U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–546 PDF 2004

IMPROVING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES

FOR NATIVE AMERICANS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 3, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 108–83

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

DOUG OSE, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

PETER T. KING, New York 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

DOUG OSE, California 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BARBARA LEE, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

May 3, 2004 ....................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

May 3, 2004 ....................................................................................................... 77

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004

Gonzalez, Gilbert G. Jr., Acting Under Secretary for Rural Development, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................................................................... 30

Green, Pattye, Senior Business Manager for Native American Housing, 

Fannie Mae ........................................................................................................... 44

Hatathlie, Freddie, Mortgage Consultant-Emerging Markets, Wells Fargo 

Mortgage ............................................................................................................... 46

Kitcheyen, Kathleen, Chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Tribe ............................ 10

Konski, Renee, Senior Loan Specialist, American Financial Resources, Inc. ..... 49

Liu, Hon. Michael, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................................. 33

Maryboy, Mark, Chairperson, Navajo Nation Council ......................................... 50

Parks, Lawrence H., Senior Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs, 

Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco ...................................................... 52

Paul, Kent E., Chief Executive Officer, AMERIND Risk Management Corporation ................................................................................................................. 54

Sabatinos, June, Vice President, Ambulatory Care Services, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation .......................................................................... 57

Shirley, Joe Jr., President, Navajo Nation ............................................................ 15

Smith, Chadwick, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma ..................... 17

Sossaman, Russell, Chairman, National American Indian Housing Council ..... 60

Taylor, Wayne Jr., Chairman, Hopi Tribe ............................................................. 19

Winfield, Johnny, Vice Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe ..................... 12

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Ney, Hon. Robert W. ........................................................................................ 78

Matheson, Hon. Jim ......................................................................................... 80

Renzi, Hon. Rick ............................................................................................... 83

Waters, Hon. Maxine ........................................................................................ 84

Gonzalez, Gilbert G. Jr. ................................................................................... 86

Green, Pattye .................................................................................................... 102

Hatathlie, Freddie ............................................................................................ 111

Kitcheyen, Kathleen (with attachments) ........................................................ 115

Konski, Renee ................................................................................................... 131

Liu, Hon. Michael ............................................................................................. 139

Maryboy, Mark ................................................................................................. 147

Parks, Lawrence H. .......................................................................................... 150

Paul, Kent E. .................................................................................................... 153

Sabatinos, June ................................................................................................ 164

Shirley, Joe Jr. .................................................................................................. 168

Smith, Chadwick .............................................................................................. 174

Sossaman, Russell ............................................................................................ 178

Taylor, Wayne Jr. ............................................................................................. 193

Winfield, Johnny ............................................................................................... 199

Page

VI

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Shirley, Joe Jr.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Rick Renzi .................................... 208

Arizona Department of Housing, prepared statement .......................................... 213

Cameron Chapter Housing Testimony ................................................................... 217

Indigenous Community Enterprises, prepared statement ................................... 219

Navajo Partnership for Housing, prepared statement ......................................... 222

Rosebud Sioux Tribe, prepared statement ............................................................. 236

Salt River Community Housing Division, prepared statement ........................... 241

Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), prepared statement ................ 253

(1)

IMPROVING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR NATIVE AMERICANS 

Monday, May 3, 2004

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., at the 

Greyhills Academy High School Auditorium, Tuba City, Arizona, 

Hon. Robert W. Ney presiding. 

Present: Representatives Renzi and Waters. 

Also Present: Representative Matheson. 

Chairman NEY. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I wanted to explain the process a little bit before we start and 

make an opening statement and then we will have other members 

make opening statements. 

But the Financial Services Committee of the U.S. House is 

chaired by Mike Oxley of Ohio, and the ranking member is Barney 

Frank of Massachusetts, and we have the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, which is what this subcommittee 

is of the U.S. House. 

My name is Bob Ney. I’m the chairman of the subcommittee. I’m 

from the State of Ohio. We also have our ranking member to my 

right, Maxine Waters of California. To my left, everybody knows 

Congressman Renzi of Arizona. And I assume that applause is for 

all three of us right now. To my extreme right, Congressman 

Matheson of Utah. You can applaud for him, too. 

This is an official hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives 

subcommittee. We have a timer, and we basically run the timer. It 

makes a beep, I think. We will give you a little tap here. That 

doesn’t mean we are going to cut you off right at that spot in the 

middle of your sentence, but we keep it to five minutes of testimony from each witness. And I think we have 16 witnesses today, 

so we are going to try to hold it to five minutes and then the members up here will have five minutes to ask questions. But, again, 

if you are in the middle of your statement, feel free to complete it. 

But that way, if we hold you to the five minutes, that will give us 

time. 

And anything you want to submit for the record, we will do that 

without objection. And you can submit the rest of your testimony 

for the record. So, without objection, all of the opening statements 

will be made part of the record of the U.S. House. 

2

I also wanted to tell you the Subcommittee on Housing last 

year—and I want to praise our ranking member, Maxine Waters of 

California, and the rest of the members frankly, that couldn’t be 

here today—we passed approximately 11 housing bills that actually 

went on to be signed into law. And that was done, and I’m very 

proud of our roll call vote in the subcommittee. It doesn’t mean we 

didn’t have our differences or didn’t speak our peace on things, but 

the subcommittee, I think, acted on a bipartisan basis. And I wanted to commend our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and members 

of the committee who really tried in a diligent way to do something 

about housing. Sixty some percent of Americans have housing. The 

minority rate is 50 percent. That is unacceptable, and we have 

taken some steps, there are a lot more steps to be taken, so everybody can share in the American dream. 

I do want to tell you how this particular subcommittee hearing 

came about. It happened about 2:00 o’clock in the morning. We 

were having one of those late night votes, and Congressman 

Renzi—I will let him tell you the story when he makes his own 

statement, but he came to me and he had seen some very, very deplorable conditions when it came to housing. The housing subcommittee also oversees Indian housing, so Congressman Renzi 

asked the question of myself, which we said yes to, and with the 

cooperation of our ranking member, Maxine Waters, we are here 

today along with our colleague, Congressman Matheson, who is 

concerned about this issue. 

When Congressman Renzi asked for this hearing, we started to 

research back—this is Tallman Johnson of our staff, and also Cindy 

Chetti is here in the back, and I know Congresswoman Waters will 

introduce the staff that’s here for the minority. But we researched 

back, and there had never been a hearing on Indian land in the 

history of the United States by a housing subcommittee. So this is 

the first time in the history of the United States that there is a 

hearing. I want to thank Congressman Renzi for making that possible. I guess I could say it’s long overdue. 

So it’s a historic day for our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and as chairman, it’s my honor to preside 

over today’s proceedings which, again, is the first time this subcommittee has ever held in the history of the United States a hearing on tribal land. 

Presently, the Native American population is estimated at 2.5 

million. While the national poverty rate is 12 percent, the rate 

among Native Americans is more than twice as high. Forty-five 

percent of all Native American households are located on tribal 

lands, and housing is one of the most pressing issues for Native 

Americans living on tribal lands. 

Over 32.5 percent of the homes located on tribal lands are overcrowded; 7.5 percent of the Native American homes lack safe water 

or sewage systems; less than 50 percent of the homes on reservations are connected to public sewer systems, and 16.5 percent of 

homes on native lands are completely without any form of indoor 

plumbing. About 40 percent of tribal homes are considered substandard compared to a national average of six percent. 

Native Americans today are experiencing chronic housing affordability problems. Approximately half of the Native American houseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
3

holds in tribal areas pay over 30 percent of their income for housing expenses compared to the 23 percent of all U.S. residents who 

pay more than 30 percent of their income for their housing expenses. Much of this is due to the unique relationships, I believe, 

that Indian tribes have with the U.S. Government. Native Americans while residing on reservations are U.S. Citizens, but their 

tribes are recognized as domestic sovereign nations with treaty relationships with the U.S. Government. The fact that the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, BIA, holds much of the land in trust means that 

tribes are allowed only limited sovereignty over their lands. This 

special relationship limits the types of economic activity for which 

Indian lands may be used, and I’m hoping today this hearing will 

be the step to try to bridge that so that more things will be able 

to happen. 

One of the most important cornerstones to a strong community 

is homeownership. It creates stability and serves as a strong economic staple in our overall U.S. economy. While the national homeownership rate has steadily risen and is at an all-time high of over 

68 percent, there are sectors of the population for whom homeownership remains unattainable. In fact, the homeownership rate 

for Native Americans is well below 50 percent. Clearly, more can 

and should be done to help all families realize the dream of owning 

a home. 

The changing land status issues, diversity of tribal laws and governments, lack of mortgage information and credit issues all contribute to the challenges in mortgage lending in Indian country. 

Developmental programs delivered to Indian lands should be highly flexible and adaptive to the very unique and specific circumstances in each tribal setting. Native Americans must be able 

to take full advantage of partnerships and partnering and 

leveraging efforts across institutions and at all levels of our government and through all agencies where it’s available. If we begin to 

succeed at these initiatives, then opportunities will move into these 

rural areas. 

As we work to help strengthen homeownership opportunities in 

Indian country, together we will continue to play a significant role 

in improving the quality of life for all families. 

And with that, I will yield to our ranking member, Ms. Waters. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found on 

page 78 in the appendix.] 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would first like to thank you for responding to Congressman 

Renzi and Congressman Matheson, recognizing the need for such 

a hearing and getting it done. I have enjoyed working with you. I 

think that you have shown your concern for poor people and people 

of color and others who do not enjoy homeownership to the same 

degree that our majority of the population enjoys, and I’m very 

pleased that I have an opportunity to participate in this hearing 

today. 

I’m very pleased to be here in Tuba City to participate in the 

first hearing on Native American housing issues ever held on Navajo land. And, again, Mr. Chairman, it’s because of you and Congressman Renzi and Congress Matheson that we are here. I would 

4

like to thank both of our staffs for the wonderful work that has 

been done in putting this visit together. 

The tour that we were on this morning was awfully revealing, 

and I wish every member of Congress could see what we saw today. 

A special thanks to our staffers, Jeff Riley, who is our counsel; and 

Jaime Alisiga, who is our parliamentarian, along with the other 

staff members and all who have helped to work to put this tour together and this hearing together. 

I am very concerned about the many barriers that Native Americans face when they seek to pursue homeownership. Whether it 

stems from Native American poverty or the heavy hand of bureaucracy at the Bureau of Indian Affairs when prospective homeowners 

seek BIA approvals, we cannot accept a process that produces so 

many fewer opportunities for Native Americans to own their homes 

and thereby build wealth than for others who live in America. 

While I know that you sought the BIA’s appearance at this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I’m disappointed that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is not represented on one of the panels today. This government agency, more than any other, needs to step up to the plate 

and work together with the tribes, HUD, RHS and the secondary 

market to formulate solutions to the housing problem on Native 

American lands. 

While I am glad that we are discussing the significant housing 

challenges faced by Native Americans, I’m hopeful that we can all 

work together, the Congress, the administration, can work together 

to increase appropriations for assistive housing programs. And we 

all, I think, because of what we are learning, can take another look 

at any proposed budget cuts for the year 2005. I just think that the 

more we know, the less we can accept budget cuts. 

I look forward to the insights of our witnesses, especially our 

tribal witnesses, as to how we can develop solutions that meet your 

needs for housing and homeownership opportunity while respecting 

your culture and your sovereignty. 

Mr. Chairman, when land was taken from Native American 

tribes, the United States gave its solemn promise to protect the 

rights of the tribes to govern themselves and to provide for the 

health, education, and well-being of tribes. That commitment, the 

trust responsibility, is not a handout but a contract, a contract that 

unfortunately has been broken time and time again by our own 

government. 

I believe that an essential element of the federal government’s 

trust responsibility is that it must take the steps necessary to 

make homeownership opportunities as available to the members of 

tribes as they are to the rest of America’s population. With a Native American homeownership rate of only about 33 percent as 

compared to an overall homeownership rate approaching somewhere around 68 percent, it’s clear that much work will need to be 

done. 

The Native American population is one of the fastest growing 

groups in the United States. Unfortunately, it is also one of the 

poorest segments. According to the U.S. Census Current Population 

Survey, the poverty rate of Native Americans in the late 1990s was 

about 26 percent while the national average was 12 percent. By 

any calculation, the increases in population are creating housing 

5

needs which continue to far outpace the funding that we are providing. 

While land and home are viewed as central to family life in the 

Navajo culture, the housing problems of the Navajo Nation are 

nonetheless particularly severe. The Navajo Nation is the largest 

reservation in the country. It covers over 16 million acres in three 

states. It is the size of West Virginia. There are 255,543 enrolled 

members of the tribe with about 180,000 living on tribal land. The 

median age, we understand, is about 22.5 years. 

According to the 2000-2001 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Report from the Native Nation Office on Economic 

Development, 56.1 percent of Navajo people live below the poverty 

level, the per capital income is only about $6,212, and the unemployment rate is about 43.65 percent. Some 31 percent of the 

homes on the reservation lack complete plumbing, 60 percent lack 

telephone service, and about one-fifth of owner-occupied units on 

the reservation are mobile homes. The development of housing on 

the Navajo Nation is even more complicated than it is on other reservations, as 94 percent of Navajo land is tribal trust land, the 

most difficult type of land to develop. 

Mr. Chairman, strong communities are built one home at a time. 

To strengthen reservation communities, we must provide safe, decent, affordable housing for all families living in them. Today, approximately 40 percent of all reservation housing is inadequate. 

Twenty percent do not have plumbing. 

Mr. Chairman, the unmet housing needs in Indian country are 

simply enormous. HUD at one point estimated that current 

NAHASDA funding levels would only meet five percent of Native 

Americans’ needs for housing. Without going much further, when 

we talk about NAHASDA funding or some of the proposed cuts, because of what we know and what we are learning, I think we are 

going to have to all work together to review any proposed cuts and, 

again, get the administration together with the Congress of the 

United States and do the right thing, just do what we need to do. 

In closing, let me say to Congressman Renzi that your guidance 

on the tour this morning was absolutely fascinating and certainly 

appreciated. You know your district and you certainly understand 

these concerns, and I’m very appreciative for the time that you took 

to put this meeting together and the statistics, this data, that was 

gathered for me by my staff. I want to thank you, and Congressman Matheson, I want to thank you for working together with us. 

Mr. Renzi as you address these very complicated and tremendous 

problems that you’re confronted with. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Maxine Waters can be found on 

page 84 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

I also want to note, I, too, am disappointed the BIA is not here, 

and we will talk at a follow-up hearing, also. Since this is the firstever hearing, I would prefer they be here on Indian tribal land, but 

we will follow up with them, also, in Washington. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you very much. 

6

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, and our neighbor to the north, Congressman Matheson of 

Utah, for traveling this far, for taking the time. I also want to recognize the leaders of the Coconino County board of directors. Deb 

Hill is here. We have council delegates from the Navajo Nation, 

from the Apache Nation, from the Hopi Nation, our leaders, our 

chairmen, our presidents are here, which we will introduce them 

a little bit later. I thank all of you for finally coming together and 

helping me and working with us to pull off this field hearing which, 

as we have heard, is historic. It’s long overdue. 

I represent more Native Americans than anyone else in Congress. I’ve told President Shirley on many occasions it’s hard for me 

to go home to Washington, to go home to my ranch, and call myself 

a congressman after I’ve been to Kaibito and seen the deplorable 

conditions up there. The first time I went up there, I saw six children living in a mud hut with their grandmother raising them, and 

they had dysentery. And, so, to be able to sit with myself and look 

at myself in my own mirror, I have to—and be a representative, 

I’m so very thankful for Chairman Ney who, when I went back to 

Washington after seeing that, on the floor at 2:00 o’clock in the 

morning, he committed that he would come out here and have this 

hearing this morning. 

So, Chairman Ney, thank you for coming all the way out from 

Ohio and bringing a full-blown Congressional hearing to the Navajo Nation to address this issue. My district is over 60,000 square 

miles, larger than the State of Illinois. Our Speaker of the House 

is from Illinois, and I have a tendency to tell him my district is bigger than your State, I need more money, I need more help. 

And it’s my privilege to represent the Navajo. There are Hopi 

members within this district, the Zuni, the San Juan Paiute, the 

Tonto Apache, Yavapai Prescott tribe, the San Carlos and White 

Mountain Apache tribe. Strong, wonderful people who give and 

serve this nation and who deserve the very best, and they deserve 

our government to meet their treaty obligations. This is why we 

are here today. 

