{ "id": "R44261", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44261", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458397, "date": "2017-01-23", "retrieved": "2017-02-03T19:27:25.383824", "title": "The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA): Issues and Reauthorization Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA; P.L. 104-330) replaced several existing sources of housing funding for Native Americans with a single block grant, the Native American Housing Block Grant (NAHBG). Through the NAHBG, tribes and Alaska Native villages receive formula funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to use for a variety of affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native American households living in tribal areas. NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program for tribes (the Title VI loan guarantee) and funding for training and technical assistance. In addition, NAHASDA (as amended) authorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG), which provides funds for affordable housing activities for low-income Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.\nWhile tribes are generally supportive of NAHASDA, some have advocated for changes to program requirements. For example, tribes have argued for streamlining certain cross-cutting federal requirements when multiple sources of funds are used in a single project, for more flexibility in setting certain program requirements, and for HUD to respond to requests for approvals or waivers of NAHASDA requirements in a more timely fashion. \nFurthermore, some in Congress have expressed concern over certain NAHASDA-related issues. For several years, there has been some opposition in Congress to reauthorizing housing programs for Native Hawaiians out of concern that such programs could be construed to be based on race. Congress has also debated whether, and how, to respond to ongoing litigation between the Cherokee Nation and the Cherokee Freedmen. More recently, Congress has expressed concern about a few tribes that have accumulated large balances of unexpended NAHASDA funds. \nThe authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013 (the authorization for the NHHBG expired at the end of FY2005), although Congress has generally continued to provide funding for these programs. The reauthorization process has presented an opportunity for Congress to consider potential program changes advocated by tribes as well as other issues related to NAHASDA that are of interest to Congress. In the 114th Congress, the House passed a NAHASDA reauthorization bill (H.R. 360), while in the Senate a different bill was favorably reported out of committee (S. 710). \nBoth H.R. 360 and S. 710 would have reauthorized a number of Native American and Native Hawaiian housing programs, authorized certain new program demonstrations and set-asides for Native American housing, and provided for a reduction in NAHBG formula funding for certain tribes with large amounts of unspent funds (although in slightly different ways). Both bills also included a number of changes to NAHASDA requirements, including provisions related to streamlining environmental review and lease termination requirements when NAHASDA funds are combined with other sources of funding, and allowing tribes to set their own maximum rents for NAHASDA-assisted housing. \nAlthough the House and the Senate reauthorization bills addressed many of the same issues, they did not always do so in the same way. Each bill also included provisions related to certain issues that were not included in the other bill. \nNeither of these NAHASDA reauthorization bills, nor any other NAHASDA reauthorization legislation, was enacted by the end of the 114th Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44261", "sha1": "d042d791db3493958038569a0445134bf7e34b0e", "filename": "files/20170123_R44261_d042d791db3493958038569a0445134bf7e34b0e.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44261", "sha1": "e3d3f3663dde0105156a069ea3c9b312f32f6403", "filename": "files/20170123_R44261_e3d3f3663dde0105156a069ea3c9b312f32f6403.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 446963, "date": "2015-11-03", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:01:10.808905", "title": "The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA): Issues and Reauthorization Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA; P.L. 104-330) replaced several existing sources of housing funding for Native Americans with a single block grant, the Native American Housing Block Grant (NAHBG). Through the NAHBG, tribes and Alaska Native villages receive formula funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to use for a variety of affordable housing activities that benefit low-income Native American households living in tribal areas. NAHASDA also authorizes a loan guarantee program for tribes (the Title VI loan guarantee) and funding for training and technical assistance. In addition, NAHASDA (as amended) authorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG), which provides funds for affordable housing activities for low-income Native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.\nWhile tribes are generally supportive of NAHASDA, some have advocated for changes to program requirements. For example, tribes have argued for streamlining certain cross-cutting federal requirements when multiple sources of funds are used in a single project, for more flexibility in setting certain program requirements, and for HUD to respond to requests for approvals or waivers of NAHASDA requirements in a more timely fashion. \nFurthermore, Congress has expressed concern over certain NAHASDA-related issues. For several years, there has been some opposition in Congress to reauthorizing housing programs for Native Hawaiians out of concern that such programs could be construed to be based on race. Congress has also debated whether, and how, to respond to ongoing litigation between the Cherokee Nation and the Cherokee Freedmen. More recently, Congress has expressed concern about a few tribes that have accumulated large balances of unexpended NAHASDA funds. \nThe authorization for most NAHASDA programs expired at the end of FY2013 (the authorization for the NHHBG expired at the end of FY2005), although Congress has continued to provide funding for these programs. The reauthorization process has presented an opportunity for Congress to consider potential program changes advocated by tribes as well as other issues related to NAHASDA that are of interest to Congress. In the 114th Congress, the House has passed a NAHASDA reauthorization bill (H.R. 360), while in the Senate a different bill has been favorably reported out of committee (S. 710). \nBoth H.R. 360 and S. 710 would reauthorize a number of Native American and Native Hawaiian housing programs, authorize certain new program demonstrations and set-asides for Native American housing, and provide for a reduction in NAHBG formula funding for certain tribes with large amounts of unspent funds (although in slightly different ways). Both bills also include a number of changes to NAHASDA requirements, including provisions related to streamlining environmental review and lease termination requirements when NAHASDA funds are combined with other sources of funding, and allowing tribes to set their own maximum rents for NAHASDA-assisted housing. \nAlthough the House and the Senate reauthorization bills address many of the same issues, they do not always do so in the same way. Each bill also includes provisions related to certain issues that are not included in the other bill.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44261", "sha1": "5a068302bdcfba4f83a2f050a44b5cc0e941b7d5", "filename": "files/20151103_R44261_5a068302bdcfba4f83a2f050a44b5cc0e941b7d5.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44261", "sha1": "e163a5d3ac45bdfa5963eea1113b3b65a49a760f", "filename": "files/20151103_R44261_e163a5d3ac45bdfa5963eea1113b3b65a49a760f.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Domestic Social Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }