**[Aneva J. Yazzie]{.smallcaps}**

[Chief Executive Officer]{.smallcaps}

**[Navajo Housing Authority]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.1354166666666665in"
height="2.084722222222222in"}

[Testimony before the]{.smallcaps}

[Committee on Indian Affairs]{.smallcaps}

[United States Senate]{.smallcaps}

[on]{.smallcaps}

[Reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act]{.smallcaps}

[July 18th, 2007]{.smallcaps}

[Washington, DC]{.smallcaps}

\[NOTE: This testimony is provided as prepared. Testimony delivered by
Ms. Yazzie to the Committee may differ in some respects and cannot
reflect responses to questions from Committee Members.\]

Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to address you on the topic of reauthorization of the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. President Joe
Shirley was not able to be here with you today, but he asked me to
extend his greetings and his appreciation for your work and your
dedication to the cause of Indian sovereignty and your support of Native
families across the country.

As Chief Executive Officer of the Navajo Housing Authority, I am charged
with operating the largest Tribal Housing organization in the country.
The Navajo Nation spreads across three states: Arizona, New Mexico and
Utah. The Nation covers nearly 27,000 square miles, making it larger
than the state of West Virginia. The Navajo Housing Authority manages
8,000 units of housing (approximately 7,000 rental units and 1,000
homeownership and lease-to-own units) and is the largest developer of
housing in this vast area.

Working in concert with other agencies of the Navajo Nation, the Navajo
Housing Authority has made great strides in improving the lives of
tribal members. I am lucky to have the support of a tremendous staff,
both in our headquarters in Window Rock, and throughout the Navajo
Nation. I am also blessed by the support of a strong Board and tribal
government, including President Shirley and his staff and the Navajo
Nation Council.

In the last decade the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) has been a useful tool in our Nation's
work. The hallmarks of the law \-- self-determination and Tribal
decision-making \-- are what make it successful.

The law is not without its challenges and for the past decade tribes
have worked with HUD to implement the law in the most effective and
efficient manner possible. The Navajo Housing Authority enjoys a good
working relationship both with our local HUD Office of Native American
Program and with the National ONAP Office. We thank both Deputy
Assistant Rodger Boyd and Assistant Secretary Orlando Cabrera for their
support and guidance, especially in the last year.

**Census Data**

The most contentious issue facing Indian housing in the last few years
has been the use of Census data to determine funding allocations. NHA
has been heavily involved in this discussion because we believe this is
not just a debate about how funds are allocated; it is fundamental to
NAHASDA and to all Indian programs. Tribal housing must remain for
tribal members and tribal members should be counted when determining
funding allocations.

NAHASDA is a tribal program, not an ethnic program. Indian programs are
not created and supported by this Congress to benefit a race. Indian
programs, NAHASDA included, exist because of the unique relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Treaties, statutes and
Supreme Court decisions have all demonstrated, clarified and supported
this notion. Individuals benefit from these programs because they are
members of a tribe, not because they belong to a particular ethnic
group. If we abandon that fundamental principle, we jeopardize the very
existence of such programs.

When the original NAHASDA negotiated rulemaking committee met to draft
regulations, Census data was chosen because it was considered an
unbiased source of data to quantify the need for housing in tribal
service areas. However, the architects of the law did not foresee the
changes that would occur in the 2000 Census, nor did they assume Census
data would be used for 10 years.

The original data used was from the 1990 Census, in which individuals
chose one race. In the collection of data for the 2000 Census,
individuals had the option of selecting one or more races by which to
identify themselves. This is what is now called "multi-race" Census
data.

Clearly, Census data is not the correct way to assess housing need for
tribal members. NAHASDA is a tribal program, not an ethnic program, and
counting those who identify themselves as Indian regardless of whether
they are tribal members is wrong and dangerous. If we are distributing
funds to tribal members, we should count tribal members.

We support the use of tribal enrollment data, not Census data, to
determine need under NAHASDA. Until terms of verifiable enrollment data
can be agreed upon by federal government and tribal representatives, NHA
urges a return to the use of single-race Census data because, while
imperfect, it is the better approximation of tribal enrollment numbers.