Home ownership in America is many times referred to as an 

American dream, but how much of a reality is that dream here on 

native—in Indian country? We are learning that homeownership 

has a beneficial effect. Obviously, it helps marriages; obviously, it 

helps reduce crimes and helps with law enforcement in communities. But have you ever heard that there are studies that now 

show that math achievement and reading recognition scores are 

seven percent higher among young children and graduation rates 

are 13 percent higher among families who own their own home? 

Who would have thought that the fruits of homeownership actually 

go all the way down to test scores. 

In addition, families can build equity in their homes. It allows 

them to borrow against the equity to get their kids to go to college, 

to be able to borrow against their homes and form their own small 

businesses. I’m able to become a U.S. Congressman because I borrowed a second mortgage on a home in Sierra Vista, Arizona, built 

a little insurance agency and then was able to go to law school and 

then run for Congress. And yet, unfortunately, homeownership 

7

among Native American families is less than one-third. So one out 

of three Native American families actually own their own home. 

And as we saw today, and as Ranking Member Waters pointed 

out, we saw children living in nothing more than wooden shacks 

without electricity, without modern sanitation and without pure 

water. We met a woman today whose water well is contaminated 

by oil. And so these are chronic problems where health officials are 

recognizing that these conditions are contributing to physical and 

mental defects in our children, and in particular in these areas. 

In the first district of Arizona, we also have the problem with the 

Bennett Freeze. This is an area of 1.3 million acres in size which, 

due to conflicting claims, the federal government in 1966 imposed 

a ban on further construction. We have seriously never addressed 

the adverse conditions which are imposed by this wrong policy. 

Now, I’ve got to give it to Chairman Taylor and the Honorable 

President Joe Shirley, because these two people are working together to seriously address the issue of the Bennett Freeze and we 

are coming very close to an agreement and a compact. 

Finally, it is my hope that this first hearing will not only shed 

light on the issue, but out of it will come direct objectives and missions. We will have results, not just words, to talk about. I am 

going to follow up with a workshop. I’m going to ask Chairwoman 

Kathy Kitcheyen of the San Carlos Apache to host it. We will have 

a workshop. We will bring in private industry, the banking, financing, the credit people will come in and begin to address the ideas 

of how this first generation of Native American people can break 

through the impediments to homeownership, whether it be putting 

more counselors on the Navajo or the Hopi or the Apache Nations, 

so that the young people can enjoy homeownership, so the application process itself doesn’t become a wall or an impediment to homeownership. So I’m looking forward to following up and asking your 

leadership with that workshop. 

Mr. Chairman, if I have your permission, I would like to introduce a guest that we have. With us today is Mr. Eddie Cody of the 

Navajo Nation. He is a recent recipient of USDA home repair 

funds. Mr. Cody needed an addition to his home and we were able 

to help him through the USDA 504 Home Ownership Repair Program. 

One of the things that’s so important, real quick, about these 

programs is the Navajo people, the Hopi people, the Apache people 

don’t want to send their elders down to Phoenix to nursing homes. 

And having the ability to add on additions to their homes allows 

them to bring the elders in for respite care and elder care in their 

homes rather than shipping them off to a nursing home. With this 

kind of a program we are able to fund additions onto the homes 

and reach out to our elders in our community. 

So, with that, I want to thank the people of northern Arizona, 

particularly those who have taken their time away from their families to come here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Is Mr. Cody with us in the audience? Mr. Cody, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Rick Renzi can be found on 

page 83 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

8

Congressman Matheson from Utah, who borders the entire state 

of Arizona, and who spent time with Congressman Renzi today 

sharing their concern, and also some of the groups. Obviously, that 

border between the two states doesn’t exist when it comes to Indian affairs. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for holding this hearing. I want to extend my thanks to you. I’m 

also really glad to join you and Ranking Member Waters and Congressman Renzi today. 

This hearing is, as Congressman Renzi suggested, probably long 

overdue and I’m pleased we’re here. Thank you for your leadership 

in making this happen. I really look forward to hearing testimony 

today from this distinguished group of witnesses. 

I would especially like to, before I start with my statement, welcome my constituent, Mr. Mark Maryboy, delegate from Utah on 

the Navajo Nation Council. I believe we will hear from him on the 

third panel. 

Many Native Americans continue to live in appalling housing 

conditions, and this is taking place at the same time while much 

of our nation is improving in this regard. Now, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has released a report that shows American 

Indian and Alaska Native populations live in housing that is often 

and justifiably compared to third world nations. One out of every 

five Indian homes lacks complete plumbing facilities and over 

90,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives are homeless or 

underhoused. 

I have had the opportunity to see firsthand the need for housing 

in Indian country when I visited the Utah portion of the Navajo 

Nation, which I represent in Congress, and also the tour we took 

this morning through parts of Arizona. I have met with families 

and individuals who have expressed their frustration with the process of building and owning a home on tribal lands. My constituents 

have raised a number of challenges to homeownership, including 

duplicative tribal and federal bureaucracy of obtaining homesite 

lease, trust status of tribal lands, lack of basic electrical and water 

delivery systems, lack of roads, lack of federal funding, and the difficulties these individuals face in trying to obtain conventional 

mortgages. 

During my time on the Navajo Nation, I have had the opportunity to become acquainted with one particular grassroots nonprofit organization, Indigenous Community Enterprises. I have 

seen their approach to addressing the housing needs of the oftenforgotten Navajo elders. Utilizing a NAHASDA subgrant and local 

resources, including, in the case of one I visited in Utah, the Monument Valley High School vocational students and Utah Navajo 

Trust Fund financial support, ICE constructed an elder hogan 

home that will be traditionally blessed this Friday, May 7th. The 

ICE elder hogan home incorporates the traditional octagon hogan 

in its design. The design respects the traditional space but adds the 

basic amenities of a modern kitchen and bathroom. 

ICE employs a community-based approach of personal responsibility and capacity building to build hogan homes. Collaborating 

with local high schools, Navajo Nation entities, banks and community and family members, ICE seeks to address the underlying 

9

problems to homeownership on the Navajo reservation by not only 

construction of a hogan home but by offering financial literacy, Individual Development Account savings programs, homeownership 

skills and credit counseling. Additionally, ICE uses small diameter 

timber from the regional forest thinning and is moving towards 

using straw bale products that can be manufactured from the Navajo Agriculture Products Industry. 

Innovative ways to provide homes, the use of local resources, and 

ensuring that individuals have the necessary financial knowledge 

and skills can make homeownership a reality in Indian country. 

We can no longer look toward any government to simply provide 

homes. It will require innovative, collaborative efforts such as this 

to address the housing needs that I witnessed on the Navajo Nation. It will also require a deeper understanding of all parties involved of the true obstacles to adequate housing, be they a lack of 

infrastructure, supply, mortgage products, or incentives to build. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I look forward to hearing from each panel to better my 

understanding of the issues that the federal government, tribal 

governments, housing entities and financial institutions face in addressing the housing shortage in Indian country. I look forward to 

hearing their recommendations for improving housing opportunities for Native Americans and I look forward to working with my 

colleagues to implement any necessary legislative solutions. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Matheson can be found on 

page 80 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. I want to thank all the members for 

their testimony. And as far as the panel of witnesses, without objection, their written statements will be made part of the record 

and their five minutes will begin. 

Let me introduce the panel and then we will get right to the testimony. First member of the panel is Kathy Kitcheyen, and she is 

the chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache. The San Carlos Apache 

Indian reservation encompasses more than 1.8 million acres in 

southeastern Arizona. Welcome. 

Dallas Massey, Sr., the tribal chairman of the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe. Its 12,000 members reside on 1.6 million acres of its 

ancestral homeland on the Fort Apache Indian reservation about 

200 miles northeast of Phoenix. Welcome to you. 

And Joe Shirley, Jr. is the sixth President of the Navajo Nation. 

The nation has approximately 225,000 members and a land base 

of 7.5 million acres across New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. Welcome, President Shirley. 

And Chief Chadwick Smith is the principal Chief of the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, based in Tahlequah. Am I close. 

Mr. SMITH. Close. Tahlequah. 

Chairman NEY. Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Welcome, Chief. 

And Wayne Taylor, Jr. Is the chairman of the Hopi Tribe. The 

Hopi reservation covers 1.5 million acres in northeastern Arizona 

and is bound on all sides by the Navajo reservation. Welcome, 

Chairman Taylor. 

We will start with Chairwoman Kitcheyen. 

10

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KITCHEYEN, CHAIRWOMAN, SAN 

CARLOS APACHE 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters. You better reset that because I think I lost 30 seconds. 

Chairman NEY. That’s right. You speak up. 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Ney, Chairman; Miss Waters, Ranking Member; Mr. Matheson from Utah, and also our very 

own Rick Renzi, who has a very passion about his work. And we 

thank you for coming and being able to organize this, Mr. Renzi. 

Thank you very much. 

As you’ve just heard, my name is Kathy Kitcheyen. I’m the chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe based in San Carlos, Arizona. I am very honored to be here to testify today. 

As you’ve already mentioned, it’s an historic occasion. It’s been 

a long time coming. We have been dealing with the United States 

government for over 500 years and never have we seen people of 

your caliber come out to our part of the country. 

So I thank you very much for your compassion, for your humility, 

and for your courage. Thank you. Today, I am joined by Robert 

Olivar, who is on the council and is the chairman of our housing 

authority. And also there is a delegation, Ronald Boni, who is executive director of housing; Opal Kees, staff person; Chuck Hills, staff 

person; and also Debbie Ho as well. 

Also in the—well, before I begin, again, I would like to thank you 

for addressing the needs of housing in Indian country. What you 

saw today is probably what you see on other Indian reservations 

as well. We appreciate the dedication that you have to this serious 

issue. I’m sure it’s not easy being far away from Washington D.C. 

And all the Starbucks. 

To better understand the housing needs of my tribe, it is helpful 

to know our history. The aboriginal territory of the Apache Nation 

included the western part of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and the 

country of Mexico as well. Pursuant to the Treaty of Santa Fe of 

1852, lands were set aside for a permanent Apache tribal homeland 

and the United States promised to provide for the humane needs 

of the Apache people. 

The San Carlos reservation was established in 1871. Through the 

concentration policies of the United States, various bands of the 

Apaches were forcibly moved to the San Carlos reservation. 

Throughout history, the United States diminished the size of the 

reservation several times due to the discovery of silver, copper, 

coal, and water. The reservation now spans three Arizona counties: 

Gila, Graham and Pinal. The reservation currently has a land base 

of 1.8 million acres. It’s mostly rural and lacks basic infrastructure 

in many parts. The total population is 12,532 members. 

A majority of our members live on the reservation, 84 percent of 

them. While we have worked hard to develop our reservation economy, there is still a high unemployment rate of 76 percent. We suffer from a poverty level of 77 percent. The tribe has designated the 

housing authority to operate and administer the tribe’s housing 

program. We have two critical housing needs, a severe housing 

shortage and severely inadequate utility infrastructure. These inadequacies create unsafe and unsanitary conditions. 

11

This situation is simply unacceptable in this great country of 

ours. Let me be clear that the San Carlos Apache Tribe supports 

our troops in Iraq and other parts of the world. The Apaches have 

many decorated war veterans that have served with distinction. In 

fact, the San Carlos Housing Authority has an employee named 

Percy Via, an army reservist, who has worked for them for 20 

years. He was called to duty and was part of the first wave of army 

soldiers to invade Iraq. He just returned home three weeks ago, 

and we are very proud of him. 

However, I wonder about some of the priorities of the United 

States when Indian communities, my community, the San Carlos 

Apache reservation, was never built the way it should have been, 

when our needs were never addressed the way it should have been; 

why we have overcrowded conditions when there are people, disabled people, living without the proper ramp, without proper facilities in the bathroom. 

When I hear about the billions of dollars the United States is 

spending to rebuild Iraq, homes and infrastructures for them, I 

wonder why the United States will help them but put the issues 

of the first Americans aside. I cannot stress enough the dire housing shortage on the reservation. There are approximately 2,400 

families on the reservation in need of homes. Thirty-nine percent 

of families live in substandard housing and 40 percent of families 

live in overcrowded conditions. 

We have calculated that it would take building 125 homes a year 

for ten years to meet the housing needs of tribal members. Also, 

94 percent of our families are considered low income. Mr. Olivar, 

the chairman of our housing board, recently stated that he receives 

at least six visits a day from families who have no place to go and 

are in desperate need of housing. It is heartbreaking to tell these 

families that the waiting list is too long and that there are no 

homes for them. I know other council members meet with families 

with the same plights as often as Mr. Olivar. I have a couple pictures over here to my right that depict a couple of the homes on 

the reservation, and there are many more like them. 

One area that needs improvement is the environmental review 

process required for HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grants. The tribe 

is frustrated with the long amount of time that it takes for HUD 

to approve these environmental reviews. The tribe submitted environmental reviews for two of its housing projects over a year ago 

and there has been no action taken by HUD. As discussed above, 

we have tribal members who are homeless or in need of serious rehabilitation. These delays, therefore, take a huge and sometimes irreversible toll on our people. We recommend that HUD be given 

more resources to handle the huge loads and we also recommend 

that HUD streamline and expedite the process. 

And tied to our housing needs are our utility infrastructure. The 

tribe’s utility infrastructure is sorely inadequate. Without improved 

infrastructure, it will be difficult to provide decent housing. Specifically, our sewage treatment systems are in such bad shape that 

they are causing a health risk to nearby communities as well. The 

hydraulic capacity of our existing sewage treatment facilities have 

been exceeded by approximately 16 percent. Due to the lack of 

12

funds, the existing sewer ponds are filling with too much sludge 

and the berms have been deteriorated. 

In an attempt to address our sewage system problems, the tribe 

did seek funding from USDA’s Rural Housing Service a few years 

ago. However, the Rural Housing Service did not have enough 

funding to allow us to fix our sewage system problems. 

The tribe’s current water storage facilities are also inadequate. 

The storage tanks are too small and do not meet the tribe’s demand by 24 percent. In order to provide and build more homes, 

adequate storage and distribution systems need to be installed. Unfortunately, the tribe does not have the funding to upgrade or build 

the required systems to meet demands. We would certainly appreciate your assistance on these matters. 

As a final point, I was in attendance at the signing of an executive order by President Bush related to Indian education of the No 

Child Left Behind Act last week. Rod Page, Secretary of Education, 

and Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior, are to spearhead the interagency Indian Education Groups. 

The simple fact is that if our children are to be successful, they 

need adequate housing. And with that, I rest my case. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify, and please come again. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Kathleen Kitchen can be found on 

page 115 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. And next, I introduced him as Chairman Massey, 

but actually Vice Chairman, Johnny Winfield, filling in for Chairman Massey. 

STATEMENT OF JOHNNY WINFIELD, VICE CHAIRMAN, WHITE 

MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE; ACCOMPANIED BY ANEVA 

YAZZIE, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT, WHITE MOUNTAIN 

APACHE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. WINFIELD. Good afternoon. My name is Johnny Winfield. I 

represent the White Mountain Apache Tribe as the vice chairman. 

I would like to welcome each and every one of you, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, to the Navajo 

Nation within the State of Arizona within Indian country. 

I’m here on behalf of the White Mountain tribal chairman, Dallas 

Massey, who is unable to make it due to other commitment, so I’m 

going to follow through with what he brought to my attention. 

We are knowledgeable of new housing legislation, NAHASDA, 

that was enacted in 1996. Under that new federal housing program 

for Native Americans, we had designated our housing authority, 

the White Mountain Apache Tribal Authority, as a Tribal Designated Housing Entity and we have been very successful in carrying out our effort of housing opportunity for our tribal members. 

I believe we are at the forefront of tribes across the country to take 

full advantage of leveraging opportunity with willing financial partners that have opened under this new Indian housing law. 

We have accomplished a lot of first ever initiatives, such as: 

One, issuing a tax exempt bond in the amount of $25 million to 

build 250 homes, which has increased to 317 due to a cost savings 

measure in our construction method. This bond issuance was only 

13

possible through the collateralization of HUD’s Section 184 loan 

program on each of the construction mortgage loans executed with 

our lending institution, Bank One. We call this lending purchase 

mortgage-based homeownership program Apache Dawn. 

Two, since the creation of this housing authority back in 1963, 

for the first time under the Apache Dawn, we used our own tribal 

resource for material, Fort Apache Timber Company, Fort Apache 

Timber Company Home Center, White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Public Works and contractors utilizing our tribal employees in significant numbers for the construction of homes. 

Item three, we were also the first tribe in Arizona to receive a 

low interest loan to address our infrastructure needs from the Arizona Water Infrastructure Financial Authority, WIFA, in the 

amount of $5 million. This was a true tri-governmental relationship between our tribes, state and federal agencies. WIFA had to 

qualify as an approved lender under HUD’s Title VI Loan Guarantee Program in order to minimize this risk and make the loan 

possible for our tribe. 

Since the creation of the housing department under the State of 

Arizona by our own good friend, Janet Napolitano, who is the first 

governor who has shown a true concern and is proactive in addressing our tribal housing situation in the State of Arizona, we 

were the first tribe to partner with their office in addressing our 

badly needed rehab needs for our housing units through both their 

tax credit and state housing fund programs. We are fortunate to 

have a very strong state government relationship in all our housing 

endeavors. 

In addition to these first ever initiatives, the White Mountain 

Apache Housing Authority has aggressively applied for HUD and 

other outside grant sources that have enabled a total of over $80 

million to be infused into our tribal communities since 1998. This 

is—this has proved that the new Indian housing law can work for 

tribes with a capable and committed team on the housing staff, expert consultants combined with strong tribal and community support. 

We have also received strong support from both our local and national HUD office. As stated above, we have had a very successful 

relationship with Phoenix, Denver, and headquarter administration 

of the Native American Housing Program. The new Indian housing 

law allows the opportunity to work with other funding agencies to 

address rehab and/or new construction needs, including costly offsite infrastructure systems. 

In working with other agencies, we have encountered several obstacles in our attempt to increase the assistance needed for our 

tribal members. This includes: 

One, partnership with the Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable 

Housing Program. We have encountered several program differences for delivery assistance to Native American communities. 

This includes the unique need to address the trust land issue in 

the execution of regulatory agreements, the low income threshold 

requirement under the NAHASDA, unique BIA land issues, and 

risk issues for future banking relationships. 

In partner with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Indian Health Service technical arm, we have encountered one 

14

major regulatory prohibition that hinders assistance for tribal 

members. The tribes are prohibited from obtaining assistance for 

homes if the homes are receiving assistance from HUD. Since the 

resources for funding are both federal assistance, IHS statute and 

program regulation restrictions should be removed to allow its use 

in a coordinating manner at the local level or reallocate such funds 

to a national level from IHS to HUD to address infrastructure 

needs from one federal funding source. 

Even through this is a sensitive issue to those tribes that are not 

obligated to their funds in a timely fashion and possible to be subject to recapture the funds and returned to the U.S. Treasury; rather, a mechanized need to be put in place to reallocate those funds 

to tribes that have proven track record of effective address of their 

homes need to be timely manner. While this may not be uniformly 

addressed, each tribe’s respective needs it will be addressed in the 

overall backlog housing needs for the tribes in aggregate from the 

Congressional point of view and all funding would still be directed 

at the address of the vast problem rather than returning to the 

general fund back to the Treasury, not addressing the housing 

problem. 

A means of stable employment is necessary for tribal members 

in order to make housing payables. This leads to the need for the 

economic development for sustaining tribal communities and to become truly self-determined. Therefore, the program regulations 

should be able to allow economic development as an eligible activity as it relates to affordable homes. 

This should not be considered an exhaustive list but are those 

that we have seen as obstacles and as experienced by the White 

Mountain Apache Tribal Housing Authority that needs immediate 

attention by responsible federal officials for the sake of all tribes. 

We stand ready to address and work cooperatively towards working 

solutions to enable all tribes to better address and solve their housing need. 

We have used the USDA Agriculture Rural Development Program to receive combination grant and loan funding to address our 

infrastructure needs. These funds are supplemental to NAHASDA 

and WIFA funds as described above to provide the construction of 

regional water and wastewater treatment facility at Hondah. This 

is greatly increasing in capacity, accommodating the planned expanding of our homes at Hondah home sites and Apache Dawn 

home funding under NAHASDA. The White Mountain Apache 

Tribal Housing Authority also plans to utilize the USDA’s Rural 

Housing Service, rural development housing service in the near future to expand the home assistance serving our tribe. 

All of our land is trust land. With the assistance of the federal 

loan guaranteed programs offered under HUD Section 184, Title VI 

provide NAHASDA, we are able to bridge the housing need for both 

subsidized and mortgage-based programs with approval of BIA 

land leases for two consecutive period of 25 years for our tribal 

members. The maximum lease period of 50 years specified in the 

NAHASDA statute needs to be changed to allow for even longer period of time. 

Steps that can be taken to increase private market initiative is 

to maintain and to increase the level of federal loan authority 

15

under the two HUD loan grant guarantee programs that have 

worked successfully for our tribe, namely the Section 184, Title VI 

program. Eligibility criteria should also be expanded to fill the 

pocket of needs of those families that are not low income which is 

a growing segment of the tribal population and cannot secure mortgage financing on trust land without some form of many federal 

loan guarantee. Education——

Chairman NEY. I’m sorry. Not to interrupt you, but time has expired. 

Mr. WINFIELD. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Wrap it up. 

Mr. WINFIELD. Wrap it up? 

Chairman NEY. Yes. 

Mr. WINFIELD. Education about these programs should also continue to both tribes and the private financial sector on how these 

programs work. Heavy education should also be continued for Native American on benefits of true homeownership as well as financial literate education. And this is the statement that was brought 

to my attention from the tribal chairman. Thank you very much. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. We will have the rest of it in the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Johnny Winfield can be found on 

page 199 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Again, I’m just trying to hold it to five minutes 

so we can get some questions in. Thank you. President Shirley. 

STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, JR., PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER CARL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

I feel very honored to share your presence with us here on Navajo land and I want to welcome you. And thank you, Congressman 

Renzi, for doing everything you could to make this hearing possible. You have done much and I’m looking forward to continue to 

work with you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mr. SHIRLEY. With me here today is Chester Carl, who will help 

answer questions maybe afterwards. 

Gentlemen, Ms. Waters, I’m Joe Shirley, Jr., President of the 

Navajo Nation. There are a myriad of challenges facing us related 

to housing, related to Navajos, sovereign Native Americans, but I 

want to zero in on a particular issue at this time because of the 

limited time and will share the rest with you in written testimony. 

The Navajo Nation and the Navajo Housing Authority are deeply 

concerned that a recent HUD decision will reduce Indian Housing 

Block Grants for the Navajo Housing Authority by over $5 million. 

HUD’s policy determination, made without consulting with Indian 

tribes as mandated by federal law, subverts the letter, intent and 

spirit of NAHASDA and will prevent the Navajo Nation and many 

other tribal governments on Indian reservations throughout the 

country from serving the critical housing needs of our people. 

These drastic reductions are caused by HUD’s decision to use for 

the first time the so-called multi-race census data in the Indian 

16

Housing Block Grant formula. As you know, the 2000 census allowed those responding to questions on race and ethnicity to check 

one or more of the listed race categories. In 1990, when only a single race category could be selected, almost two million people 

checked the American Indian and Alaskan Native category. Yet, in 

2000, over four million identified themselves either as American Indian and Alaskan Native alone or as American Indian and Alaskan 

Native in combination with one or more other races. This amounts 

to an incredible 110 percent American Indian and Alaskan Native 

population growth rate compared to the U.S. Population growth 

rate of only 13 percent. 

In 2000, those who identified themselves as American Indian and 

Alaskan Native alone was 2.5 million, a figure much more realistic 

and closer to the population growth rate nationally. Moreover, 

studies have shown that a substantial majority of those who indicated they are American Indian and Alaskan Native and another 

race would have selected a non-American Indian and Alaskan Native race if they had been asked to designate only one category. 

Yet, despite the fact that American Indian and Alaskan Native 

alone data more accurately reflects the true Indian population 

under the NAHASDA definition of Indian as any person who is a 

member of an Indian tribe, HUD has nevertheless mandated the 

use of the multi-race data in the Indian Housing Block Grants formula. 

When the multi-race data is plugged into that formula, large 

sums of housing funds are shifted away from areas with populations that self-identify as American Indian and Alaskan Native 

alone, which tend to be reservation lands, to areas of populations 

that self-identified as American Indian and Alaskan Native in combination with other races, which tend to be more urbanized, nonreservation areas. 

Although Congress intended NAHASDA to help tribes and their 

members improve their housing ambitions and socioeconomic status, HUD’s decision disregards the bedrock principle of self-determination and self-governance of the tribe’s rights to determine its 

members. 

HUD’s own preliminary estimates using multi-race data reveal 

that with a reduction of over $5 million, the Navajo Nation will 

suffer the largest single cuts in funding, vital funds that will be 

taken away from Navajo families desperately in need of basic housing. 

Other tribes located right here in Arizona will also face severe 

reductions. For example, the Tohono O’Odham tribe will lose upwards of $743 million, an 11 percent reduction. The Hopi tribe will 

lose over $613 million, a 17 percent reduction. The Salt River Pima 

will lose over $738 million, a 24 percent reduction. And the 

Chochiti will lose $111,820, a 35 percent reduction. 

Congress must not allow this untenable and unfair result to 

stand. We respectfully request that HUD use tribal enrollment figures as the best indication of who are Indian under, and entitled 

to the benefits of, NAHASDA or, in the alternative, use the 2000 

Census American Indian and Alaskan Native alone count as most 

compliant within the NAHASDA definition of Indian and most reflective of NAHASDA’s intents and purposes. 

17

I might just add also that we are trying our best, Chairman Ney, 

to defrost the Bennett Freeze. I think you’ve seen a couple houses 

in that area, and it’s very undeveloped. We had to go through a lot 

of red tape and bureaucracy to get in any infrastructure. Hopefully, 

in the near future, we will overcome that. And if we do that, we 

will need all the help we can get putting in infrastructure and 

housing and the like. Thank you very much. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, President Shirley. 

[The prepared statement of Joe Shirley Jr. can be found on page 

168 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. We will move on to Chief Smith. 

STATEMENT OF CHADWICK SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, 

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon, Chairman, and honorable members 

of the committee. My name is Chad Smith, and I am the principal 

chief of the Cherokee Nation. We are located in eastern Oklahoma. 

One of the highlights of being principal chief is being able to visit 

a remote location hidden in the hills of eastern Oklahoma. Even before you are able to see what is happening, you can hear hammering, sawing and humming of generators, all interspersed with 

the sound of the Cherokee language. You hear the laughter of children playing in the nearby woods. These are sounds of a house 

being built in a Cherokee community by a Cherokee community. 

This is a pilot project. Houses are being built with materials purchased by Cherokee Nation funds using NAHASDA. Community 

members provide the labor. Instruction and supervision is provided 

by the Cherokee Nation through USDA funds as well as tribal 

funds. A flexible, stable funding source such as NAHASDA allows 

the Cherokee Nation to determine what works best for our members. It is very important to put our common members in a situation where they can rebuild their communities, acquire new capacities and expand their capabilities to help themselves. 

The leadership of the Cherokee Nation can, quote, make ourselves useful, by thinking strategically about how to use our resources in a manner that enhances opportunities for tribal citizens 

to help themselves. By thinking in a broader context, the Cherokee 

Nation seeks to build people, not just physical structures. 

Let me share with you one example. One of our self-help participants is a full blood Cherokee in his mid 40s who has caught chickens at a processing plant all of his life. This is back-breaking work 

that is demanding and often physically debilitating through the 

years. This man often puts eight to ten hours of work in each day 

catching chickens, then he helps build houses in Cherokee communities for four to six hours on the same day. He just learned how 

to use a tape measure and thinks he may want to build houses for 

a living. He wants to volunteer to assist and to teach other Cherokees what he has learned. 

The Cherokee Nation would like to see more instances of this to 

make our limited funding go further and create an epidemic of this 

type of excitement and activity and self-help. 

The Cherokee Nation has used NAHASDA in many other strategic ways to promote capacity building and housing opportunities. 

We fund Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs, that require 

18

matching the private savings of individuals dollar for dollar. We 

also provide materials only projects for low income individuals who 

need to rehabilitate their privately-owned house. We have trained 

and certified staff to eliminate lead-based hazards, lead-based 

paint hazards in the housing of low income Indians. We are utilizing a Rural Housing and Economic Development grant to establish a structural insulated panel, or SIT panel, manufacturing facility. All these initiatives and others will allow the Cherokee Nation 

to house more of the neediest. 

The Cherokee Nation has leveraged several resources, such as 

the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, to build several projects and 

we are the single largest user of the loan guarantees under Title 

VI of NAHASDA. We plan to aggressively market not only Section 

184 loan guarantees, but also USDA’s 502 program to our citizens. 

There are some issues that, if resolved, would better enable the 

Cherokee Nation to strategically address the housing needs of our 

members. These issues include improving or coordinating processes 

to allocate Indian Health Service Sanitation Facilities Construction 

funding; standardizing the environmental, or NEPA, process across 

federal agencies, and streamlining the residential leasing procedures through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Stable, consistent 

funding and processes would allow us to more strategically use the 

very limited resources available. 

Another example of more effective utilization of resources is the 

Indian Community Block Grant. We could better plan housing, infrastructure development and economic opportunities if we received 

funding through an allocation formula like large cities do under the 

public CDBG or, for that matter, NAHASDA. 

I would like to also comment on NAHASDA formal allocation for 

funding and the use of the U.S. Census. The Cherokee Nation citizens and other Indians in our area are undercounted by whatever 

census classification or count, whether it be by single race or multiple race. However, Census information at this point is the only 

available information collected systematically in which we have 

confidence and the use of which has been determined through the 

negotiated rulemaking between tribes and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. The use of census information 

should be used as long as it approximates tribal citizenship. We believe that any other use of Census classifications, such as a restriction to only using a single race, becomes purely a race-based policy 

rather than a proxy or an index for citizenship in federally recognized tribes when the effect is to artificially underestimate the 

amounts of tribal citizens in an area. The use of the multiple-race 

classification from the U.S. Census results in a more accurate estimate of the tribal citizens in our area, even though that number 

itself is undercounted. 

We support any system—I want to reiterate this—we support 

any system that is verifiable and reliable that best reflects the 

number of citizens of federally recognized tribes and Alaska Natives for specific formula areas. 

In closing, I would like to express our appreciation for the contribution of Congress, the attention of this committee. What you 

have done for the Cherokee Nation and other Indian tribes and 

your support of Indian Nation programs and self-government and 

19

its self-determination are very valuable for our continued existence 

and our efforts to regain the dignity and status that we once historically held. Thank you very much. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Chief. 

[The prepared statement of Chadwick Smith can be found on 

page 174 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. And Chairman Taylor. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE TAYLOR, JR., CHAIRMAN, HOPI TRIBE 

Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman Ney, honorable members of the subcommittee, welcome, and thank you so much for coming to visit our 

homeland. My name is Wayne Taylor, Jr., and I am Chairman of 

the Hopi Tribe. 

My remarks today focus on the need to increase the opportunities 

for Hopi people to live in quality and affordable housing and to improve our participation under NAHASDA. In addition, I will offer 

my thoughts on some of the critical legislative and policy issues related to housing that require the attention of our Congressional 

delegation and Congress generally. 

By way of background, the Hopi people and their ancestors have 

lived in northern Arizona and the southwest in general for many 

thousands of years. Our ancestors’ once thriving but now abandoned villages can be found throughout portions of Arizona, New 

Mexico, Colorado and Utah. In 1882, the United States set aside 

a small portion of our former ancestral home as a reservation intended as a permanent home and abiding place for Hopi. The Hopi 

village of Oraibi was a bustling community many centuries before 

the coming of the European explorers and today is recognized as 

the oldest continuously inhabited community in North America. 

Our reservation, some 1.6 million acres of land, is situated in the 

middle of the Arizona portion of the Navajo Reservation. The 12 

villages of the Hopi reservation are within a two-hour drive of the 

non-Indian border towns of Flagstaff, Winslow and Holbrook. We 

are cross-town neighbors to the Navajo community of Tuba City. 

According to the most recent population data, the Hopi tribe has 

an on-reservation population of 8,000 tribal members with another 

4,000 members living off the reservation. The average household 

income for families in the Hopi communities is $26,553, which is 

almost six thousand, almost seven thousand less than the income 

for neighboring non-Indian communities in Coconino and Navajo 

counties. 

The Hopi have a long history of housing development. As settled 

village dwellers, the Hopi built and maintained community development projects throughout thousands of years of their history preceding the founding of the United States. Hopi communities were 

designed and constructed not simply as shelters from the elements, 

but rather as places of safety and social cohesion. The Hopi village 

was a place where individual families could live comfortably, practice their agrarian economy, attend to their religious obligations 

and build a society that took care of their community members and 

offered them a clear direction toward future security and prosperity. 

