6. Project MT 8-21 can receive a notice to proceed as soon as the architect is able to provide final plan changes.

7. Project MT 8-24 is ready to go to bid when Indian Health Service comments are satisfied and the ACC list is signed.

8. Projects MT 8-22 and 8-23 need to have working drawings completed before the projects go forward.

9. The Housing Authority is continuing to administer such diverse programs as Community Development Block Grants and Anti-Crime.

The problems in development which led to HUD's decision not to fund fiscal year 1980 units are still plaguing the Authority. Therefore, we reaffirm our previous determination that it would not be appropriate to allocate housing units to Blackfeet this fiscal year.

Actions Needed to Make Blackfeet Eligible for Fiscal Year 1981 Units

Since there will be no change in the decision regarding fiscal year 1980 units, the most constructive approach that can be taken would be the development of a strategy that would address the problems identified in this letter with a view toward making it possible for the Authority to receive units in fiscal year 1981. I believe this plan needs to be developed jointly by the Authority and HUD and needs to identify actions to be taken by each party. Some of the items which might be included in such a plan could be:

1. funding of a full-time contracting officer,

2. more technical assistance from HUD or other sources,

3. a commitment to close out the overdue projects by an agreed-upon date, and

4. a method of taking care of current litigation and preventing its

reoccurrence.

Specifics on those or other factors can be discussed at an appropriate time. Of course, the IHA still must make a positive showing on tenant accounts receivable and other administrative capability items to be eligible for units next year.

Please respond to these suggestions and please feel free to provide any other ideas you can think of which might help bring about improvements.

In closing, I want to emphasize that it is OIP's intent to assist the Housing Authority resolve its problems as effectively and quickly as possible. We recognize the tremendous need for housing on the Blackfeet Reservation, and we hope that along with our planned technical assistance we can count on your cooperation to eliminate barriers to the future allocation of new housing.

Sincerely,

A. CYNTHIA LEON, Director, Office of Indian Programs.

Senator MELCHER. Do you have a list of housing authorities that have a considerable number of people involved who are behind on their payments?

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not sure I understand your question.
Senator MELCHER. I will rephrase it.

Do you have a summary that shows where there is a considerable number of individual families that are behind on their payments? Mr. SHERMAN. I do not have it here. I believe I can furnish it. Senator MELCHER. I know you do not have it with you. I am just asking if you can supply it for the record.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think so.

Senator MELCHER. We would appreciate having that. We may ask some other questions that we will direct to you to be answered and made part of the record at this point.

[Subsequent to the hearing the following information was received:] Attached is a listing of all Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs) with units in management. The list shows Indian Housing Authorities by State and the States are organized by the HUD Office under whose jurisdiction they will be after the reorganization of HUD field services to IHAs goes into effect.

The Tenant Accounts Receivable (TAR) level represents the aggregate rents and homebuyer payments owed to the IHA. The table also shows the TAR balance as a percent of current monthly charges.

There are some IHAS who have not submitted the forms which reflect TARS and, therefore, the information is unavailable.

Senator MELCHER. Thank you both very much.

Ms. ROCHE. Thank you.

Senator MELCHER. Our next witness is Johnnye Chopper, chairman, National American Indian Housing Council, Carson City, Nev.

STATEMENT OF JOHNNYE CHOPPER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL, CARSON CITY, NEV.

Mr. CHOPPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Johnnye Chopper. I am chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council.

Our council represents over 100 Indian and Alaska Native housing authorities and over 600,000 Indians and Alaskans. On behalf of our constituency, we express appreciation for the opportunity to testify before this committee.

In the interest of time, I plan to make brief verbal statements and submit a complete written statement for the committee's records.

Senator MELCHER. Your entire statement will be made part of the record at the end of your testimony.

Mr. CHOPPER. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify on behalf of Indian housing. I know of no single program that is better received by Indian people. They recognize the importance of housing far more than other members of our society simply because, prior to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's involvement in Indian housing, housing opportunities for Indians living on trust properties were nonexistent.

Should the Department of Housing and Urban Development's program be cut back or hampered in any way, housing opportunities for Indians would be minimal. There would be no opportunity for the private sector bond and finance mechanism or State programs to step in to fill the gap.

I would like to talk about prototype just briefly. Prototype costs supplied to Indian housing presents serious problems. Approximately 4 years ago, recognizing the need for special Indian prototype, a system was developed in HUD's Region VIII for updating Indian prototype figures. However, this year the data collected and submitted by HUD's own regional statisticians were not reflected in the published prototype figures.

The National American Indian Housing Council feels that this system, which worked in the past, should continue. Incipient problems are already developing because_regional prototype data have been ignored in preparing this year's Indian prototype cost.

An additional problem related to the use of prototype cost figures affect the timely delivery of Indian housing. There are two separate steps in the funding commitment process for an Indian housing project. The first of these is the initial commitment made at the program reservation stage when a project is approved. This initial funding commitment is based upon prototype costs prevailing at that time.

Several months later, the project arrives at the annual contribution contract stage. When the final funding commitment is made, more specific project cost information available at this ACC stage often makes it necessary to revise the estimated project cost; usually it is upward. Although it is permissible to use prototype costs prevailing at the time of the ACC execution, changing the total fund commitment made at the program reservation is not possible without an amendment.

HUD's amendment moneys are extremely scarce, and the only other alternative is to reduce the number of units in the project.

Mr. Chairman, the National American Indian Housing Council has consistently and repeatedly advocated 6,000 fully funded Indian and Alaska housing units. We request that the Department of Housing and Urban Development be directed to supply the necessary amendment funds to produce these units in a timely manner and that prompt steps be taken to remove such impediments which unnecessarily delay the complicated Indian housing program.

Concerning the interdepartmental agreement, I do not know of a single house that was not built because of problems traceable to the interdepartmental agreement. Attributing the Indian housing problems to the agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is placing the blame for slow delivery of Indian housing where it does not belong. Housing units are built as a result of hard work and cooperation between the Federal representatives and the Indian housing authority people. Occasionally there may be a specific individual who does not fulfill his job obligation, but this is not the fault of the interdepartmental agreement.

I would like to comment, also briefly, on a criticism concerning the high cost of Indian housing. A recent report implied that the Indian housing throughout the United States is characterized by high cost. It is unjust to level such criticism.

It has been my personal observation that those factors which cause. Indian housing to be costly are either due to complicated regulations imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development or they are costs which are beyond the control of the housing authority. Moreover, cost comparisons are often carelessly prepared and ignore differentiations between single-family and multifamily dwellings as well as other factors specific to building dwellings on reservation lands.