21 minute read
HUD & Tribal Housing Policy Overview
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) & TRIBAL HOUSING POLICY OVERVIEW
The following section will provide an overview of three prominent HUD housing policies that are either actively being utilized to facilitate housing development on tribal land or being factored into HUD formulas for grant dispersion. The following policies and programs will be overviewed: The Housing Act of 1937, the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, LIHTC, and the HEARTH Act of 2012. I conclude each overview of a program with an analysis of the program under the analytic framework scholars Wilkson and Biggs in efforts to measure a program’s likelihood to facilitate assimilation or encourage self-determination.
Advertisement
I. HOUSING ACT OF 1937
Description
The Housing Act of 1937 was signed into law on September 1, 1937 under President Roosevelt during the tail end of the Great Depression. The main intent behind the Housing Act of 1937 was to address the housing conditions of “slums” and provide safe and sanitary conditions for low-income families whose needs were largely being ignored by the market. It is important to note initially at the signing of the 1937 Housing Act, American Indians were excluded as being beneficiaries of the act until 1961, when HUD and BIA determined Indian tribes can part-take in rental assistance programs for low-income families and amended it to incorporate public housing development on tribal land. To better serve Indian tribes the 1937 Housing Program expanded to include upwards of 14 programs under its umbrella. Following the passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and Determination Act of 1996, the Housing Act of 1937 was suspended. The last round of 1937 housing units was completed in 1997. Public housing built through Mutual Housing and Turnkey programs initially maintained through HUD will receive funding for upwards of 25 years of their completion or until a unit is paid off by the tribal member applicant. 71
Key Characteristics
Management & Governance • Pre-NAHASDA: Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) & Indian Housing
Authorities (IHA) • Top-Down Management: Tribes submit a list of households seeking housing units to an
Indian Housing Authorities in their area; the IHA submits a list of households seeking housing to HUD. HUD awards housing to select households on the list.
Project Development & Maintenance • Pre-NAHASDA: HUD financed the entire development process of a project from predevelopment cost, construction cost, and maintenance and operation cost.
71 United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Challenges Facing HUD’s Indian Housing Program. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105.pdf 26
Eligibility Requirement • Enrolled tribal members living on trust or tribal land of tribe of membership. • One Household • Nuclear Family: Husband, Wife, Children (Avg. 2.5) • Project Occupancy Types • Single Family Units (Purchase or Rent)
Housing Unit Standards • Single - Family detached • Avg. 822 - 1000 sq. ft • 2 – 3 bdrm • Avg. 1 - story • Pitched gable roof • Material: Aluminum sidings and/or stucco. Wood or concrete finished floors.
Housing Act of 1937 Programs (As of Feb. 2020)
Program Name
Turnkey III Homeownership Opportunities for Indian Families 72
Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 73 Description
Competitive application in which IHA’s submit plans to assist low-income Indian families purchase a home on tribal land. Assist low-income Indian families purchase a home on tribal land. Tenant/Homebuyer Financial Obligation
30-year mortgage payments to IHA. Payment can’t exceed 35% of applicants adjusted income. Additional Info
Inactive as of 1997; TDHE will receive funding for maintenance for 25 yrs. after completion of the unit.
Contract between the IHA and homebuyer avg. 15 to 25 years.
Households pay 15 - 30% of their adjusted income, minimum contribute of $1,500 towards cost of home. Inactive as of 1997; TDHE will receive funding for maintenance for 25 yrs. after completion of the unit.
72 Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development Part 950 - INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development, 25 U.S.C. 450e(b): 42 U.S.C. 1437aa1437ee and 3535 § (1998). Retrieved from https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-1998-title24-vol4/pdf/CFR-1998-title24-vol4-part950.pdf 73 Ibid. Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development Part 950 27
Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program 74 Designed to encourage private mortgage lending in Indian Country. This program provides 100% federal guarantee to private lenders for home loans made to tribal members, tribes and TDHE.
Can be used for single family housing (1-4 units). Tribal members make payments to privatelenders.
Low down payment - 2.25% on loans over $50,000 and only 1.25% on loans under $50,000 Loans can be used on and off tribal and trust land.
No minimum credit score required but borrowers must be creditworthy.
Interest is based on market rates, not credit score.
Low down payment.
Can offer 50-year leases.
