incorporated—$1 million 

• FirstPic—$1 million 

• Econometrica—$1 million 

• National Congress of American Indians—$750,000

• Red Lake Housing Authority—$400,000

• Pacific American Foundation—$350,000

While it is premature to tell whether this change has improved compliance and 

expedited the outlay of block grant funds, in calendar 2012 NAIHC completed 107 

83

on-site technical assistance visits to tribes and tribal housing programs. NAIHC also 

provided twelve (12) training sessions at regional Indian housing association meetings and forty-two (42) classroom sessions on topics unique to tribal housing operations and management. Over 1,200 tribal housing professionals attended NAIHC 

trainings in 2012. NAIHC is currently offering training and technical services under 

its current cooperative agreement with HUD’s Office of Native American Programs. 

Most technical assistance requests by tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing Entities are fulfilled by NAIHC within three weeks. For Fiscal Year 2011, 

NAIHC was awarded $3.5 million and $1.35 million in Fiscal Year 2012 for T&TA 

funding. With a drop in $2.2 million, NAIHC will be limited in providing much 

needed T&TA services for Fiscal Year 2012. The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget 

request again zeros out T&TA funding for NAIHC.

Question 2. Does the HIP program duplicate the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) Indian housing programs or any other Federal housing 

program? If so, how? 

Answer. The BIA’s Housing Improvement Program (HIP) provides grant funding 

for home improvement and replacement and serves American Indian and Alaska 

Natives who have substandard housing or no housing at all and have no immediate 

source of housing assistance. 

Other federal housing resources available to American Indians and Alaska Natives are provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Housing 

Program, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Direct Home Loan Program, 

which provides direct loans to Indian veterans who are members of federally-recognized tribes, for the purchase, construction, refinancing, or improvement of homes 

located on Federal trust lands.

Question 3. In light of the various Federal housing programs, particularly the 

HUD Indian housing programs, does the HIP remain a significant or meaningful 

component of Indian housing strategies? How should the HIP be improved to facilitate Indian housing strategies? 

Answer. Even though the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request proposes 

to eliminate the HIP program altogether, it is our view that HIP provides important 

assistance for Indian housing. The BIA HIP program allows flexibility in reaching 

the neediest Native people—low, no income, handicapped and the elderly. BIA HIP 

has been the long standing federal Indian housing program that has evolved over 

the years to include interacting with other federal agencies to address a variety of 

barriers, including repair, renovation and replacement of existing housing. 

As Indian country continues to experience dwindling federal resources for Indian 

housing and community development programs, NAIHC feels the HIP program continues to play an important role in tribal housing development and strongly urges 

Congress and the Administration to fund the program at significantly higher levels 

in order to meet its mission. Additionally, the income guidelines for the BIA’s HIP 

program should be revised to reflect the current cost of housing. Currently established at 125 percent of poverty, there remains a gap between what clients can afford and their eligibility for assistance.

Question 4. Your written statement indicates that tribal housing entities are increasingly encouraged to leverage their Indian housing block grant funding to secure other sources of financing. It further notes that solutions to address the current 

housing conditions in Indian communities include new and innovative partnerships 

between the Federal and tribal governments as well as the private sector. Could you 

elaborate further on how tribes leverage their Indian housing block grant funds?

Question 4a. Are there any particular barriers or impediments tribes face in attempting to leverage their Indian housing block grant funds? 

Answer. ‘‘Leveraging’’ scarce funding is a common approach to financing not just 

housing but capital goods and other large-scale investment in general. Tribes and 

tribal members are no different and are increasingly encouraged to leverage their 

IHBG funding to secure other sources of financing, such as Low Income Housing 

Tax Credits. 

They are also beginning to combine funding streams from multiple sources such 

as the USDA Rural Development, U.S. Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the Federal Home Loan Bank, private foundations, and commercial banks. Even this, though, can be difficult because compliance 

requirements vary from program to program and agency to agency, presenting unnecessary barriers to efficient administration of multiple funding streams and limiting the ability of tribes to access multiple programs in an effort to reach adequate 

scale. 