I applaud you, Chairman Dorgan, for addressing this issue. To date, no
consensus has been reached on a solution, but the provision in the
discussion draft, to study what alternative data sources exist, is a
leap forward. It demonstrates that the Committee understands that there
is a real problem in the current system and moves us toward a solution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courage.

**Appropriations**

The major failing of NAHASDA has not been caused by the law itself, but
by the lack of sufficient funding. NAHASDA is a good law, but the
funding for NAHASDA is too low for its real promise to be realized. As
costs increase without an increase in federal funding, a higher share of
NAHASDA funds go to support the existing housing stock. This leaves
little room for the innovation and new opportunities envisioned by the
members of this Committee and Tribal leaders who crafted this program a
decade ago.

In addition to funding for the block grant, we would like to ask that
the Congress reconsider its decision to eliminate funding for the
National American Indian Housing Council. Providing for a well-trained
group of professionals at the tribal level will ensure the success of
NAHASDA, which clearly benefits families throughout Indian Country.

**Proposed NAHASDA Amendments**

The proposed amendment broadening the scope of the Title VI Loan
Guarantee program holds tremendous possibilities for Indian Country.
When originally created by the drafters of NAHASDA, Title VI was seen as
a means to increase large-scale development of housing in Indian
communities while also introducing the use of financing mechanisms used
in non-Indian areas. Title VI has not, however, lived up to its original
promise and continues to be underutilized.

Title VI is underutilized for two basic reasons. First, there has been a
lack of effective education about the program. We are pleased to see
that the draft bill addresses that by including a requirement that HUD
provide training on the use of Title VI guarantees and we support the
provision. Second, the activities allowed under the current Title VI
program are so limited that most activities, no matter how beneficial to
local tribal communities, cannot generate enough income to cover debt
service on the guaranteed loan or make bond payments.

Title VI is based on the very successful Section 108 program, which
allows direct recipients of Community Development Block Grant dollars to
borrow or issue bonded debt for up to five times their annual formula
allocation to support the functions otherwise allowed under CDBG. Tribal
governments are statutorily prohibited from utilizing the Section 108
program because tribes compete for one national set-aside, known as
ICDBG. Without a formula allocation under CDBG, tribes will never be
able to access this vital program.

Amending Title VI to include the eligible activities allowed under
Section 108 gives tribes access to the benefits of a program long used
by urban communities. This would have the effect of increasing
investment in economic development and infrastructure in communities
desperately in need of such investment without increasing federal
appropriations. Making this definitional change would also increase
utilization of Title VI, the credit subsidy for which often goes unused
and is a regular target of rescissions.

The advantage of this change is that while it increases the investment
in infrastructure and economic development, it does not reduce the
available funds for housing because the block grant's eligible
activities remain unchanged. This would allow tribes to use funds from
outside sources \-- banks or bond investors \-- to support desperately
needed development in Indian Country. The only way funds meant for
housing could go to economic development is if the borrowing, which HUD
itself must individually approve, results in a claim against the U.S.
government. In the history of the Section 108 program we are unaware of
any time in which HUD has withheld CDBG grant funds.

The potential benefit of pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into
economic development and infrastructure without an increase in
appropriations far outweighs the hypothetical possibility that HUD might
choose to withhold funds from a few tribes because of poor oversight on
their part. Effective education and diligent oversight can prevent this.

The specific language in the discussion draft does not appear to meet
what we believe was the committee's intent in this regard. The language
would create a demonstration program in which 50% of guarantee authority
could be used for activities allowed under Title I of NAHASDA, as
opposed to Title VI. However, after reviewing the eligible activities,
it appears that these activities are the same. We believe that to meet
the Committee's goals the Section 108 eligible activities should be
referenced, not Title I of NAHASDA.