Program Analysis - 1937 Housing Act
The 1937 Housing Act was implemented on tribal land in the 1960s, at the start of the Tribal Self-Determination Era, when federal Indian policies sought to provide tribes selfdetermination without assimilation.75 The overall objective of the Housing Act of 1937 programs was to provide tribes access to affordable housing on tribal and/or trust land, without displacing or relocating Indians to cities. Upon analyses under Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs’s assimilation and self-determination tension framework. The Housing Act of 1937 programs: Turnkey III and Mutual Help programs tend to overall gravitate towards policies predicated on gradual assimilation, while the Section 184 Indian Home Loan tends to gravitate towards self-determination driven policy.
Turnkey III Homeownership & Mutual Help Homeownership - Analysis
Although the Turnkey III and Mutual Help Homeownership fully covers cost of construction. These programs are restrictive due in part to limitations of tribes’ ability to have input in overall design of a unit and most importantly household size eligibility. From the family selection process down to the design and construction process, HUD assumes full control over a project in which Indian tribes and tribal members can either accept or make do with nothing. The implications of HUD’s control design can produce a scenario where aesthetically a HUD unit doesn’t fit in with a tribe’s vernacular aesthetic. The implications of HUD’s stipulation on household size, which was based on a traditional American nuclear family, can produce a scenario where a tribal household doesn’t qualify for a HUD unit. This can potentially influence a household to split up in efforts to obtain a unit, which can be argued as assimilating to survive. Although this form of assimilation is not rapid i.e. immediately
74 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). Borrowers Section 184 Loan Resources. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeownership/184/borrowers 75 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012)
28
terminating an Indian program/policy or forcing relocation to a reservation or a city. It can be perceived as a form of gradual assimilation that overtime influences Indian tribes to maintain household sizes to the criteria of a typical American family. Lastly in regard to the household selection process, tribes are not able select applicants nor determine the order in which applicant receives their house. The implication of having HUD approve applications raising the possibility of selection bias and targeting niche applicants HUD deems eligible based on their metrics. This can ultimately leave out a large pool of households who need access to housing but do not meet HUD’s criteria.
Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program - Analysis
Section 184 Indian Home Loan program tends to gravitate more towards self-determination driven policy by providing interest tribal members opportunities to acquire a loan for a house both on and off tribal land. One interesting clause of this program is that it does not assess applicants by credit score. This is important to note because historically Indian Country lacks access to capital and financial institutions and many tribal members do have a credit history.76 However, given this program enables private lending institutions to determine creditworthiness. This can potentially create a scenario where lending institutions are reluctant to lend to tribal members resulting in no one receiving loans. Previous Indian housing policies such as the Relocation Act of 1956, have shown how private lenders can obstruct Indians from obtaining loans when given the authority to determine creditworthiness. Lastly Section 184 provides private lenders the authority to set mortgage rates which can also create a situation where private lending institutions requirements are too high for tribal members to afford. According to scholar Ferrell, historic BIA assessment reports found numerous cases where suggested mortgage and rental rates failed in Indian Country due to socio-economic factors such as lack of access to consistent employment opportunities to support suggested mortgage and rental rates.77
Description
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, also referred to as NAHASDA, was signed into law under Bill Clinton in 1996 during the Self-Determination Era. NAHASDA is predicated on the principles of self-determination for tribal housing development. NAHASDA provides tribes the authority and decision-making power to create their own housing authorities called tribally designated housing entities or TDHE. TDHE’s serve as tribal housing development agencies that operate as housing developers most predominantly for low-income tenants on behalf of their tribe. TDHEs’ duties range from serving as primary contact agency for HUD, submitting project proposals for competitive and noncompetitive HUD applications, allocating funds from HUD in addition to public and private
76 Miriam, Jorgensen, & Randall, Akee. (2017). Access to Capital and Credit in Native Communities: A Data Review. Tucson, AZ: Native Nations Institute. 77 Ibid. Ferrell, J. Susan
29
entities for housing projects, commissioning repairs and rehabilitation of damaged units, and collecting rent and sometimes mortgages from tenants.78 In addition to giving tribes the ability to dictate what type of housing typologies development gets built and where it’s located on tribal and trust lands. NAHASDA consolidated all the previous housing programs (Mutual Help Homeownership, Turnkey III Homeownership) into a singular housing annual block grant called Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG), in effort to streamline funding sources to tribes.79
Key Characteristics
Management & Governance • Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) & Tribally Designated Housing
Entities (TDHE) • Flat Organizational Structure: TDHE are managed by an Executive Director who oversees a small team of usually 5-6 full or part-time employees. TDHE submit annual housing assessment reports and housing development reports to HUD to obtain non-competitive
IHBG funding in addition to competitive funding.
Project Development & Maintenance • TDHE are responsible for budgeting and leveraging funds to complete projects and cover maintenance and operation costs.