While tribes are doing their best to minimize these barriers and achieve economies of scale that accompany resource ‘‘pooling,’’ one solution this Committee might 

84

investigate is to launch a demonstration project authorizing tribes to reach across 

the spectrum of federal programs to access currently disparate programs and resources. This is already being done in the realm of labor and employment training 

with the universally popular Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Act

(Pub.L.102–477), otherwise known as the ‘‘477 Program.’’

Question 5. Please identify the various reasons for this large, unexpended balance 

of Indian housing block grant funds? 

Answer. As noted at the Committee’s oversight hearing, ‘‘Identifying Barriers to 

Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions,’’ on April 10, 2013, the total 

obligated, unexpended balance of Indian housing block grant funds currently totals 

nearly $900 million. 

When this figure is put in proper context, however, the dollar figure drops precipi- tously: the $900 million figure provided by HUD actually includes funding from the 

FY 2011 and FY 2012 cycles. Not only does NAHASDA authorize the carryover of 

funds for a period of years, but as a practical matter and laid out in more detail 

below, housing and related infrastructure construction routinely takes 3 to 5 years 

to complete. When these two fiscal years’ worth of block grants are removed from 

the calculation, the total amount of obligated, unexpended funds total approximately 

one-third of the yearly amount appropriated. 

When housing is built with NAHASDA funding, the money is rarely spent the 

same year it is received. Rather, a developer will engage in a process that includes 

leveraging the federal investment to obtain additional funding from state, local, and 

private sources, procuring the land through a purchase or lease, engaging in project 

design, and finally, beginning construction. 

Leveraging and predevelopment often require a year or more, and site acquisition 

can be particularly cumbersome when land leasing is involved. The design and construction of larger projects typically takes one to two years. More complex projects, 

such as those which require remediation of environmental contamination, take additional time, due in large part to regulatory requirements. 

The barriers that do exist in the timely expenditure of funds derive largely from 

delays incurred in the transfer of funds from HUD to tribal recipients, and delays 

in seeking and securing required approvals by tribal recipients from HUD and the 

Interior Department. 

For example, each and every surface lease of trust land for residential/housing 

purposes have historically required the review and approval of the Interior Secretary. While leases of fee land may take days or weeks to develop and execute, reviews and approvals of leases of trust land have taken months if not years. Once 

implemented, the recently enacted HEARTH Act will authorize Indian tribes to develop and manage their own surface leasing laws without the review or approval 

of the Interior Secretary. Hopefully, this year’s reauthorization of the NAHASDA 

statute will carry with it other creative solutions to barriers that continue to hamper fund expenditure and housing development. 

Other barriers include seasonal construction in areas like Alaska, statutory requirements such as National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance, 

weak or non-existent transportation and infrastructure, and generally poor economic 

conditions.

Question 6. What can be done, either administratively or legislatively, to help expedite the use of these funds so that the tribes can build homes? Please be specific. 

Answer. To help expedite the use of these funds, the following needs to be considered:

• Set strict deadlines for federal approvals to occur and, absent approval, amend 

NAHASDA to have such requirements ‘‘deemed approved;’’

• Streamline or ‘‘tribalize’’ federal environmental review requirements as was 

done in the HEARTH Act which does not include NEPA compliance, but does 

require tribes to establish meaningful environmental review processes that include public notice and a reasonable dispute resolution mechanism;

• Provide targeted technical assistance that will teach recipients how to timely 

navigate a labyrinth of federal regulatory requirements;

• More discipline in the federal budget and appropriations process so that recipients could better plan to spend funding once it is received if the federal budget 

process offered better predictability in both the timing and amount of funding 

to be received;

• Improved coordination among federal agencies to provide programmatic consistency and interagency collaboration;

• Investigate the feasibility of ‘‘638-ing’’ NAHASDA and put the tribes in the decisionmaking driver’s seat rather than HUD. The 2005 study and report conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:11 Nov 27, 2013 Jkt 080495 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80495.TXT JACK
85

ducted by HUD falls far short of a clinical review of this idea and the Committee should launch its own review of this matter, or request the Government 

Accountability Office to undertake such a review;

• Permit tribes to blend funding from multiple agencies, for instance by authorizing the use of funding for sanitation facilities appropriated to the Indian 

Health Services when constructing new homes funded by HUD; and

• Other specific proposals contained in the draft reauthorization of the 

NAHASDA.