The Navajo Nation is encouraged by the inclusion of the Self-Determined
Housing Activities program. NAHASDA's findings and purposes establish
that self-determination and self-governance are to be the hallmarks of
the law:

> *Federal assistance to meet these responsibilities should be provided
> in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self-determination and
> tribal self-governance by making such assistance available directly to
> the Indian tribes or tribally designated entities under authorities
> similar to those accorded Indian tribes in \[the Indian
> Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act\].*

Any effort to increase self-determination is welcome and we appreciate
the move to broaden the eligible activities under this proposal. Housing
cannot be built without infrastructure. Existing water and waste water
facilities are hopelessly overburdened and in many areas of our land do
not exist at all. In some areas of Indian Country units of housing sit
vacant because they have no electricity or lack water and sewer hook
ups. In Indian country, lack of infrastructure is an affordable housing
problem.

The exclusion of developer fees from consideration as program income in
low-income housing tax credit projects is an excellent proposal. The
developer fees from tax credit projects are the result of risks taken by
a tribe and for developers constitute a form of profit. We should reward
tribes who undertake these activities themselves. Anything this
committee, or your colleagues at the Finance Committee, can do to
encourage tribes to use the tax credit program is welcome. Tax credits
are a small but growing portion of total housing development in Indian
Country, but one that must be supported.

Other provisions in the bill, including the eligibility of essential
Indian families in housing and the inclusion of police officers, will go
far to strengthening our communities. Likewise, the de minimis exemption
from procurement rules when a NAHASDA recipient is spending less than
\$5,000 will alleviate administrative burdens. The savings one might
find through a competitive bid process for such small amounts is far
outweighed by the amount of time and effort that must be put in to
solicit and review the bids. Saving \$100 on supplies is not worth it if
it took 30 staff hours to accomplish that, time that could be better
spent elsewhere and if accounted for would actually be shown to cost
more money than the supposed "savings."

The Navajo Nation continues to believe that the tribes themselves should
be able to set rents for tenants. Local Tribal officials, like all
Members of this Committee, must answer to their constituents and would
not charge excessive rents. However, the continued imposition of the 30%
maximum rent, a variant of the so-called "Brooke Amendment" from the
public housing and Section programs \-- without even an exemption for
utility costs \-- is contrary to the concept of tribal self-governance.
We understand, however, that we have more work to do as advocates for
this position before the Congress will make such a change. We hope the
Committee will consider this change in future legislation.

Some language in the bill would appear to be a response to recent
Federal court cases concerning the conveyance of low-income housing
units and the legality of funding them under the "formula current
assisted stock" portion of the NAHASDA block grant. However, such broad
language as is included in the Discussion Draft is not consistent with
the realities of managing housing in Indian Country. In the case of the
Navajo Nation, units that under contract terms for "mutual help" units
should be conveyed to families cannot be conveyed because of the failure
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide Title Status Reports. Without
these TSRs, units cannot be conveyed. This means Navajo is being
criticized and threatened with a reduction in federal funds by one
federal agency because of the failures of another federal agency. To
codify a specific time period o would eliminate funding for units that
NHA is still required to operate and maintain. This language should be
re-written if it is to remain.

One change in federal law we would like the Committee to consider would
be the elimination of the prohibition from using Indian Health Service
funds in concert with NAHASDA funds. While this would not be an
amendment to NAHASDA \-- this prohibition is included in appropriations
legislation on an annual basis \-- there is a proposal to make this
prohibition permanent through the reauthorization of the Indian Health
Care Act. The concern that the lack of available funds means we should
keep these funding streams separate may be well-intended, but it flies
in the face of Tribal self-determination. Tribes should determine where
to spend scarce resources and if a tribe would like to use IHS funds for
water and waste-water in conjunction with a NAHASDA-funded housing
project that should be the tribe's decision.

**Conclusion**

Mr. Chairman, the discussion draft is good legislation and I appreciate
the opportunity to comment on it. You and your staff have done an
excellent job and the recommendations I have offered are simply ways to
make a good bill better. I look forward to working with you as this bill
moves forward and I am happy to answer any questions you or other
Members of the Committee may have.