Eligible Activities • Indian Housing Assistance, Development, Housing Services, Housing Management
Services, Crime Prevention and Safety, Model Activites.
Eligible Recipient Requirement • Enrolled low-income tribal members living on trust or tribal land are eligible for IHBG projects.
Eligible Household are determined by whether households fall under national 80% AMI levels. Below is the national 2019 median family income limits; TDHEs can also determine household limits by their County AMI, if the limits are higher.
2019 Median Family Income Limits 80 (MFI for 4-person household is $75,500, which is the base for estimates) AMI 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person
80% $42,280 $48,320 $54,360 $60,400 $65,232 $70,064
100% $52,850 $60,400 $67,950 $75,500 $81,540 $87,580 7-Person $74,896
$93,620 8-Person $79,728
$99,660
78 Ibid. Durand, Cassandra. (2015) 79 US Department of Housing and Urban Development. NAHASDA Final Rule - 24 CFR Part 1000 (2012). Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/nahasda#:~:text=The%20Native%20American%20 Housing%20Assistance,with%20a%20block%20grant%20program. 80 Office of Native Programs. (2019). Indian Housing Block Grant - 2019 Program Guidance. US Department of Housing & Urban Development. 30
Project Development Types • Single Family or Multi-Family Units (Purchase or Rent)
Housing Unit Standards • Varies - TDHE’s have the ability to pursue any type of housing typology they deem fit to serve low-income tribal members.
NAHASDA Non-Competitive IHBG Formula NAHASDA IHBG formula used appropriate funds each year to tribes is based off 7 factors, which can be seen below in figure-7. Each factor is weighted accordingly by percentage based on its overall impact on funding amount.
Figure 7. Non-Competitive IHBG Formula Factors Weighted
(Source: United States General Accounting Office. (2015), IHBG Formula)
31
NAHASDA Programs (As of Feb. 2020)
Program Name
Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) / Non-Competitive 81
Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) / Competitive 82 Description
Annual IHBG allocation to TDHE. TDHE must submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP) which details affordable housing needs to HUD at least 75 days before the start of their tribal programming year.
1-Year Notice of Funding Cycle. Adopted in 2017, the competitive IHBG distributes as of 2018 over 200 million to select successful TDHE applicants. TDHE must submit project proposals that are a part of a comprehensive plan to address issues of overcrowding and dilapidated units.
Notice of Funding Announced According to Funding Availability. Tenant/Homebuyer Financial Obligation Rent and mortgage payments for IHBG funded units can’t exceed 30% of the adjusted monthly income of the household.
Rent and mortgage payments for IHBG funded units can’t exceed 30% of the adjusted monthly income of the household. Additional Info
Funding Limits: Varies per tribe, minimum possible: $50,000
Funding Limits: Minimum: $100,000 Maximum: $5,000,000
81 Jones, K. (2015). The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/ R43307/8 82 Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program--Competitive Grants. (2019). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/Modified_IHBG_NOFA_7.3.19.pdf
32
Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) 83 Competitive grant designed to assist tribes improve housing stock, provide community facilities, repair and expand infrastructure, and fund economic development initiatives.
2-Year Notice of funding cycle.
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program 84 Enables tribes or TDHE to pledge current and future IHBG funding as insurance to HUD, who provides a 95% guarantee on loans to private investors and lenders. This program helps tribes and TDHEs obtain additional granteligible construction and development at today’s cost. Funding Limits: Minimum: $50,000 Maximum: $7,000,000
Exclude Activities: -Construction and improvement of government facilities. -General government expenses: maintenance, operation cost, income, political activities. Eligible Funding Activities: -Create new housing. -Rehabilitate housing. -Build infrastructure. -Construct community facilities. -Acquire land to be used for housing. -Prepare architectural and engineering plans. -Fund financing costs.
Funding Limits: Minimum: None Maximum: 5x a TDHEs’ annual IHBG.
Program Analysis - NAHASDA
When analyzing the NAHASDA programs under Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and selfdetermination framework. Overall NAHASDA skews more towards the Indian housing policy predicated on self-determination. However, it is important to note several NAHASDA programs
83 Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages - FR-6300-N-23. (2020). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/ CDBGforIndianTribesandAlaskaNativeVilliagesFY19FY20.pdf 84 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination, Pub. L. No. 25 U.S.C. 4101 (2020). 33
have limitations pertaining to rent levels and project implementation oversight that can be interpreted as gradual assimilation driven clauses.