Question 7. Your written testimony notes that tribal communities suffer from 

some of the worst housing conditions in the United States and delays in necessary 

approvals and funding by the Federal government are a contribution factor. Ms. Annette Bryan also testified that there is no timeline for the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) to act on a waiver request of the Local Cooperation 

Agreement required by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA). 

In addition to the waiver request, please elaborate on other NAHASDA requirements that may cause tribes to experience delays in receiving Federal funding or 

approvals. How should the NAHASDA be amended to expedite Federal decisionmaking? 

Answer. See answers to question immediately above. 

Congratulations, again, on becoming the Chairwoman of this esteemed Committee, and thank you for your ongoing leadership in the realm of Indian housing. 

86

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

RUSSELL SOSSAMON


410b1.eps
87


410b2.eps

oftriballeasmg regulatiollS ratberthan of individual leases. But with the HEARTH Act in place, 

doing so now witllNAHASDA would be duplicative ami unnecessary. 

In addition to using the HEARTH Ad's leasing provisions, rnanytnbe:; lik" the Choctaw Nation 

have substantial tribal populations located in oonununities fur 110m their headquarter tribal 

community. As tribal members, lhese pcople are still eligible forNAHASDA-funded loans, 

even on fee land located away wm other tribal lands. Tbc ChoctawNalion Housing Authority 

views Choctaw homeownersbip not just as a process fur buying shelter but also as a means of 

i[wcsting to create and increase wealth for the homooWller and his orher family. Growing 

Choctaw family weolth through homcownersllip, rcgardlCS3 oftlle location oftlle llOme, 

customarily benefits other Choctaws given our close-knit family nnd ~Il:urol structufllS IlIld 

thereby raises tile overall Cl10etaw standard of living. 

Finally, 1 would like to make one point of clarification The Chactaw Notion Hausing 

Authority's home buying program is nat yet completely self-sustaining, and our Tnbal members 

still hayc a great deal ofunmet need. Although the repayment of principal and interest by 

current borrowers produces enough reYenuc to [!()v~r our IJP~-rnting costs nod ~'IlIIblcs us to make 

more lonns, the Choctaw Nation tribal government also contributes asignificant amount of 

money each year from its other enterprises to increase our direct loan fund. Thill is necessary 

becnu5e even wilh enougll revenue to COVC1'our cxpenses and malm some additionaL loans, we 

cannot serve nil ofthc Tribnl memben:; who would like to become homeownern given our large 

Tnoal popullltioo, our overwhelming need for more decent, safe and sanitary housing, and the 

number and geographic distnoution of Tribal members we have to ~eMl. We are working hard 

to reach the point where we do not need any more olIt:!fde funding from the Ch(lctnwNolinn or 

any other sources and have made great progress in thllt direction, but we are oot there yet. 

The RIA Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is intended for Indians who have 

substandard l,,)u~ing or no bousing at alt, and no olher imruediaffl: source of 

housing assistance. Hllwevcr, according to the BfA, Indiaus eligible for the HIP 

Qsststallee may also be eligible for other Federal bousing program assistnnce. 

Q: Does the HIP progranl duplkatll thc HUD Indian boo sing progralm or any other 

Federal honsing program? Ifso, how? 

RESPONSE BY RUSSELL SOSSAMON: No, the HIP progrnm does net duplir:ate HUD Indian 

IlOusing prot,'TaJIlS or other Federal housing progrurns. It is a necessary source offunding, in 

addition to NAHASDA's Tndian Housing Block Grant (IABG) and other f&ternl [iJnd~, to he 

used solely mrhousing repair, rehabilitation, and in some C:lSes borne purch:!sllS for the neediest 

of the neooy .. those who live in substandard housing and bave no immediate resources fur 

housing assistance. 

Q: In light ofthe various Federal housing programs, particularly fhe HUD indian housing 

programs, does tbe HIP remain a viahle ~omponent ofJndian bOU~ing 5trategies? 

Q: !roo, how shonld the HIP be impntved to faeilitat'l Indian housiDg strateg;n? 
88

Æ


410b3.eps