Anyone visiting the Hopi villages today will see Hopi homes built 

by Hopi hands that have been passed down through family and 

20

clan inheritance for many hundreds of years. Generations of Hopi 

people have literally been born, raised, and passed on in Hopi 

housing built by their ancestors. 

Unfortunately, our ability to keep pace with the need of new 

housing through modern housing programs has not come close to 

matching the ingenuity and adaptability of our ancestors. Hopi people simply do not have sufficient quality and affordable housing to 

meet existing and projected needs. Housing is currently one of the 

greatest challenges facing the Hopi people. Housing development 

faces a number of challenges. Finding suitable locations for new 

housing can be extremely difficult because of our system of village 

and clan land holdings that restrict the building of new homes in 

close proximity to the historic villages and reserves much of the 

land for agriculture and religious practices. Of course, this is a 

matter within the political control of the Hopi Tribe and their villages and will have to be worked out according to those political 

processes. 

Our solution is to move new housing into areas not subject to 

such restrictions. However, in such locations, we face the difficulty 

of developing basic infrastructure, including water, sewer, electricity and roads and the lack of funds for construction activity. As 

our Hopi population grows and the demand for housing increases, 

we fear these problems will only get worse. 

The statistics related to affordable housing for the Hopi Tribe are 

disturbing and discouraging. According to the recent surveys conducted by the Hopi Tribal Housing Authority, there are 2,485 families living on the Hopi Reservation, of which 2,043 are low income; 

1,215 Hopi families live in substandard housing units, and nearly 

691 families live in overcrowded conditions, usually sharing the 

same household with other family members. 

The same survey shows that 1,116 owner-occupied units and 137 

renter-occupied units under the HUD housing program, for total 

units of 1,253. The statistics for these 1,253 units are startling but 

not surprising. Of the 1,253 units, 436 are in standard condition; 

337 require minor rehabilitation; 439 require substantial rehabilitation, 29 are dilapidated and require replacement; and ten are of 

unknown structural condition. Financial assistance is badly needed 

to repair and rehabilitate 773 units and to rebuild 29 new units. 

The above statistics apply only to the Housing Authority Indian 

Housing Plan for 2004. How am I doing on time? 

Mr. RENZI. Wrap it up. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. What are we doing about the current situation? A number of years ago, the Hopi Tribal Council approved a 

comprehensive values plan, and within this plan designed five new 

community sites to be located on the Hopi partition lands. One 

such site is the Tawaovi community. The new community of 

Tawaovi is located 15 miles north of Second Mesa along BIA Route 

4, also know as Turquoise Trail. The Tawaovi community provides 

for mixed-use housing, commercial and industrial development, and 

other government facilities. We are working with the local housing 

authority to plan new housing for these communities. We need 

Congressional support to make the plans a reality. 

I have some recommended legislative and policy matters that we 

would like to have your subcommittee in Congress assist us with. 

21

They have been generally addressed already, so I will leave that as 

part of my written record. 

Chairman NEY. It will be accepted without objection. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Wayne Taylor Jr., can be found on 

page 193 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank all of the panelists. 

Let me ask our ranking member, Ms. Waters, I’d like to ask a 

question about something we saw today. It’s a generic question on 

behalf of us. 

I saw a hogan, and there was a power line. I could visibly see 

that power line, and the line was there, but it can’t be connected. 

And it’s due to a——

Mr. RENZI. Arizona Public Service. 

Chairman NEY. Arizona Public Service, and then I think the 

Bennett Freeze. So the question I want to ask is, in my mind, what 

benefit is it when you can stand and see that power line and not 

be hooked up? It’s not a matter of money, in my opinion. Let’s say 

it costs five hundred dollars to hook it up. We say here is the five 

hundred, but it can’t be hooked up because of the Bennett Freeze? 

Is that correct? Anybody like to answer that? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, Wayne Taylor, Hopi Tribe Chairman. 

What we are dealing with in certain parts of this area here are 

what is called the Bennett Freeze areas. This is currently in litigation and has been the subject of many court battles. It has been 

appealed to the Ninth Circuit and has been remanded now to the 

lower district court in Phoenix and we are awaiting some kind of 

a decision by the judge in that case. Unfortunately, that has been 

there in the courts for quite a long period of time. 

I would like to commend the leadership for the Navajo Nation. 

Starting with President Kelsey Begay, we began to have negotiations to try to settle this land issue so that we can unfreeze the 

so-called Bennett Freeze. When President Joe Shirley became the 

next President, we continued these mediations, and I am happy to 

report that we have now reached an agreement in principle on a 

compact that we will now be taking to Washington D.C. Where we 

hope that the Department of Interior would also sign off on this 

particular compact. 

We then will have a product that we can take to our respective 

tribal councils for ratification. This will address the unfortunate 

delays in getting people to get serviced. 

Chairman NEY. So does the Bennett Freeze prevent that power 

line from being hooked up today, or is it an arrangement you have 

to make between the two nations or between the two tribes? 

Mr. TAYLOR. What happens is any kind of development has to 

get—of course, it begins with the Navajo Nation. They go through 

their review process. Once that’s concluded, then it goes to the 

Hopi Tribe because it’s those lands that we have litigation over so 

we have to concur on these developments. And the development 

has to—the permit for these developments have to come through 

the Hopi Tribe. We have to concur before development can begin. 

22

And there is a process in place for that, and I would say that 98 

percent of those requests that come to the Hopi Tribe are approved. 

It’s just that it’s a lengthy process. 

Chairman NEY. One thing that confused me. We reviewed the 

Bennett Freeze, which in 1961, Bennett was in Congress. But, for 

example, this was a unit that—ICE did a real good job of building 

this, you know, and helping the family. But if we are talking about 

development, that was built so—the actual home was built, so it’s 

hard for me to understand why the line couldn’t be hooked up because the actual home was built. Is there also a problem with Arizona Public, or power supplies? Is that another side? Let me try 

to make it more clear. I’m probably not making it clear enough. 

If it’s a matter of development, why could the actual home be 

built but why couldn’t the line come 20 feet into the home? If it’s 

a matter of development of the Bennett Freeze, then the home 

shouldn’t have been built. I’m just trying to rationalize it. I’m not 

blaming anybody, I’m just trying to rationalize it in my mind. 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Chairman, members of the committee. One of the 

things that also is going on besides what Chairman Taylor has alluded to, the bureaucracy in getting power to homes because of the 

Bennett Freeze, there is also jurisdiction regarding power companies. We have our own. 

The Navajo Nation has its——

Chairman NEY. The jurisdiction of what? 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Power companies. 

Chairman NEY. Power companies? 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Yes. Arizona Public Service is an entity that’s outside Navajo land. The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority is the tribe’s 

own power source. It hooks up electricity, power, water, sewer to 

homes. So, because of the Bennett Freeze, we have to also negotiate on the cost sometimes. And sometimes APS could come in and 

sometimes NTUA could come in for whatever reason. So that’s one 

of the reasons why. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. My time is up. I will yield to our 

ranking member. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank our panelists for being here today. I’m particularly pleased to see and meet the leadership of not only the 

Navajo, but the Hopi. 

And I am looking for some guidance. I need you to tell this panel 

what your priority suggestions would be for helping to remove 

some of the barriers, whether that is with lending agencies, Congress cutbacks, administration cutbacks, or with tribal court cases 

or the Bennett Freeze that’s been talked about. 

Now, as I understand—let me just backtrack a little bit. As I understand, it appears that the courts—the Bennett Freeze settlement is now in the hands of the court. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Correct. 

Ms. WATERS. But you also indicated that the tribes were getting 

together in addition to what the court is doing. 

Should you reach an agreement or settlement prior to the court 

finishing its work, would that take precedence over the courts and 

then the court would no longer have to be involved in this decision? 

Mr. Taylor 

23

Mr. SHIRLEY. It is my understanding, Miss Waters, the Hopi Nation, working with the Navajo Nation, is trying to come to an 

agreement where we are going to put an end to the litigation. And 

once we reach agreement, hopefully, for everybody, that will happen. And then from there, infrastructure and housing will start 

going into Bennett Freeze. 

Ms. WATERS. So you’re saying that a settlement between the 

tribes would supersede the court work that’s being done now so you 

may not have to wait for another year or six months on a court decision? Is that correct? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congresswoman Waters, the case is in the lower 

district court, as I mentioned, and we have been waiting for the 

judge to make some kind of a ruling on this particular case, but 

that, unfortunately, has not been forthcoming for quite a long time. 

So that was what prompted the two tribes to begin to talk. And 

what we have done is we have asked the courts to assist us in this 

effort, and they have assigned one of the judges from the Ninth 

Circuit court and so that judge is helping to mediate between the 

two parties. 

So once the—all the parties have signed on to the agreement, 

then that will end this case. 

Ms. WATERS. That’s great and that’s very encouraging. We visited a location today where an elderly woman was living in a very 

substandard housing situation because her home had burned down 

and she could not replace it because of the dispute. So this would 

be wonderful if the tribes can reach an agreement, and we would 

certainly encourage, encourage, encourage you to do that. And I 

suppose once that’s done, that would help to move the issues of 

housing development in some very profound ways. 

If I have time, Mr. Chairman, the next thing I want to know is 

what can we do, what do you suggest that we do with the financial 

services community? What would you say to banks and financial 

institutions about providing loans and mortgages to families when 

they say that they can’t do it or it’s very difficult for them to do 

it because there’s a lack of ownership by individual families to own 

trust land and there is not a lot of income by Indian families for 

collateral? Do you have any suggestions or any ideas about what 

we can do? What could we say to those financial institutions? 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Chairman and Ms. Waters, let me defer that question to my technical person, who is also the chief executive officer 

of the Navajo Housing Authority, Chester Carl, to help me answer 

that question. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. Please identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. CARL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Waters and 

Chairman Ney, and, of course, Congressman Renzi and Congressman Matheson. Thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions. 

One of the barriers that we see is related to possibly the enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act. Currently, on the Navajo Nation, we only have five banking facilities, while on the 

streets of Washington D.C., you’ll find five banks in one block. And 

because of the lack of investments, Navajo opportunities of every 

American dream to establish homeownership is not possible. 

24

So, because of those challenges that we face, a lot of times banks 

are able to post an acceptable score in using other neighboring 

communities on how they invest their money in Indian country. So 

as a committee empowered with that authority, we would like for 

you to look at how community reinvestment works in Indian country. 

The second part of that is there’s been a lot of discussion on Section 184. When Section 184 was implemented, it was a dream to 

allow opportunities to Native Americans who were not at the acceptable level for conventional loan programming. Somewhere 

along the way through the bureaucratic process, it became where 

you almost had to be goldplated in order to get a loan through the 

Section 184 program. When we started the program, the approval 

was done at the field offices of the Native American program, and 

eventually that got centralized to the national office and it became 

problematic, so it hasn’t been at a level where it should be. So the 

recommendation would be possibly move it back down to the field 

offices because we work with those offices hand-in-hand and oneon-one, and we will try to work with those programs as well. 

The third part of that is the BIA. You noted that the BIA is not 

at the table. Part of that is a recommendation for procedures, and 

there is a commission that’s been established called the Land Title 

Commission by Congress, and if we could fast track that and have 

that commission go into effect so we can start to get some of these 

issues resolved, then, through sovereign rights of tribes, to establish a title plan with the tribe and BIA for those functions. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Those are very concrete recommendations and I’m sure that our members of Congress representing the area can move on those kinds of recommendations to 

remove some of these barriers. And of course, if they don’t, their 

friends will nudge them. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Kitcheyen, in your testimony, you spoke about infrastructure needs. You also mentioned the fact that if we build 125 

homes a year for the next ten years, we would only begin to meet 

the current housing need. 

What is the number one impediment at San Carlos Apache that 

doesn’t allow the, this generation to purchase homes? What is the 

number one impediment you’re finding? 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Currently, the number one barrier is the fact 

that over a year ago, the tribe submitted to HUD environmental 

reviews. And because they are so slow in doing their job, we are 

two years behind in spending our dollars. 

Mr. RENZI. Tell me a little bit about that submittal, please. It 

was to the HUD for environmental review. 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Okay. There’s two projects, Congressman, that 

we did. And I’m not sure how many homes we’re talking about, but 

I’m sure that, I think it is about two housing units, so that would 

be four, and they are behind, like I said. And right now that’s the 

current barrier. We need to use those dollars, and we just don’t, 

you know, we waited—and what we would need is for the government to give more leverage to the southwest office in Phoenix so 

they can have the additional support to speed up that process. 

25

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. We have officials here on the second 

panel who will be testifying. He is the Under Secretary for Public 

and Indian Housing, and I want to be sure that Michael, when he 

does come up, heard your words, particularly the fact that you have 

two projects that are ready to go, we just need a little bit of help. 

President Shirley, you also spoke and devoted much of your testimony towards, also, a need at HUD. What would you like to see—

and, again, forgive me for asking you to repeat, but just encapsulate as it relates to the census issue. What would you like to see 

the solution being? You can speak directly to the HUD people who 

are here listening to your voice right now. 

Mr. SHIRLEY. My testimony surrounds the multi-race, the use of 

the multi-race data, and we feel that it’s outside of federal law. I 

guess what I would like to see is getting back to federal law where 

you work with tribal members to get who is a member of tribes, 

who is supposed to be benefitting from the allocations for housing 

from the federal government. That would be my recommendation. 

Mr. RENZI. I also want to call attention and thank you for your 

leadership, along with Chairman Taylor, on the Bennett Freeze 

issue. I know no one together has worked as tireless as you two 

guys have to come up with what is on the verge, I believe, of a 

beautiful compromise. 

Finally—yes. That deserves some recognition. It really does. 

President Shirley, you have been looking for creative ways to 

build your own payroll. Monies are being spent on surrounding 

communities. Can you quickly help us understand what we need to 

do in order for that dollar to stay on Navajo lands so that it will 

be recycled and how that would affect your people. 

Mr. SHIRLEY. We need economic growth returned. And right now, 

the Navajo Nation has as one of its initiatives to develop a small 

business sector of Navajo Nation economy, and that would involve 

bringing in big boxes like Wal-Mart and Super Target to create 

jobs, create additional revenues. If we can create jobs here, that’s 

revenues that will flow within the Navajo land and out of the border towns. 

Mr. RENZI. By creating the jobs, you are going to have the ability 

to borrow and have the credit and ability to lend. 

Finally, as far as the White Mountain Apache are involved, sir, 

thank you for coming and filling in for Chairman Massey. We were 

able to accomplish together a project that both the governor’s office, 

the State, as well as the federal government, this facility called 

Apache Dawn. It was one of the first areas where we were able to 

lend money, to get the Home Loan Bank out of San Francisco, 

through an Arizona bank, to lend money to you all. 

And I think the issue came down to—obviously, traditional lenders won’t lend because of the sovereign land. They won’t attach collateral to sovereign land. This is one of the big issues as it relates 

to the traditional lending arms of a commercial facility looking at 

attaching to sovereign land. They don’t do it. 

Can you quickly tell the people here how you were able to overcome that obstacle and how this model has become a model for, I 

believe, many of the Native American people around the nation? 

Mr. WINFIELD. One of the things I would like to express to the 

committee here is that I think White Mountain Apache Tribe has 

26

been really looking forward for some great opportunity, and I think 

that they came when the national President expressed about these 

kind of projects, and we got into the picture and we entered, got 

ourself into it to the point where we decided to go after some of 

these projects. So I have a young lady from the housing program 

with me so I will let her express, explain this thing. I would like 

to call Miss Yazzie to come over. 

Mr. RENZI. State your name for the record, please. 

Ms. YAZZIE. My name is Aneva Yazzie. I’m a management consultant to the White Mountain Apache Housing Authority. 

In response to your question, Congressman, what we have utilized in order to make this whole transaction possible was to take 

advantage of HUD’s federal loan guarantee programs offer under 

the Section 184 program, as well as HUD’s Title VI loan guarantee 

program to overcome—to minimize financial institutions’ risk on 

reservation land for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

So in that regard, we were able to put in the underwriting with 

the various bankers, Bank One, Countrywide Home Loans for the 

Apache Dawn program, and then the WIFA state agency as well 

is a qualified lender. 

Mr. RENZI. So to get those financial organizations to lend money 

to the Apache Nation, and they can’t collateralize the land, did we 

post a bond to collateralize? What collateral did you all provide to 

make them comfortable with lending the half million dollars you 

got in order to finish the infrastructure? 