Non-Competitive & Competitive Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) - Analysis
The non-competitive and competitive Indian Housing Block Grant programs offer Indian TDHEs the ability to take ownership of housing development and design of units on tribal/ trust land that better responds towards the needs of their respected tribe. Furthermore, the main differences between the two programs are the non-competitive IHBG is distributed annually, while competitive IHBG is distributed whenever funds are available. In 2018, the first competitive IHBG funds were disturbed and they derive from recaptured unused funds and carryover funds. Although both the competitive and noncompetitive IHBG enable TDHEs to pursue projects that are better aligned to tribes’ housing needs. HUD’s ability to approve all project submittals and the right to initiate disciplinary actions and revoke funding if tribes do not abide by regulations can be interpreted as paternalistic. If in the event Indian housing policy regresses to being overtly anti-Indian again, similar to historical regression from the Indian Reorganization Era to the Termination Era. If such a scenario were to occur again HUDs’ oversight of project submissions can be co-opted and force either gradually or rapidly force TDHEs to assimilate to a particular housing regulation. From a settler colonial framework, Wolfe and Lorenzo would make the case that the power dynamic between HUD and Indian Country positions the federal government to maintain power over the quality of housing services provided to Indian Country. Although relations between Indian Country and federal government are seemingly peaceful in present times. History has shown settler colonialism is imperious to regime change and expresses itself differently in different times depending on the agenda. Thus, until Indian tribes are able to own the trust land in which IHBG funds is applicable towards, TDHEs do not have to get plans approved by HUD, and tribes can decide whether they want to use the housing solely for affordable housing or not. The settler colonialism framework puts forth IHBG funds are complicit in providing settler society a means of controlling Indian Country.
Moreover, since the first allotment of non-competitive IHBG funds to TDHEs in 1998 of $592 million USD, the median disbursement for IHBG going up for 2020 has been $641,406,705. This is troubling to note given inflation has been rising annually, and upon initial glance NAHASDA funding doesn’t appear to be keeping pace with inflation. Scholars such as Virginia Davis argue historically all Indian housing programs tend to be underfunded. If NAHASDA funding fails to keep pace with inflation rates the entire program itself can present itself as ineffective in providing adequate housing to Indian Country. Additionally, given the fact that historically Indian housing programs have been significantly underfunded or anti-Indian. The competitive-IHBG program should not have Indian tribes competing for a limited pool of funds the federal government should be providing regardless to uphold their trust responsibility.
34
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program - Analysis
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program provides TDHEs the opportunity to borrow upwards of 5x their annual IHBG needs outright by guaranteeing upwards of 95% of future IHBGs funds as repayment. A benefit of the Title VI Guarantee Program is that it enables tribes to cover project expenses in present value construction cost and inflation rates. When analyzing the program under Wilkson and Biggs’s assimilation and self-determination framework, overall Title VI is predicated on self-determination values. However, Title VI enables tribes to access larger pulls of IHBG funds upfront. The deduction of upwards of 95% of future guaranteed funds can heavily impact a TDHEs able to maintain yearly operations dependent on IHBG funds. This can ultimately create a situation where TDHEs must choose between obtaining present value construction cost or sacrificing operation and maintenance funds for a couple of years, which could lead to further dilapidated housing conditions for tribal members who need adequate housing immediately. If Indian housing were adequately supported in the first place, scholars such as Virginia Davis would make the argument that VI Loan Guarantee Program wouldn’t be necessary.
III. LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS (LIHTC)
Description
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits or LIHTC was enacted as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. LIHTC enables state and local agencies to authorize federal tax credits to private investors who provide equity to housing agencies for the construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of affordable housing. LIHTC is divided into two funding mechanism pools, 4% and 9% credits. Affordable housing projects are eligible to pursue one funding mechanism per project. For over the duration of 10 years, every year a tax credit equal to roughly 4% and 9% of a project’s qualified basis (cost of construction) is claimed by the private developer. Within the 4% tax credit project, a subsidy equal to 30% of the present value of a project’s qualified basis is created. Within a 9% tax credit project, a subsidy of 70% of the present value of a project’s qualified basis is created. LIHTC funding is competitive and proposed projects are analyzed by state housing agencies who allocate funds to selected projects.85
In the state of New Mexico, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA) administers 4% and 9% tax credit applications. Annually the state of New Mexico receives on average between 5 - 6 million dollars to allocate to projects. MFA conducts one allocation cycle a year, with deadlines typically due in February and approved projects awards by June. MFA accesses projects accordingly based on 22 different criteria in which they use to award project points to determine if they qualify for LIHTC equity funds. At a minimum 9% projects need 85 points and 4% projects need 70 points out of a maximum of 168 points. Generally speaking, the more affordable units a project creates the better a project is scored.86 Overall the 22 criteria used for assessment can be broken down into 7 categories:
85 NOVOGRADAC. (2020). About the LIHTC. Retrieved from https://www.novoco.com/resource-centers/affordablehousing-tax-credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc 86 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (n.d.). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved from http:// www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc#:~:text=The%20development%20must%20be%20 maintained,approximately%20%245%20to%20%246%20million.
