In 1996, Congress enacted the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA; P.L. 104-330 ). The law represented a major reorganization of federal housing assistance for Native Americans, consolidating most of the federal housing funding that previously had been provided to tribes into a single block grant. NAHASDA recognizes the rights of tribal self-governance and self-determination, and is intended to give tribes more control over affordable housing decisions and provide flexibility to tribes to address their specific housing needs. The centerpiece of NAHASDA is the Native American Housing Block Grant (NAHBG), the primary program that provides housing assistance to Native American tribes. Through the NAHBG, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides formula funding to federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages or to their tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs). These recipients of NAHBG funds can use them for a variety of affordable housing activities that address the housing needs of low-income Native Americans living in the respective tribes' formula areas. NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program to help tribes access private funding for housing development activities (the Title VI loan guarantee program) and funding for training and technical assistance. Additionally, a 2000 amendment to NAHASDA authorized the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program, through which HUD provides funds to Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. NHHBG funds are used to provide housing for low-income Native Hawaiians eligible to live on the Hawaiian Home Lands. Tribes are largely supportive of NAHASDA and the Native American Housing Block Grant. Nevertheless, tribes have also advocated for a number of changes to program requirements that they argue could enhance their ability to improve housing conditions in tribal areas. Many of the changes that have been proposed by tribes have to do with streamlining program requirements, particularly when NAHASDA funds are used with other sources of federal funds; providing more flexibility for tribes to make their own decisions about housing programs; and requiring HUD to be more responsive to requests for approvals or waivers of certain requirements. In some cases, goals such as increasing tribal flexibility and self-determination may need to be balanced against the goal of providing sufficient protections and oversight to ensure that program funds are being used appropriately. Congress has expressed interest in certain issues related to NAHASDA beyond those raised by tribes. One such issue has been concern about some tribes' accumulated balances of unspent NAHASDA funds. Additionally, some Members of Congress have opposed reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant out of concerns that it could be construed to provide benefits based on race. Others have debated whether NAHASDA funding should be provided to the Cherokee Nation in light of an ongoing legal dispute involving whether the Cherokee Freedmen, descendants of former Cherokee slaves and free blacks who resided with the Cherokee at the time of the Civil War, are entitled to membership in the tribe. The latter two issues were debated when NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 and continue to be of interest to Congress. The authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013, although Congress has generally continued to provide funding for NAHASDA programs. The reauthorization process has presented an opportunity for Congress to consider changes to the law and the programs that it authorizes as well as other housing issues affecting Native Americans. The 114 th Congress considered NAHASDA reauthorization legislation, with different bills being offered in the House and the Senate. However, no NAHASDA reauthorization legislation was enacted by the end of the 114 th Congress. This report briefly describes selected policy issues related to NAHASDA that have been raised by tribes or Congress in recent years. It then provides a table that compares the provisions of the NAHASDA reauthorization bills that were considered by the House and the Senate in the 114 th Congress with each other and with existing law. For more information on NAHASDA in general, see CRS Report R43307, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. This section discusses some of the more prominent NAHASDA-related issues that have been raised by tribes or debated by Congress in recent years. Among the issues raised by tribes, it generally focuses on proposed changes to NAHBG program requirements. It does not address issues that tribes have raised related to overall program funding levels or proposed changes related to the NAHBG funding formula. Tribes are not a monolithic group—their sizes, histories, and cultures, and the geography of where they live, vary greatly—and tribes do not always agree about potential changes to NAHASDA. When this report discusses changes that have been advocated by tribes, it generally means that the changes have been repeatedly raised by some tribes or championed by the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), a group that advocates for the housing interests of Native Americans. The NAHBG provides formula funding to tribes to carry out affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native American households living in tribal areas. NAHBG funds are subject to a number of requirements that are meant to ensure that the program meets its intended purpose, including requirements intended to ensure that NAHBG-assisted housing is and remains affordable to low-income households. In addition, NAHBG funds are subject to a variety of requirements that are common across many federal programs, such as requirements to carry out environmental reviews and to pay prevailing wages to workers on NAHBG-assisted projects. Many of the changes to NAHBG requirements advocated by tribes have to do with streamlining certain cross-cutting federal requirements when multiple sources of federal funds are used in a project, providing tribes additional flexibility to set their own requirements, or requiring HUD to respond to requests for approvals or waivers in a timely manner. In some cases, goals such as increasing tribal flexibility and self-determination may create a tension with federal oversight goals. NAHBG-funded activities are subject to certain requirements that are common across federal programs. One example is environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Sometimes, a project that uses NAHASDA funds might also use funding from another federal agency, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Other agencies might have somewhat different rules for complying with overarching federal requirements such as environmental reviews required by NEPA. Some tribes have argued that the different requirements under different federal programs make it more difficult to combine funding from multiple sources to use for affordable housing activities. They argue that these duplicative or conflicting requirements are burdensome and costly, making it more complicated to combine funding sources and reducing the amount of funds available for housing. Some tribes have suggested that meeting NAHASDA's standards for certain cross-cutting requirements, such as environmental reviews, should be sufficient to satisfy other federal agencies' requirements when multiple funding sources are used in a NAHBG-assisted project. Congress has made some efforts to address overlapping environmental review requirements in Native American housing. The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ) included provisions related to the issue of multiple environmental reviews, directing HUD to work with the Council on Environmental Quality and other federal agencies "to develop a coordinated environmental review process to simplify tribal housing development and related infrastructure needs." The explanatory statement directed HUD and the other agencies to consult with tribes and TDHEs and to report their conclusions, recommendations, and any necessary statutory changes to the appropriations committees by May 1, 2015. HUD provided an interim report on its progress to the appropriations committees on May 6, 2015, and a final report was released on December 15, 2015. A similar issue has to do with prevailing wage requirements. In general, workers on federally funded projects must be paid a prevailing wage under the Davis-Bacon Act. Under NAHASDA, workers on projects assisted with NAHBG funds must be paid a prevailing wage as determined by HUD or by the Davis-Bacon requirements, depending on the type of worker. However, if a NAHBG-assisted project is subject to a requirement to pay a prevailing wage rate determined by the tribe, then the HUD-determined or Davis-Bacon prevailing wages do not apply to the project. Although tribally determined prevailing wages can satisfy the requirement to pay a prevailing wage under NAHASDA, other federal funding sources may still require the payment of Davis-Bacon wages. This can create complications for projects that use NAHASDA and other sources of funds. Similar to the environmental review requirements, tribes have proposed that using tribally determined prevailing wages should satisfy the requirement to pay prevailing wages for all federal sources of funding in projects that use both NAHASDA and other sources of federal funds. Other changes advocated by tribes have to do with providing tribes with more flexibility in setting their housing program requirements. One example of a NAHASDA program requirement tribes have sought more flexibility with is the maximum rent that can be charged for NAHBG-assisted housing. Under the NAHASDA statute, the maximum rent or homebuyer payment (that is, the payment under a lease-purchase agreement) for a housing unit assisted with NAHBG funds cannot exceed 30% of the tenant's income. Many tribes have argued that the 30% rule is too restrictive and that tribes should be allowed to set their own maximum rents. Tribes say that the ability to charge higher rents could allow them to more easily pay for the costs of maintaining and operating NAHBG-assisted units (such as paying for repairs, utilities, and general maintenance).