Ms. YAZZIE. What collateralized under that bond underwriting 

process was the Section 184 loan program. Let me explain that 

process real quickly and as simply as I can. 

What we have done is we have utilized HUD’s 184 loan program 

to get the construction loan for each home that was built with 

Bank One. I’ll name the financial institution that we partnered 

with. Bank One then, in turn, sold the mortgage loan to a loan 

servicer, Countrywide Home Loans. Countrywide Home Loans 

then, in turn, pooled those loans into a Ginnie Mae security. The 

Ginnie Mae security then was sold to the bond trustee. In this case, 

the bonds were sold, which they held the notes to pay the investors. 

Mr. RENZI. So that creative financial instrument was then able 

to allow and effectuate how many homes at Apache Dawn? 

Ms. YAZZIE. We initially planned 250, but we are building now 

317 homes for $25 million. 

Mr. RENZI. 317 homes, new homes, as a result of this creative financing. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I want to thank you very 

much. Chairman Taylor, I didn’t get a chance to ask my question 

of you, but we’ll talk later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. The gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to say this panel, in reviewing their testimony, has offered 

a number of specific recommendations. I’m very impressed with the 

quality of the testimony. I think it gives the committee a lot to cue 

on and consider. I’ve sat in on a lot of congressional hearings in 

27

my short career, and this is very impressive in terms of your testimony. I appreciate that. 

A couple things I wanted to ask about. First of all, there are a 

number of impediments. There is no simple answer to these issues. 

We have talked about the problem with the trust and tribal lands, 

the lack of infrastructure in terms of water, electric, roads. We 

have talked about working with federal bureaucracies. I understand that there are a number of challenges here, but there is another one we haven’t talked about too much, and that’s the overall 

funding level. And, as you know, there is a concern about the budget, consideration going on in Congress right now what the funding 

levels are going to be and if they are going to be cut or not. 

I hear it’s going to take, from Mr. Taylor’s testimony, 123 years 

to meet current demands. And I assume that’s because right now, 

based on the funding stream coming to you, that’s what it equates 

to, 123 years to meet your current demand. 

Mr. TAYLOR. That’s correct, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. MATHESON. He said yes. I’ll answer for him. 

What I hear from the San Carlos Apache is that you have to 

build 125 homes a year for ten years? Is that a rate that you are 

achieving right now with the funding stream you’ve got. 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. No, sir. 

Mr. MATHESON. What rate——

Ms. KITCHEYEN. It’s not what we’re achieving right now. Currently, we have 2,400 families on the reservation that need homes, 

and 39 percent of families live in substandard housing. And we also 

have 40 percent of families that live in overcrowded conditions. 

Ninety-four percent of 3,067 total families are considered low income under NAHASDA. 

So what we need is more money committed to build homes on the 

Indian reservations. 

Mr. MATHESON. I don’t want to oversimplify. I said at the start 

of my comments you can’t oversimplify. And just more funding is 

not the only solution here, but I think we need to put that issue 

out as one of the variables we ought to be talking about. We ought 

to talk about the fact that the budget considerations in Congress 

right now, I do not think are adequate. This majority would probably agree with that comment. 

I wanted to switch to Chief Smith. You mentioned in your testimony how the Cherokee Nation is the largest user of the loan guarantees under Title VI of NAHASDA, and you’re actually looking to 

expand it because relatively few tribes outside the Cherokee Nation 

have been taking advantage of this program. 

What is it that has allowed you to take advantage of this program in such a successful way. 

Mr. SMITH. Probably the necessity of the moment. The funding 

by the government is very marginal. We have to be very creative 

and aggressive. We have had the cooperation of the local banks and 

HUD and other agencies. We borrowed $50 million. We anticipate 

it’s going to build 550, 600 houses. We have already got 400 on the 

ground. 

Mr. MATHESON. I would just suggest it sounds to me there may 

very well be a lessen to be learned in terms of your relationship, 

you said with your local banks and whatnot, that other tribes could 

28

benefit from as well in terms of this program. I think that’s another piece of information not just for us, but for the other folks 

on the panel. That’s a good lesson we could take some advice in. 

One more question I have on the trust status of lands and its impediments to moving forward. I read in one of my pieces of material that I was provided to prepare for this meeting that under the 

current backlog with BIA title searches, that there is a 113-year 

backlog. 

How are you ever going to make progress on your housing shortages with that kind of backlog? Maybe there is no answer to that, 

quite frankly, but tell me if that’s a significant issue in trying to 

make progress in the housing. And I’m asking no one in particular, 

but how is that affecting you when you have BIA that slow in doing 

the title searches? 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Right now, that’s—you’re right, Congressman 

Matheson, that the BIA just hasn’t been there for tribes. In our 

case, the Navajo Nation, right now we are trying to go through a 

reorganization, trying to just get at that. They should have gotten 

that fixed decades ago. And right now it’s a big hinderance because 

of the lack of their progress, or the lack of being there for tribes. 

And all I can say is that because of them, my gosh, on Navajo land 

not only are we behind on improving housing, but we are behind 

by $435 million. 

Mr. MATHESON. I know my time is up, but one last question. 

In terms of this trust land status and how it’s been an impediment to you making progress on the Navajo Nation in terms of 

housing—and I know this hearing isn’t specifically about housing, 

but is that also affecting you in terms of moving forward, in terms 

of commercial development and economic development within the 

Navajo Nation as well? 

Mr. SHIRLEY. Yes, it has. In terms of leasing, same with Congressman Renzi addressing collateral and borrowing money, we 

can’t put up the land as collateral to borrow money. That has been 

one of the biggest impediments. 

And, also, because of trust land status, the BIA has to have a 

hand in every business that is leased. And right now, we are trying 

to lock up on the loans to get away from that. If we could do our 

own leasing, I think that would go a long way towards putting economic development on the fast track. 

Mr. WINFIELD. I would like to express a few items that were 

brought up about the need of housing. 

Today in the United States there is 500 Indian tribes that the 

unmet needs are so great that what you brought up, 113 years possibly to catch up. I am involved in the National Budget Tribal Committee with the western region. There is 12 Indian tribes throughout the United States that have been putting the 2006 budget together. And the last two, three weeks ago, we were back in D.C. 

And sat with the committee and the Department of Interior to start 

on a financial budget for 2006. 

Just to let the public be aware, United States BIA tribal prioritized budget allocation for 2006, we are going to see $253 million budget cut for Indian tribes throughout the United States. For 

2005, we experience over $50 million budget cut already. So, 

through the President of the United States, we have experienced 

29

for 2005-2006 a big, major budget cut for Indian country. And we 

are trying to request for top priorities on the allocation, and on the 

list, housing is one of them that is a main need. But we are continually seeing ourself being involved in budget cut from Department 

of Interior. 

We don’t know how we’re going to see ourselves in another so 

many years, 2007, how our budget will look, but 2006, it hurts to 

see $253 million budget cut for United States Indian tribes, twelve 

region, 500 Indian tribes. You are involved in the committee is 

great for housing. That’s the greatest thing. We even put the Housing Improvement Project, they call it HIP, into our top priorities, 

and that has hit a major cutback already, too, from the BIA. 

So talking about HUD here, HIP is getting major cuts and we’re 

hurting. Indian tribes is hurting. Your visit to Navajo Nation, if 

you visit the whole 500 Indian tribes, you would come to a similar 

housing need for Indian people. So, you know, I hope that this 

meeting will come to something very special and major so that one 

day we can see improvement in Indian country because of great 

equal housing. 

Like the San Carlos Chairwoman said, 2,000 plus need; White 

Mountain is about, somewhere close, near the same number for our 

people. Thank you. 

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that. 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Chairman Ney, if I may, please. I forgot to include this as part of the formal testimony. I’d like to enter it at this 

time, please. 

Chairman NEY. Without objection. 

Ms. KITCHEYEN. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Let me just note in closing this panel that we 

need to—and, unfortunately, the BIA is not here today. Another 

thing we need to do between now and then. 

I wanted to state that this brings up some issues, and although 

all of us value housing, these new bits and pieces of things work 

more correctly when you start to look at other areas where housing 

is done. For example, in my area, how housing is done now, there’s 

the trust, the deed, a variety of factors. 

But it also seems that if monies go through HUD, some monies 

go through BIA, some monies through veterans, they are going to 

come to a log jam at every point involved in the BIA. And what 

is going to happen is, if you want to talk about budgeting, is people 

in Washington that deal with budgets are going to look at and it 

say, well, the money was given to the Indian community but they 

didn’t use all of it so, therefore, the money is coming back that 

wasn’t used. 

And you can understand that. That’s part of the process of thinking. I’m not saying it’s always correct, but that’s part of the process 

of thinking. 

I think also, I’d like to know as the monies come out where they 

go, what holds it up. So, obviously, if there is a 113-year log jam, 

we have a problem with—magically, today, if there was enough 

money to build homes—getting titles. So I think we need to look 

at that. 

I want to thank the great panel. You have provided a lot of information. You have done a lot of good today. After listening, I underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
30

stand, and I’m also a little confused, which is not bad. It makes us 

ask more questions. So I want to thank the panel. 

We will move on to the second panel. 

[recess.] 

Chairman NEY. The hearing will come to order if it could, please. 

We will now continue with panel two. Please take a seat and we 

will go on with panel two. 

The first person to testify for panel two is Gilbert Gonzalez, Jr. 

Gilbert Gonzalez, Jr. is the Acting Under Secretary for Rural Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He oversees three 

agencies—if we can come to order, please, so we can hear the second panel, which is important. Can we come to order. Okay, you’re 

being tougher than Congress is. If we can please come to order. 

Mr. Gonzalez oversees three agencies, the Rural Business Cooperative Service, the Rural Utilities Service and the Rural Housing 

Service that together provides $14 million annually in grants, 

loans, and technical assistance to rural residents, communities and 

businesses. 

Mr. Gonzalez has been active in banking, housing and economic 

development efforts in the State of Texas. He was the founding 

President of the Community Development Loan Fund, a for-profit 

loan and development corporation, a collaborative effort between 

the city of San Antonio and 21 banks. The corporation served the 

credit needs of small minority-owned and women-owned businesses 

in San Antonio. 

Michael Liu is the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He oversees the administration of all public housing, Section 

8 rental systems, and Native American programs. Programs are 

comprised of over 60 percent of the housing budget, over $30 billion. 

Prior to his assuming his position at HUD, Mr. Liu served as a 

managing committee member for the Federal Home Loan Bank of 

Chicago.

We want to thank both gentleman for coming the distance here 

to Arizona and we will start with Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF GILBERT G. GONZALEZ, JR., ACTING UNDERSECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY ED BROWNING, STATE 

DIRECTOR FOR ARIZONA 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Chairman Ney, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to discuss how USDA Rural Development is working to support housing opportunities for Native Americans. 

But before I proceed, I would like to introduce our State director 

for Arizona, Eddie Browning, and some of our Native American and 

housing specialists. 

It is personally gratifying for me to lead a team of professionals 

who work every day with families and communities of various Native American nations and other rural areas and to see and hear 

how Rural Development programs are impacting the lives of people 

living in rural areas. 

31

Mr. Chairman, the housing programs authorized by this subcommittee are changing lives and are bringing new hope where it 

didn’t exist before. Rural Development is proud to be part of this 

effort to increase housing opportunities for Native American families. We are also proud of our commitments, to assist families and 

communities with overall economic and community development 

needs. 

Rural Development is essentially a large bank with an $86 billion loan portfolio. Our mission is to increase economic opportunity 

and to improve the quality of life for all rural communities. Our vision is to be a catalyst and to help rural communities to diversify 

their economics and to increase the flow of capital for homeownership, for entrepreneurship and for infrastructure. 

Homeownership is the oldest form of building equity. Rural Development has seen a 20 percent increase in single family housing 

direct loans to Native Americans over the last three years. In our 

single family housing guarantee program, we have seen nearly a 50 

percent increase. 

Supporting existing housing: For example, the families in Le 

Chee have received repairs and renovations that have brought new 

‘‘luxuries’’ that we take for granted, such as indoor plumbing, electricity, et cetera. 

Other housing opportunities: The White Mountain Apache multifamily housing complex was dedicated last Thursday. It has 22 

units that will provide decent, safe, and affordable housing. Displayed to my right is the multi-family project that I am describing. 

And, obviously, there is a celebration with the Crown Dancers, 

celebrating the grand opening of that multi-family project. 

Entrepreneurship is the economic engine of the U.S. economy. 

Rural Development invested $31 million in grants and low interest loans for local revolving loan funds for individual business 

startups and expansions, and 16 business loan guarantees. 

The third leg of economic development for rural areas is infrastructure, and I want to cite one example of what we are doing in 

rural America. Our broadband program and other technologies are 

bringing and providing rural communities the ability to compete 

domestically and globally. 

An example of this is our distance learning and telemedicine program and our broadband program. Both bringing economic opportunity and quality of life for those in rural communities. The 

Wellpinit School District on the Spokane Indian reservation, which 

serves 450 students K through 12, is one of the examples where we 

provided assistance. Several years ago, the school district was concerned with dropout rates of the students. Becoming aware that 

they lacked access to a variety of classes their students needed, 

they decided they needed to create global classrooms where students have access to educational opportunities worldwide in a job 

corps training center. They applied for and received a distance 

learning telemedicine grant from Rural Development to help create 

these classrooms and training facilities. 

Since then, they have received a second distance learning telemedicine grant. This past year, the school district had a 100 percent graduation rate, and all 13 graduates went on to attend colVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
32

lege. As a group, they received nearly a half million dollars in 

scholarships. 

Secretary Venaman announced in May 2003 $20 million in 

grants to support additional advances in technology and 

broadband. Of that, eight million is going to support Native American ventures, three here in Arizona, for over $760,000. 

Coming from the private sector myself and coming to the government, there definitely is a lack of coordination. Successful economic 

development requires working together, cooperation, coordination 

with federal and private sector partners, and more importantly 

with educational partners. 

Many who are present here today, Fannie Mae, the banks like 

Wells Fargo, credit unions and others, Rural Development in the 

past two and a half years has partnered with HUD, the Small 

Business Administration, Treasury, CDFI program, Congress, its 

EDA program and HHS, just to name a few. Banking partners in 

my, in my experience are capital providers who will bring economic 

opportunity to rural communities. 

Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, we have utilized 

in Rural Development 40 plus programs administered by Rural Development to invest over $37 billion to support local economic and 

community development efforts, investments that will improve 

overall living and economic conditions in rural communities, including communities in the nations represented here today. 

Our philosophy is that it’s all about local ownership and local 

control, and when local leaders drive these opportunities, businesses flourish, more families become homeowners, access to health 

and educational services are improved, and the community as a 

whole begins to reap the benefits. The Bush Administration has 

been working hard with American Indian, Alaskan Native tribes, 

tribal communities, tribal organizations and individuals to provide 

a greater understanding of the investment opportunities available 

and assist with guidance on how to access Rural Development financing. 

Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, Rural Development has doubled the investments made to Native American communities. In fact, Rural Development has provided nearly a quarter 

of a billion towards this effort; every year, setting new records and 

providing financial assistance for housing, community facilities, 

economic development, and infrastructure. 

To my far right is a second set of graphs that shows in 2001, 

Rural Development provided $177 million in Native American communities. In 2002, we provided $191 million in Native American 

Communities. In 2003, Rural Development invested about $234 

million in rural investments in Native American communities. 

Mr. Chairman, your hearing today provides us with an opportunity to share with you and members of the subcommittee ways 

in which we are administering Rural Development programs to 

maximize federal resources with other federal, tribal, state and 

local government and private sector partners, as well as individual 

investments to supplement the resources provided through Rural 

Development. This becomes particularly important as we seek to 

reach more communities and individuals. 

33

I believe we are making progress, but I also believe we must continue to find new ways to do more. I have shared in my written 

testimony many of the successful efforts we have undertaken over 

the past three years, particularly in support of Native American 

families and their communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have at this time. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

[The prepared statement of Gilbert G. Gonzalez Jr. can be found 

on page 86 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Liu, to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL LIU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. LIU. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you 

for inviting me to this very important hearing on improving housing for Native Americans. My name is Michael Liu, and I am the 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, responsible for 

the management, operation and oversight of HUD’s Native American programs. These programs are available to 562 federally recognized Indian tribes. We serve these tribes directly or through 

their tribally designated housing entities by providing grants and 

loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community and economic development functions. 

Tribes are improving housing conditions for their members. This 

momentum needs to be sustained as we continue to collaborate to 

create a better living environment for these families. 