35
General Partner & Management Company Characteristics • Housing Needs • Site & Service Amenities • Sustainable Building Methods • Lowest Income • Readiness to Proceed • Efficient Use of Credits
Rent levels are determined by HUD rent levels which abides by counties AMI and is specified according to unit size. 87 Although LIHTC is a non-Indian housing policy it has increasingly become more common in Indian Country to supplement IHBG funds.
Key Characteristics
Management & Governance • New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA)
Project Development & Maintenance • TDHE are responsible for budgeting and leveraging funds to complete projects and cover maintenance and operation costs. • Rent levels are determined by HUD’s County area median income (AMI) Index. • Tenants must be selected according to AMI selected for the project proposal. • LIHTC projects are technically owned by equity investors upwards of 15 years until equity is paid off.
Eligible Recipient Requirement • Low-income tribal members rent levels vary according to HUD’s household AMI per county.
Project Development Types • Single family, Duplexes, Townhouses, Apartments, Mix-Use (Rent to Purchase or Rent)
Housing Typology • Varies - TDHE’s have the ability to pursue any type of housing typology they deem fit to serve low-income tribal members.
Program Analysis - LIHTC
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) offers Indian TDHE the ability to leverage IHBG funds with LIHTC programs to develop housing. Upon analysis borrowing Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and self-determination framework, generally speaking LIHTC is predicted on gradual assimilation principles. LIHTC’s highly competitive nature, rent limitations by AMI,
87 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (2020). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved from http:// www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc
36
supplementary program limitations make LIHTC projects assimilatory by nature. In the state of New Mexico, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority regulates LIHTC project criteria and administers funds to success project applicants under their guidelines. The MFA oversight of projects can produce a situation that encourages TDHEs to adopt their standards in effort to produce competitive projects to win when tax credit equity funding. In regard to rent AMI levels needed to finance LIHTC projects, depending on the AMI level chosen to make a LIHTC project financially feasible. High AMI could potentially make “affordable housing” projects unaffordable for tribal members who are accustomed to paying 30% of their adjusted monthly income, which is counterproductive to the mission of TDHEs to serve lower income tribal households. Provided LIHTC is not designed solely for Indian Country, challenges that could arise out of AMI requirements are to be expected. However, if LIHTC is to be encouraged by HUD in Indian Country it is critical HUD amends AMI requirements for TDHEs. If left unchecked, LIHTC development could ultimately create a scenario similar to the Dawes Act of 1887, where assimilation driven policy can leave tribal members worse off than before and have less access to affordable housing.
IV. HEARTH ACT OF 2012
Description
The HEARTH Act of 2012 granted Indian tribes the ability to lease Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases without the approval of the Secretary of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. Through the HEARTH Act tribes are able to lease their land out for a primary period of 25 years, with the ability to renew leases up to two times with leases of 25 years each. This act ultimately tries to champion self-determination and give more power to tribes to govern their own land use and leasing affairs by removing federal oversight. For tribes to utilize the HEARTH Act, first they must develop their tribal regulations that are consistent with the Department of Interior’s leasing regulations. Secondly tribes must submit their leasing regulations to the BIA who will confirm whether their leasing regulations are valid or not. 88
Key Characteristics
Management & Governance • Indian Tribe
Eligibility Requirement • Develop their tribal regulations that are consistent with the Department of Interior’s leasing regulations 25 CFR Part 162. • Submit their leasing regulations to the BIA who will confirm whether their leasing regulations are valid or not
88 H.R.205 - HEARTH Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. Public Law 112-151 (2012).
37
Program Analysis- HEARTH Act
The HEARTH Act of 2012 when analyzed under Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and selfdetermination framework illustrates an Indian policy that is predicated on self-determination. The elimination of the requirement of the BIA to approve every single Indian land lease removes paternalistic oversight on tribes’ ability to govern their own land use. This act encourages tribes to create regulations to abide by similar to the Reorganization Act of 1934, that encouraged tribes to create constitutions that if approved by the BIA grants tribes’ additional authoritative powers. If this bill were to be extended further to building upon the principles of self-determination it should seek to provide tribes the ability to renew their leases to their own discretion rather than being capped at three lease renewals.