At the outset, let me reaffirm the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s support for the principle of government-togovernment relations with federally recognized Indian tribes. HUD 

is committed to honoring this fundamental precept in our work 

with American Indians and Alaskan Natives. 

Over the seven years that funding has been made available 

under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA, over $4.4 billion has been appropriated 

through HUD to try to get tribally designated housing entities to 

provide decent, safe and affordable housing throughout Indian 

country. During this same period, HUD’s Indian CDBG program 

helped address the economic development, infrastructure and community development needs of federally recognized tribes with $485 

million in funding. 

The Section 184 loan guarantee program, which made its first 

loan in FY ’97 has guaranteed over 1,500 loans worth more than 

$151 million. The program provides the answer for many families, 

tribes, and TDHEs who want to obtain home mortgages on trusts 

or restricted lands, as well as fee lands where there is a service 

area or area of operation that has been assigned to the tribes. 

These are places where private market lenders never did business 

before. 

The Title VI program allows the tribe to jump start and enhance 

its housing programs with federally guaranteed loans. Loan guarantees amounting to $77 million are in place under the Title VI 

program. I encourage you to review my written testimony which 

34

begins by briefly outlining our programs, going over the numbers 

in the FY ’05 budget request, and then discusses an issue that I 

want to focus in on today: The large credit authority balances and 

our loan funds and how we are working aggressively with tribes 

and lenders to get much needed capital into Native American communities for homeownership. 

We have two loan guarantee programs that I touched on a moment ago. I would like you to consider them when you think about 

homeownership. The Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee 

Program certainly is in line with one of the administration’s highest priorities, and that is creating more homeownership for America. While 70 percent of all American households own their own 

homes, the number is significantly less for Native Americans, especially for those on the rural trust lands that constitute most Indian 

reservations. 

Section 184 provides a 100 percent guarantee for loans to income 

eligible and creditworthy Native American families, Indian tribes, 

or their tribally designated housing entities. Borrowers can purchase, construct, or acquire single-family homes on Indian trust or 

restricted lands, land within the service area of an IHBG grant recipient, and in other designated Indian areas. 

The reluctance of banks and lenders to engage in mortgage lending on trust land prompted creation of the program. It has made 

homeownership a reality for many Native American families. The 

100 percent guarantee, combined with lower closing costs, is attractive to both lenders and borrowers, and if used on trust lands, 

tribes must have a functioning tribal court system or enter into an 

agreement with another ajudicatory entity and enact ordinances 

covering foreclosure, eviction, and related matters. 

A direct result of the program is it provides an opportunity for 

lower and moderate income families living on reservations to move 

from subsidized housing units and thus freeing up that housing for 

use by low income families. 

The GAO, in 1997, pointed out that from 1992 to 1996, only 92 

conventional home mortgage loans were closed on tribal lands. Half 

of those were on a reservation where the tribe owned the bank. As 

I mentioned earlier, working with now nearly over 200 lenders, including Wells Fargo, Bank One, US Bank and Washington Mutual, 

among many others, including small banks, HUD has assisted over 

1,500 families with their housing needs by guaranteeing mortgages 

where others would not. 

Section 184 loans have been sold to 18 entities, including two 

Federal Home Loan banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, M and T Mortgage, and the Alaska, New Mexico, North and 

South Dakota state housing finance agencies. Both the Navajo Nation and the White Mountain Apache tribe are active 184 borrowers. They have developed several projects using 184, including 

Carigan Estates in St. Michaels, which is near Window Rock, and 

the Apache Dawn project which you have heard about this afternoon. 

On the Title VI guarantee program, we are focusing on developing and strengthening reservation economies on a larger scale 

than just purely housing. Through this experience, we realize that 

tribes need more access to banks and other financial institutions. 

35

One of the best ways to gain access and foster this relationship 

is to look at leveraging public funds with private investments and 

gain greater economic benefit. The Title VI program is available to 

Indian Housing Block Grant recipients in need of additional funds 

to engage in affordable housing. A private lender investor provides 

the loan and the government guarantee ensures repayment in the 

event of default. If there is a default, the government will seek repayment through the borrower’s IHBG funds. 

Title VI projects are usually larger, more sophisticated endeavors, using a variety of funding sources, but that is not a program 

requirement. 

Loan guarantee funds and the balances and initiatives. I have directed the Office of Native American Programs to focus attention 

on how to improve participation in both the 184 and Title VI programs. ONAP will accelerate its outreach to lenders, tribes and 

TDHEs and more aggressively market the programs. We have significantly increased our loan guarantee training sessions and included segments about them in other trainings and other public 

events whenever possible. At every available forum, I am educating 

the public about the programs and inviting whoever is interested 

to come and talk to HUD about how the program works and how 

to improve the program to make it more user friendly. 

But those millions of dollars will not be available for an unlimited time. I’d like to address just for a moment now the proposed 

cancellation of these loan programs. 

The Department proposes to cancel unused credit subsidy total- ling approximately $54 million which has accumulated in the——

Chairman NEY. I’m sorry. What was the amount? 

Mr. LIU. $54 million in credit subsidy which has accumulated 

over the past five years. 

These proposed cancellations will enable us to preserve full funding in our ’05 budget at the ’04 request levels for all Native American programs. The rescissions will not occur until the end of fiscal 

year ’05. Any unused credit subsidy that has been committed by 

that time will not be rescinded. We ask all here who are interested, 

we want to use them so that we don’t lose them. 

In conclusion, sir, HUD respects and supports the progress being 

made by tribes and their TDHEs in providing affordable housing 

to Native American communities. 

This concludes my remarks, and I stand happy to respond to any 

questions from you or your members. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Liu can be found on 

page 139 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank both gentlemen for your testimony. 

Let me just point out a couple of things. Of course, much of the 

Native American land is held in trust—before I do, let me ask one 

question of Mr. Gonzalez. 

When you are assisting with housing, or programs on Indian 

land, do you also at the end of the day have to have the BIA involved the same way as HUD would? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I’ve got some of our technical staff, but I would 

say in perfecting our liens and deeds of trust, the BIA does play 

a role in terms of title processing. 

36

Chairman NEY. There are issues about the trust, the trust status, the type of economic activity sometimes that can be allowed on 

Native American lands according to some reports, so I wonder how 

that affects either one of your abilities. 

Also, the inspector general report states several things. It says 

when projects are assisted by multiple programs, there are conflicting admission requirements. So if you’re one department, the 

veterans perhaps have some money for housing, USDA, HUD, BIA. 

So this report says when they are, again, assisted by multiple programs, there is conflicting admission requirements. So one would 

require, you know, more for admission than another. 

Also, it goes into the TDHEs. Now, as far as the TDHEs, it says 

something about some of their unfamiliarity with the NAHASDA 

requirements. So the nature of my question, I guess, is this—and, 

of course, that’s no different than the public housing authorities 

that will run into some problems. And HUD has to work—you 

know how the system works with the housing authorities. 

With regards to the BIA and this backlog, and obviously you 

issue X amount of millions of dollars which has not been spent so 

therefore, eventually, we all know what’s going to happen. It’s 

going to be taken. Having said all that, is there something that 

Congress needs to do to sit down with all the parties involved, 

whether it’s the veterans, whether it’s the USDA, HUD, and BIA, 

or can this be done by internal rulemaking authority, or can Congress sit down and somehow be able to work with you all to make 

this work for the better? 

And I’m aiming at what’s been testified to as a backlog by BIA. 

Does something need to be done, or will it work out, or—any opinions? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me just make some observations, Mr. Chairman. The President’s Initiative on the blueprint for the American 

dream is truly designed to increase minority homeownership by 5.5 

million by the end of this decade. I think what that did is collectively bring the agencies together, USDA, HUD, and housing programs like the VA and any other agency, FDIC, to provide that 

counseling and actually bring these agencies together to try to address what are some of the barriers and obstacles to homeownership. 

And I’d say at this point that we are seeing some tangible results 

there. I think in this case, I think what we need to do is actually 

work with BIA, work with David Anderson, and try to remove some 

of these barriers to homeownership on the Native American lands. 

Mr. LIU. I certainly can’t speak on behalf or for the bureau. I will 

echo some of the comments of Mr. Gonzalez in regards to this I 

think we are having some success in certain regional offices with 

BIA where we have seen some best practices from other parts of 

the country and applied them. For instance, in our office in Ashland BIA. 

But I think from HUD’s perspective, we certainly would welcome 

involvement from Congress and working with us and working with 

BIA to assist in establishing the priorities that we think are important in regards to the need to have all of us working together and 

functioning correctly so we can streamline and get the process and 

get the paperwork done. 

37

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I can add one more thing. I know that Michael 

and I talked about this last week, but, essentially, the One-Stop 

Mortgage Initiative in Indian country, which is an initiative with 

Fannie Mae and RD and BIA and HUD to try to really come up 

with uniformity and processing of the applications, and I think that 

could be a big help. 

Chairman NEY. I think that’s an issue we can look at, the uniformity and also what we can do to help in Congress. And then, 

when we get back to the Capitol, we have a follow-up hearing with 

the BIA, and I think we need to ask them, you know, this is what 

is stated as a backlog, why has that happened and what can be 

done to correct that? 

Ms. WATERS. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Gonzalez and 

Mr. Liu for making up our second panel here today, and I thank 

you for providing us with additional information that helps us to 

understand the complexity of this problem. 

It seems to me that we have resources but somehow they are underutilized for the most part. It seems to me that some training 

has gone into how to consolidate services but, again, it may not be 

working as well as we would like it to work. One-Stop, that’s a 

great idea, and it seems to me that that should bring all of the entities together and make it easier to navigate these various agencies. 

But let me ask about the under expenditure of the guaranteed 

loan, the loan guarantee monies. It’s a little bit upsetting to know 

that we have funds in these loan guarantee programs that are 

going underutilized. Whenever that happens, it usually points to a 

problem in getting people to implement and usually you have to do 

something about building capacity. If people are underutilizing 

funds, it means that they need some assistance in being able to 

learn how to utilize those funds. We have discovered this in some 

other programs that we have been involved in. 

What have you done and what can you do to build capacity so 

that these funds can be utilized rather than us sitting here and letting them roll out over a five-year period of time? 

Mr. LIU. You are absolutely right, Congresswoman. There does 

need to be action steps, real steps to be taken and not just the recognition of a problem. We have for the first time—and I’m not 

going to lay the blame on anyone. Part of the buck stops here. 

We actually have begun, we have set, now, goals for regional offices in terms of loan volume, stretch goals. We are looking at, hoping to do a couple hundred million dollars’ worth of mortgages. If 

you average each mortgage at around a hundred thousand dollars, 

that’s really not that many mortgages, but if you look at the mortgage market as a whole, it’s really fairly modest. 

That in itself has focused attention of our managers in the field 

on 184. I think even in this region here, Mr. Mecham, our field office director, has done an excellent job in the past six months in 

really going out into Indian country, alerting tribes to this resource 

and working with them because now he also knows he’s going to 

be measured in terms of his performance on whether or not his region is going to meet their goals. That’s one. 

Number two, we have scheduled and have had a series of regional meetings, bringing in tribes and financial institutions, both 

38

retail and secondary market, to talk about leveraging of funds, financing, utilizing 184 and Title VI in real workgroup situations. 

Not just on a very broad basis, but sitting down and trying to work 

through issues and specific problems which are involved. Now, in 

those sessions, USDA has been involved as well as BIA. So that 

process is going on, the capacity building. 

We are working with our partners who do provide TA to work 

with us and also going out and focusing on these programs. So 

there are action steps going on and we certainly hope to have some 

real results by the end of this fiscal year. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, let me, after I finish this, let me just say that 

I believe that the lending institutions would be happy to have a 

100 percent loan guarantee, or even an 80 percent loan guarantee. 

And I just know that if this was better marketed or if they really 

understood it, they would be knocking down the door to get a loan 

guarantee. 

Now, when you say that you go out to the tribes and you’re trying to put this all together, I would like to know whether or not 

the tribes have the ability to either employ or contract with consultants or others who could help expedite putting this together 

and whether or not the institutions themselves are appointing or 

identifying folks inside their structures who are dedicated to bringing them more 184 or Section VI or 502 money. Because I think 

they need to identify somebody inside the institution who will 

spend time on this, who will learn it and understand it and work 

with the implementers, whether that’s someone coming directly 

from the tribes or someone that they hire to help them with it. 

Can any of the dollars be used from the loan guarantee program 

to actually support capacity building? 

Mr. LIU. We actually have technical assistance and training dollars and we have allocated substantial portions of those in support 

of the 184 program. The tribes themselves, obviously, do have the 

ability to use their grant funds to assist them. 

I’m engaging in direct conversations with many banks right now 

just on that topic that you are talking about, the assigning of staff 

and individuals to support the interest in the program. 

Finally, we are doing a better job of learning a number of unique 

features of 184 which can mitigate a lot of the perception problems 

that still are associated with loans made on tribal lands. The one 

specific point is that under the 184, a lender has the option, in the 

event a loan craters in, in the event of a default, a lender does not, 

under 184, have to service that program to the end of the process 

before getting reimbursed. The lender can assign that mortgage to 

HUD and HUD will take care, then, of the servicing of that loan 

to foreclosure or reassignment, which is very unique. 

Ms. WATERS. How long have you been talking to them about 

this? 

Mr. LIU. We have—well, actually, since I started, which is about 

three years ago, and then on an accelerated basis, about a year and 

a half ago. It takes time. It takes time. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, again, you have just made it even more attractive in the way you have described, that they don’t have to 

service it, that they can give it to HUD. 

39

I just don’t understand, if you’ve been spending three years on 

this, or even one and a half years, why they are not beating down 

your door. I don’t get it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I may, Congresswoman Waters. 

I just want to say, in terms of capacity building, that our State 

offices here in Arizona and throughout this region are doing the 

outreach on Native American lands and communities, and are pretty effective at that. In fact, the Window Rock location is actually 

an office that services these Native American communities. We also 

do have an office I believe in Flagstaff, and some of these are actually staffed with tribal members that are familiar with doing business in tribal communities. 

I’ll say with—one point I want to bring out is that Rural Development does have a Five-Star Commitment that it kicked off two 

years ago, and the focus of that Five-Star Commitment was really 

to increase homeownership, but it was to lower the guarantee fee, 

which is from two basis points to about one and a half to make it 

more affordable. We were looking at doubling the number of selfhelp grantees, and one of the applicants that we actually went and 

saw today was the ICE effort. That application is moving into the 

pre-application stage or predevelopment stage. 

But that’s an example of what Rural Development is trying to do 

to improve the quality of life and living conditions in Native lands. 

And last, what I heard earlier from the first panel is talking 

about I believe some of the credit issues, the credit issues in terms 

of homeownership. We do have a focus here, again, specifically 

looking at a home buyer education effort in terms of trying to teach 

people the ins and outs of homeownership and addressing those 

issues. 

Ms. WATERS. As I understand it, and thanks to you, ICE is doing 

a very good job of that. We were privileged to talk extensively with 

them about what they are doing and we think that’s extremely important. We appreciate the support for that. 

I’m going to turn this microphone over, but I cannot help but ask—I want to know about this $54 million. The last $54 million 

at risk. I want to know how much of that money is at its five-year 

point where we are going to lose it? Is that what I understood you 

to say? 

Mr. LIU. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Could you please let me know? How much of the 

$54 million—or is it more than $54 million that’s now at a point 

where it’s going to have to be returned? 

Mr. LIU. In the ’05 budget request, there is a decision clause that 

does combine for the Title VI and 184 program amount to $54 million in rescission money at end of FY ’05 should the associated 

credit not be used. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to give this back to you, 

but I wish somebody could continue this, see if we can do something to keep from having to rescind these monies. 

Chairman NEY. To follow up on that, another thing I—I won’t 

ask for the answer right here, but if we can also start to dig into 

why. What went wrong, you know, where the stopping point came 

or did the money go down and there’s a problem with maybe education, or the housing authorities, or was it the BIA or—not to put 

40

a finger of blame here, but to find out why the system is coming 

to a halt. I think that these questions are important, what can we 

do, and also why is it happening. If we could get down—and I know 

you can’t determine on every single case, but if we can get some 

generic pattern here of why this is coming to a standstill? 

Gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Chairman. 

Two questions, Mr. Liu. I first heard about the project on the 

San Carlos today that you heard from Chairman Kitcheyen, two 

projects which are ready to go. She asked passionately if the Phoenix office could receive leverage in order to be able to push through 

the environmental review process so we could unlock some of the 

bureaucratic logjam. 

Can you help address that? We also have, Debbie Ho is still here, 

who represents the San Carlos, in case we can put you two together. Could you address that for me, please? 

Mr. LIU. Sure. I’ll talk to Mr. Mecham and we will have our office work more closely on the issue and take a look at details as 

to why there is this hangup in the environmental review situation. 

I’ve heard of problems in other areas in the country. This goes 

back to, I think, the streamlining and the need for consolidation. 

And in the environmental review process, I think there is a certain 

amount of confusion among the agencies as well as with the tribes 

as to responsibilities and as to perhaps work that may have already been done that can be used for the actual project in question. 

But Mr. Mecham and his staff will be addressing it. 

Mr. RENZI. I look forward to hearing back from you on that and 

seeing some results, please. 

While I have you, you heard President Joe Shirley talk about the 

census issue, the fact that the data has now changed, or the way 

you gather the data. Is that correct? So we are using multi-racial 

characteristics. You heard President Joe Shirley talk about how he 

would like to see us go back. 

I’m considering a legislative fix unless there is some sort of a real 

justification as to why it is that we should allow those monies to 

be diluted. The Navajo Nation is the largest Native American Indian tribe in America. We have many tribes with 138 members who 

have a casino that are much better off, yet they get an equal distribution. Or you can have a person on the east coast check that 

box now and the monies will go there instead of coming here. 

Can you help me? 

Mr. LIU. Well, Congressman Renzi, as you know, any information 

which is based on census information which is recognized—which 

has been used since the beginning of the NAHASDA, it’s based on 

self-reporting, whether it’s one box or whether it’s 15 boxes. It’s 

self-reporting by that individual. 

HUD has made the policy call based on recommendations from 

staff as new information has become available, as it has under the 

new census where an individual is able to check more than one 

box. But that is the most expansive and most, most expansive reading and provides greater ability for more, most folks——

Mr. RENZI. Sir, I’m with you on the policy. But I’m asking you 

now, as far as the dilution of monies, can you see here how it’s afVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
41

fecting the Navajo people? Obviously, how it’s diluted the monies, 

and the concentration would need to come here. 

Mr. LIU. Well, Mr. Renzi, this issue was taken up by the negotiated rulemaking committee, which consisted of 26 members, including representatives from all tribes, from all regions of the country. No consensus could be reached on this subject. 

Mr. RENZI. So, what are we going to do about that? 

Mr. LIU. Well, since we do recognize the tribes as sovereign nations, and they have been the greatest purveyors of the notion that 

we should go to negotiated rulemaking, it shouldn’t be left to Congress’ jurisdiction, shouldn’t be left up to the administrations, it 

should be worked together in a negotiated rulemaking setting, by 

the lack of the ability of the tribes themselves to come to a consensus on this, I think that’s an indication that there’s still need 

for discussion and there is still need for the tribes to interact on 

this. 

Mr. RENZI. I appreciate the answer. We will look at ways that 

maybe we can address the issue and come up with at least some 

sort of equal proportion or some sort of formula that works. 

Mr. Gonzalez, I appreciate your work. In particular, you have, in 

your testimony, talked about increases that have occurred. As you 

can see—and particularly in the first panel—there is a major confidence, a self-determination among the people. There is an independence. And much of this independence of wanting to have 

homeownership is tied to the fact of the inability of the Navajo people, the Hopi people, the Yavapai Apache, the Apache people to 

have good, sustainable jobs. Good jobs. 

In order for self-determination, in order for the Navajo people, 

the Hopi people, to be able to pull themselves up as they want to 

do, in order to be able to help solve the housing situation themselves, not just with government assistance but the real answer—

I mean, as was said here earlier, we’re not going to add billions of 

dollars to the budget in order to be able to solve this problem. We 

need economic development, particularly on the Hopi reservation 

and the Navajo reservation. Part of that is being able to bring and 

attract developers. 

And I would like to ask you what kind of programs are geared 

towards attracting developers? What kind of programs do you know 

of that we could help with economic development. Real jobs. I’ll 

give it back to you. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Congressman Renzi, I felt that same confidence 

just during the tour today. This has been my first visit to the Navajo Nation and to the communities we visited today. 

But Rural Development, as I see government, it plays a catalyst 

in trying to encourage private sector investment, and that is our 

goal. I say this, and I say it quite often, I say that Rural Development is one of the few agencies in terms, when you look at SBA, 

you look at HUD, that can actually build a community from the 

ground up with infrastructure in terms of water or waste, in terms 

of electric, telephone, broadband. Then I go over to housing. It puts 

people in homes through a self-help program, which is a critical 

program, I would think here, to encourage that private investment. 

But to not only build homes, but to build communities. I mean, I 

believe that’s what the people here on the Navajo Nation want, is 

42

to build communities. Around that, you start to create economic opportunity and you start to improve the quality of life in this area. 

And last, I will say a little bit about the programs. Those are the 

guarantee programs, and I think what would work well on the 

Navajo Nation would be our Intermediary Relending Program, 

which is our guaranteed loan fund, value added development 

grants, and renewable energy grants. 

These are all tools that rural communities, including the Navajo 

Nation, can use to bring economic diversity and create those jobs 

that you are referring to. 

Chairman NEY. Gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate both your testimony and I just want 

to ask a couple questions. 

I get the impression that NAHASDA has been a positive step in 

terms of housing programs, but I might ask just a quick, openended question. 

What would be the next step you would suggest from a Congressional standpoint? Are there other improvements you can make to 

work more efficient, have better results? 

Mr. LIU. Well, addressing the guaranteed loan program, I believe 

that—we are working on this and we have the mechanisms now 

through internal rules and procedures, but I think if we could open 

up the prospective as to the applicability of some of these programs 

that may not, that aren’t always tied just to trust lands, where 

there is, for instance, in the 184 or Title VI, where there is a significant accumulation of credit authority. Native Americans, wherever they live, have a difficult time. I think there’s no question 

there. And I think if we look at what we might do, and we are investigating that in HUD, of opening up the programs where Native 

American families, wherever they might reside, trust lands or 

not—because there are, of course, millions of Native Americans 

who don’t live on a reservation—we can find reasonable ways, certainly without taking away the focus of the trust lands, but an ability to facilitate helping those families who don’t live on trust lands, 

I think that would be very helpful. 

Mr. MATHESON. There is talk about potentially changing the loan 

guarantee, the 80 percent. Do you have any comment on that, or 

what the status is of that. 

Mr. LIU. The 184 is, of course, at a hundred percent. That is set 

by statute and law. 

The Title VI program, according to credit reform ONB scoring, is 

worked at currently at an 80 percent level. 

Mr. MATHESON. Just to confirm, it has not always been at 80 

percent. 

Mr. LIU. No, it has not. It had been at a higher percentage and 

there was some misinformation or miscommunication between 

OMB and HUD dating back to 1999 until recently and that had to 

be cleared up. 

Mr. MATHESON. So are you telling me that HUD is going to lower 

that down to 80 percent. 

Mr. LIU. Yes. 

Mr. MATHESON. I think that’s something we ought to look at. 

Mr. Gonzalez, if I could ask you a quick question. I appreciate 

the efforts of the USDA and Fannie Mae in terms of coordinating 

43

different products. I wonder if you can talk about what USDA has 

been doing to promote the preservation of 515 housing stock. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Congressman Matheson, good question. I’ll answer that question. 

Last fall, former Under Secretary Dorr took an initiative to look 

at the 515 portfolio and look at prepayment issues, look at rehab 

of those properties and look at really the market conditions. And, 

so, we went outside with a consultant. 

We are in the stages right now of drafting a preliminary report. 

We will share that with the congressional members, but we should 

have the final report on the 515. Again, we are looking at market 

conditions, we’re looking at assessing property conditions, and we 

are also looking at capitalization requirements to see how they 

might impact those properties and future new construction. 

Mr. MATHESON. Not that I would hold you to this statement, but 

do you have a sense when the final report might be? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We are looking at fall, if I had to gander a date. 

Mr. MATHESON. I guess one thing that’s kind of struck me 

today—and maybe this is echoing what Congresswoman Waters 

said before. This morning, I go and tour these facilities and I see 

this crying need, and then I come here and I hear about certain 

pockets of money or loan guarantees or whatnot that aren’t being 

fully utilized. And, to me, that doesn’t add up and it really has me 

wondering what we can do to overcome whatever the obstacles or 

inefficiencies that are in our system. Clearly, we are not firing on 

all cylinders and this isn’t working, and I think we need to figure 

it out. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I just wanted to answer—maybe that’s a question 

you wanted to ask Mr. Liu, but in terms of my observations and 

working in urban and rural settings, working with HUD, BIA, 

USDA and Rural Development, Fannie Mae, FHOB, and the private sector, we can go on and on, but a coordinated, a really strong 

coordinated effort there at really bringing those resources to Native 

American communities and leveraging those with the private sector. And that’s the road that I can see. 

But to encourage that kind of private investment is going to 

mean addressing the uniformity and servicing of those loans in 

terms of issues that we have with others. So that’s why I think we 

can make some ground and begin to address some of those issues. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank the panel for being here before 

the housing subcommittee. And with that, we will go on to panel 

three. I do have to step away for about ten minutes. Mr. Renzi will 

chair the subcommittee. Thank you. Panel three. 

[Recess] 

Mr. RENZI. We need to come to order, please. I want to introduce 

the third panel who has joined us. Chairman Ney will be coming 

back in just a few minutes. 

Let me begin by introducing the panel. First we have with us 

Pattye Green, who is the senior business manager for Native American Housing at the Federal National Mortgage Association. We 

also have with us today Freddy Hatathlie, who is a mortgage consultant for the emerging markets at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. 

His office is here in Flagstaff. We have Renee Konski, who is a loan 

44

officer with American Financial Resources, Inc. Mark Maryboy, 

who is a delegate to the Navajo Nation, who I consider a good 

friend, with the Navajo Nation Council. He is chairman of the Navajo Transportation and Community Development Committee and 

has done a lot of work for infrastructure here on the Navajo Nation. 

Lawrence Parks, a good friend who is senior vice president of the 

External and Legislative Affairs for the Federal Home Loan Bank 

of San Francisco. Kent Paul, who is the chief executive officer of 

AMERIND Risk Management Corporation, who handles a lot of 

specific issues around insurance and risk-pooling alternatives. June 

Sabatinos who is the vice president of Ambulatory Care Services at 

the Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation, who has an interesting story to tell today. And Russell Sossamon, who serves as the 

chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council. 

I thank all of you for coming today. It’s a large panel. I’m going 

to ask you please to limit your testimony to five minutes, no more 

than five minutes, so we can move through with a lot of questions 

afterwards. 

Ms. Green, we will begin with you. Pass the microphone, please. 

STATEMENT OF PATTYE GREEN, SENIOR BUSINESS MANAGER 

FOR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING, FEDERAL NATIONAL 

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, Congressman Renzi and Congressman Matheson. 

As senior business manager for Native American Initiatives with 

Fannie Mae, I assist the regional offices and partnership offices in 

structuring mortgage transactions on and off trust land. I am also 

a tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on the state of 

homeownership on tribal lands and to commend you for your leadership on this issue. Your concern and continued attention are critical to the success of public and private sector efforts to expand 

homeownership opportunities in the Native American community. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Fannie Mae’s commitment 

to expanding homeownership in tribal communities and to share 

with you the steps we are taking to overcome the barriers to capital access on tribal lands. 

Right here in Arizona, last September we worked with Navajo 

Nation President Joe Shirley, Congressman Renzi and others in 

putting together a $3 million Navajo community guarantee initiative. The initiative will help approximately 60 families on the reservations to purchase newly-built homes with contributions from 

their own funds of $500 or even less. As Chester Carl, chief executive officer of the Navajo housing authority observed when the topic 

was announced, step-by-step, we are identifying and filling gaps in 

the mortgage finance system for the Navajo Nation, enabling more 

families to become homeowners, which is an important first step in 

the creation of wealth. I want to thank Congressman Renzi for his 

work and his dedication on this project. This the kind of public-private partnership that brings real results and innovative solutions 

to housing challenges. 

45

Fannie Mae has also worked with Dallas Massey, chairman of 

the White Mountain Apache tribe, and the White Mountain Apache 

housing authority to develop the Apache Dawn Development Community, which included the first-ever use of tax-exempt bonds by 

an Indian housing authority. 

And over the years, Fannie Mae has also participated with the 

Hopi, Gila River and Salt River Pima tribes, supporting their efforts to provide information on how to prepare for home purchase 

process. 

I would like to briefly mention our internal Native American 

Business Council, which convenes representatives from our community development and our regional and partnership offices to work 

together to expand our capacity to make tangible investments that 

increase affordable housing opportunities on tribal lands throughout the country. We are building a stronger lender base by educating lenders about the unique characteristics of lending to tribal 

communities. We are teaching tribes how to leverage federal resources to support the production of additional, affordable housing 

units. 

As part of our 2000 American Dream commitment, Fannie Mae vows to invest at least $350 million to serve 4,600 families on reservations. Over the past five years, Fannie Mae has helped over a 

hundred thousand Native American families purchase homes by 

providing more than $14.8 billion in affordable financing. On reservations and tribal jurisdictional lands alone, we have invested 

over $640 million to serve over 7,100 families. We are pleased that 

we have been able to reach 191 tribes with our financing. 

Fannie Mae has also teamed with PMI Mortgage Insurance Com- pany under their Gateway Cities initiative to provide $125,000 in 

revolving funds for nonprofit development corporations to build or 

renovate housing on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, 

and on the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico. 

Earlier this year we announced our Expanded American Dream 

Commitment, which will increase our efforts in Indian country 

even further. Together with tribal leaders in partnership with 

NAIHC, we are working to create a new Native American Strategic 

Partnership to bring capital to Indian country, with a goal of 

launching at least ten comprehensive initiatives in tribal areas. We 

will also increase our investments to support tribal housing initiatives during this decade to at least $1.25 billion serving 11,000 

families on tribal reservations and tribal jurisdictional lands. 

Fannie Mae’s approach to promoting homeownership in tribal 

communities is two-pronged. First, we develop the right products 

to optimize Native American access to homeownership, and second, 

we expand housing capacity on tribal lands. 

In 1999, we launched our Native American Conventional Lending 

Initiative, known as NACLI, designed to make conventional lending possible for Native Americans on trust land and otherwise restricted lands. Through this initiative, the full range of our low 

down payment mortgage products, as well as specific accommodations responsive to the unique circumstances of the Native American borrower, are available to lenders working with tribal lands. 

We currently have relationships with 112 lenders to make loans 

to Native Americans on tribal lands. Some of our partners are 

46

Countrywide, First Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual, Bank 

One, American Financial Resources. 

Fannie Mae is also working with tribes to support new construction through investments in low-income housing tax credit investments and collateralized revenue bonds. And we have developed a 

secondary market for development loans guaranteed by HUD under 

the Title VI. As a result, in 2002, we purchased a $50 million Title 

VI loan which would help to build 538 units for moderate to low 

income families in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the largest 

Title VI of NAHASDA. 

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to increasing homeownership in Indian country is the legal framework governing tribal lands. Tribal 

governments have taken steps to clarify tribal sovereignty and sovereign immunity, particularly regarding business and housing development, but resolving this issue requires partnership from the 

private and public sectors. Fannie Mae has worked with HUD, the 

USDA, and Treasury to support tribes in creating standardized 

documents and model legal ordinances to support government 

guaranteed and conventional mortgage activity. 

We are also working closely with HUD to streamline the 184 

process loans. Additionally, Fannie Mae no longer requires tribes 

to make limited waivers of their sovereign immunity and we also 

now provide for the mutual consent to tribal court jurisdiction over 

conventional lending initiatives on tribal trust land. 

Finally, education poses a barrier to capital access for Native 

Americans. Many Native Americans lack an understanding or familiarity with banking, credit reporting or the loan qualification 

process. And unsurprisingly, they have difficulty obtaining credit 

through traditional means. 

I hope that in hearing these commitments, you will begin to understand the progress that Fannie Mae has begun to make in expanding homeownership for Native Americans. Homeownership is 

the key driver of economic growth and revitalization. By expanding 

homeownership for Native Americans, we can not only provide families with better housing but also with the power to raise capital, 

accumulate wealth and to build a more secure financial future. 

I want to thank Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, Congressman Renzi, Congressman Matheson for their leadership and 

their commitment to expanding homeownership opportunities for 

Native Americans. You have been champions of developing housing 

in Indian country and supporting tribal members’ efforts to revitalize their communities. I look forward to working with you and 

other members of the committee. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Ms. Green, thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Pattye Green can be found on page 

102 in the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. We will move now to Freddy Hatathlie of Flagstaff. 

Freddie. 

STATEMENT OF FREDDIE HATATHLIE, MORTGAGE CONSULTANT, EMERGING MARKETS, WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, Congressman Renzi and other distinguished members 

of the committee. 

47

I am Freddy Hatathlie, a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage consultant 

for Indian country initiatives. I’m a member of the Navajo Nation 

who works directly with tribes in the northern Arizona area. I 

would like to make some brief statements on how Wells Fargo’s 

goals relate to Native American lending and respond briefly to 

some of the issues that were raised by the subcommittee. 

Before I continue, I would like to introduce Dave Howell, who is 

the vice president of community and government relations, and 

also Larry Price, who is the branch manager for Kayenta. 

For more than 25 years, Wells Fargo has recognized that tribal 

nations have special financial needs. The challenge might be the 

trust status of tribal land or a tribe’s status as a sovereign nation, 

or just the lack of standard financial information that is traditionally required for project financing. Wells Fargo is an experienced 

lender in these questions and I believe has a strong commitment 

to finding solutions and recognizing the unique status of tribal 

lands. 

Arizona is a very important market for Wells Fargo, and I would 

also note that Wells Fargo operates in 22 other states that are 

home to nearly 90 percent of the federally recognized tribes. Wells 

Fargo provides a full array of financial services, including 15 fullservice banking facilities located on tribal reservations. 

The subcommittee had asked for specific comments in response 

to four questions that were raised, and I would like to discuss these 

in turns. 

What initiative has Wells Fargo taken part in or have knowledge 

of to develop housing opportunities for Native Americans. 

I want to highlight some of Wells Fargo’s contribution and initiatives to promote housing activities in Indian country. First, Wells 

Fargo Home Mortgage, with the help of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Section 184, can originate 184 

loans and conventional loans on trust land. Wells Fargo Home 

Mortgage, through its housing foundation, is the sole sponsor 

partnering with the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to 

provide a Native American community development training program. This program started today and will be ending Friday in 

Minneapolis. The curriculum includes training programs for home 

buyers and counselors with an emphasis on Native American communities. 

Another area that is going to be addressed in the training is how 

tribes can leverage resources for housing and development projects 

in Indian communities. 

Other contributions that Wells Fargo has been involved in is 

making monetary contributions to nonprofit organizations such as 

Navajo Partnership for Housing, Twilight Dawn, Fort Defiance 

Housing Corporation and Indigenous Community Enterprises. 

These monetary funds have been utilized for first-time home buyers to assist with down payment and closing costs. 

Wells Fargo also has a financial education in place which includes distribution of Wells Fargo curriculum, a training called 

Hands-On banking, a comprehensive curriculum available free of 

charge. And we are pleased to, pleased to mention that states have 

approved this curriculum for use in public school systems. Wells 

48

Fargo also sponsors Individual Development Accounts to help lowwage earners to become self-sufficient. 

Question number two: Is Wells Fargo aware of the One-Stop 

Mortgage initiative? Yes. Wells Fargo is and was represented during the discussion. The initiative allowed for a uniform voice to be 

heard at the tribal and federal level. The initiative outlined the 

challenges and barriers, and recommendations were made to promote homeownership for Native Americans. Therefore, continuing 

this initiative would advance the housing initiatives. 

Question three: Trust land status. Does this affect the private 

sector’s ability to provide housing activities? Yes, it does. 

And what actions do you believe must be taken to encourage 

greater homeownership opportunities for Native Americans? For 

Wells Fargo, and with all lenders, we are aware of the process and 

the complexity that it takes to complete a transaction on trust 

land. The lenders, the family, secondary market, the BIA and the 

tribe have come to realize this is not a transaction that we can 

complete in 30 days which would be more relevant for a traditional 

mortgage. 

Just based on example, being a home mortgage consultant, I 

have been working to obtain an environmental assessment and it 

has been taking me about, more than a year to obtain one. And, 

also, with the lease modifications that need to take place on Navajo, it just—you submit a modification, the clients do, and it just 

takes a while for this transaction to take place. And, you know, you 

encourage customers, you know, what you need to do is continue 

to put pressure on them how we can get this modification complete. 

And that’s the key document, on the home side at least, that initiates the mortgage process on trust land. So these are issues that 

I constantly face as I work with Native Americans obtaining homeownership. 

Question number four: What changes or initiatives are necessary 

to encourage private mortgage market to invest in Native American areas. 

My recommendations would be to establish and recognize a uniform set of procedures at the BIA level. Example: I have a colleague that I work with in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is our 

processing center for trust land lending. And when I constantly 

meet with him, you know, we describe what kind of transactions 

we are doing. And what they do there is they do cash-out refinances. 

For Navajo, from personal experience, you know, this was the 

first transaction that I pursued and I was not able to succeed only 

because, you know, at that level, BIA had mentioned this is something, a transaction that we cannot do. So I know there are stages 

right now where they are going to implement cash-out refinances, 

and I definitely believe this is long past due. 

Mr. RENZI. Freddie, can you wrap up, please? 

Mr. HATATHLIE. I would also like to add that Wells Fargo Home 

Mortgage is designing an initiative where HMCs will be certified 

to lend on trust land. Personally, I feel that this is very important 

because we have lenders that are out there and that want to do 

lending on trust land and have no knowledge of what actually goes 

49

into lending on trust land. So that’s something that’s very important that Wells Fargo is working on. 

Another initiative, another plan that’s going to take place is 

Wells Fargo Home Mortgagee Emerging Markets vice president, 

senior vice president will be coming out to Window Rock Wednesday to assess the opportunities that are available on trust land. 

So—which is very encouraging when you have high-ranking people 

coming out. 

In conclusion, I’d like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me 

to address my concerns. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Freddie. 

[The prepared statement of Freddie Hatathlie can be found on 

page 111 in the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Ms. Konski. 

STATEMENT OF RENEE KONSKI, LOAN OFFICER, AMERICAN 

FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC. 

Ms. KONSKI. Congressman Renzi, members of the committee, my 

name is Renee Konski, and I’m a senior loan consultant with 

American Financial Resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the firstever hearing on tribal land housing for Native Americans. I’m here 

today on this panel with lenders and others who individually and 

collectively are working to increase the homeownership where it’s 

needed the most. 

My involvement in this area comes from a personal passion and 

commitment. Lending as it stands now on Native American trust 

land takes more. And by that, I mean it’s more complicated. It 

takes more of an expertise. 

Experience and volume is what builds comfort and efficiency and, 

quite frankly, we’re not to that level yet. American Financial Resources is an Arizona state loan corporation with about—we lend 

in about six states. We have about ten years in the mortgage banking business. 

I, myself, have been involved in Native American lending for the 

better part of four. In those four years, I have made quite a few 

strides. The strides have been realized through my partnerships 

and relationships. My written testimony offers many experiences of 

how the Native American programs are working. It offers a lender’s 

perspective on how the largest obstacle to improving housing opportunities for Native Americans and it offers some recommendations for removing obstacles. 

I want to spend just a little bit of my time today to talk about 

the partnerships and relationships that make it possible for the 

dream of homeownership on trust land. 

The HUD 184 program. I have used the program. I have used the 

program for a purchase, I have used the program for a refinance. 

The program works. USDA 502. I have used the program. I have 

used the program for several tribes. The program works. 

Arizona Department of Housing. Through their commitment, 

through their subcommittee meetings, has given me the education 

and given me the experience to build relationships that have made 

communication possible in getting my mortgages completed. 

50

The Navajo Partnership for Housing, a nonprofit organization 

that does provide families with home buyer education, I also sit on 

that committee as a board member and a member of the loan committee. 

And, of course, my partnership with Fannie Mae. It’s Fannie 

Mae that’s stood by me from the beginning when I decided that 

this would be my challenge and my passion. Fannie Mae has been 

my partner and my mortgages are sold directly to Fannie Mae. 

In closing, let me say that while I feel I’ve made a lot of strides 

in these areas, there is so much more we need to do. Better communication and trust and a unique commitment for all of us to 

come together will provide mortgages possible for more Native 

Americans and the dream of homeownership to come true. Thank 

you. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Renee. 

[The prepared statement of Renee Konski can be found on page 

131 in the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. We will move to the Honorable Mark Maryboy, delegate to the Navajo Nation Council. Mark. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MARYBOY, COUNCIL DELEGATE, 

NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL 

Mr. MARYBOY. Congressmen Renzi, Matheson, Waters, thank you 

for this opportunity to address you today. 

As chairman of TCDC, I come before you today to initiate what 

we hope will become an ongoing discussion between your committee and Native American communities about how to craft solutions to remedy the housing problem in Indian country. 

We know the federal government is trying its best, but the 1997 

GAO report on Indian housing reveals federal housing programs in 

Indian country were essentially building ghettos in tribal communities. The passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996 has given tribes new opportunities 

that have allowed the Navajo Nation to provide low income housing 

for college students, elderly group homes, traditional hogan-style 

homes for elders and veteran housing. NAHASDA has given us 

more flexibility through its block grant to leverage other federal 

funding for both housing and infrastructure development. 

However, the federal appropriations for Native American housing 

are not sufficient and will never be enough as long as the federal 

laws do not encourage much greater private sector investment. The 

One-Stop Mortgage Initiative was successful in implementing the 

HUD Section 184 program. Unfortunately, not enough mortgage 

transactions are happening to meet the demands for homeownership on the Navajo Nation. 

There are a number of reasons for this. First, we simply do not 

have enough banks. The Navajo Nation has only one bank partner 

on the entire reservation, so there is virtually no competition for 

private investment. In an area that covers 18 million acres, the 

Navajo Nation has only five banking facilities. Second, lenders are 

unfamiliar with enforcing mortgage or other debt instruments on 

tribal trust land. It is not that it cannot be done, it is simply that 

they don’t know how to do it. Third, title searches are very difficult 

on the Navajo Nation because title records are maintained in one 

51

BIA office in Albuquerque, which is responsible for the records on 

every reservation and pueblo within the entire southwest. 

We urge Congress to amend the Community Reinvestment Act to 

ensure banks use transactions from surrounding communities to 

maintain acceptable investment scores. Some Federal Home Loan 

Banks have standards that result in significantly more service to 

Indian country. The Navajo Nation is currently served by three 

Federal Home Loan Banks, two of which do not maximize the opportunities to serve the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation requests 

that it receives all services from the Federal Home Loan Bank of 

Seattle, which has proven most helpful to the provision of home 

loan banking service to the Navajo people. 

And, finally, there is a question of legal jurisdiction. The mortgage companies who are willing to lend in reservation communities 

typically want to use state law to resolve any dispute. The tribes, 

of course, want to use tribal laws. Congress can help tribes and 

States avoid thorny federalism issues by making private lenders’ 

receipt of federal guarantees contingent on such lenders availing 

themselves of tribal court when they make mortgage loans on an 

Indian reservation. 

The trust status of Indian land does affect the private sector’s 

ability to finance housing for Indians. However, a few tools to overcome this challenge do exist. For example, the Navajo Nation Trust 

Land Leasing Act authorized the Nation to issue non-mineral 

leases within the reservation without secretarial approval. These 

leasehold interests have value and provide an equity interest that 

individuals can mortgage against. 

However, it is unclear whether under the 184 loan program such 

a mortgage is permissible. Consequently, the Navajo Nation is currently restricting its own leasing authority to business site leases 

rather than extend its broad power to include housing site lease. 

The federal land status of the Navajo Nation is a hinderance to 

housing development and homeownership. However, it is an underlying problem that Navajo people, like all Indians, are afraid to 

talk about because a recent federal case law threatens tribal jurisdiction and sovereignty wherever the land’s trust status is altered 

in any way, including the grant of right of ways. 

Congress can be instrumental in forging a dialogue on this important subject by commissioning a blue ribbon panel composed of 

tribal experts to review federal case law to identify how trust status impacts economic development, including housing markets and 

homeownership in Indian country. Congress must then be willing 

to listen to tribal recommendations. 

Tinkering with federal initiatives today will not provide homeownership opportunities for Indians unless Congress makes a real 

commitment to curing the underlying condition that prevents 

homeownership within reservations, rather than treating a symptom. As elected tribal leader, as a tribal member, but most importantly as a father, I ask you to make it possible for my daughter 

and all Indian children to realize the dream to own a home on the 

reservation. Thank you very much. 

There are portions of my speech that I did not, for the time’s 

sake, I did not read into the record. I would request that they be 

approved as part of the record, also. Thank you very much. 

52

Mr. RENZI. Without objection. Mr. Maryboy, thank you for the 

presentation. Your witness statements and comments will be submitted for the record without objection. I’m grateful. 

[The prepared statement of Mark Maryboy can be found on page 

147 in the appendix.] 

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Parks. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE H. PARKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, FEDERAL 

HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Mr. PARKS. Thanks. That’s a tough act to follow your testimony. 

Good afternoon. I’m Larry Parks and I’m a senior vice president 

of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. I want to thank 

you, Congressman Renzi and subcommittee. 

Ranking Member Waters for having us here to talk about what 

we do at the bank and what we have hopefully done to put some 

tangible results on the table. 

The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco is the largest of 

the Home Loan Banks in the Home Loan Bank system, and we are 

owned by lenders located in Arizona, Nevada, and California. The 

banks basically make advances, that’s our core business, which are 

loans, loans to member institutions which are collateralized by 

mortgages. The members of the banks come from California, Arizona and Nevada, banks, savings institutions and credit unions, 

and they range in size from the largest banks in the country, some 

of the largest housing lenders in the country, to single offices. 

We have a common interest. Our members use the bank as a 

source of liquidity in providing funding for home loans. Access to 

the bank’s advances enhances lenders’ ability to hold loans, which 

is very important when you’re dealing with character lending as is 

such in Indian country. These loans are usually loans that aren’t 

easily salable into the secondary market and still meet either the 

seasonal or cyclical demands of the borrowing public. In effect, access to the bank’s advances takes the liquidity risk out of lending 

to families with the fewest financial options. 

The core business of the home loan banks is providing advances. 

We provided about $500 billion in the economy as of December 

31st, 2003, and of that, as of last month, about $112 billion of that 

is from the San Francisco bank. It’s a pretty large entity. 

A central part of the cooperative Federal Home Loan Bank system is the Affordable Housing Program, through which the Federal 

Home Loan Banks provide subsidies on loans or cash grants to 

build or rehabilitate lower income housing through the member institutions. That’s a lot of jargon to say we work with nonprofits as 

an intermediary with our lenders. This is a program Congress 

mandated during the S&L bailout in 1989 and it has become embraced by a lot of lenders to help meet affordable housing needs in 

their communities. 

The Affordable Housing Program provides grants that equal ten 

percent of our annual income. So the more income we make, the 

more we are able to give out in grants. What it does is allow the 

pooling of resources for purchase, construction, rehabilitation of low 

and moderate owner-occupied and rental housing. The eligibility 

requirements for the HP grants help to make certain they provide 

53

needed funding in a competitive manner. AHP grants can be used 

to fund housing for families or individuals with incomes at 80 percent or below loan median income in a relevant geographical area. 

In addition, 20 percent of AHP funded rental housing must serve 

households with incomes of 50 percent of the are median income 

and below. AHP-awarded funding is provided only through member 

institutions that work in partnership with community sponsored 

organizations. 

The idea, I think, when Congress put this together and the Home 

Loan Bank System has somewhat embraced is to make sure we not 

only provide housing, but that we leave an infrastructure of locally 

competitive and capacity built nonprofit insitutions and communities as well. 

Since 1990, the San Francisco Bank has provided $312 million 

in AHP assistance to 2,400 projects, rental and homeowner opportunities for 60,000 households. Through the AHP, a cross-section of 

lenders, developers, community-based organizations and local housing agencies work to create affordable housing. In 2003, the last 

year that’s most relevant, the San Francisco Bank provided $36 

million in AHP funding through its members to 103 projects that 

were awarded competitively. Member banks teamed up with nonprofit and for-profit developers to develop project plans and submitted them to the San Francisco Bank’s AHP process which scores 

and ranks them. The AHP subsidy has been used for things like 

on-site services made available to residents such as daycare centers, counseling and job training, computer learning centers and 

the need for the subsidy to complete the project. 

In Arizona, the winning 2003 projects were located in Pima, Yuma, Santa Cruz, Cochise and Maricopa counties, receiving $5 

million in subsidies from the Home Loan Bank. And the member 

institutions included Bank of America, Canyon Community Bank, 

Johnson Bank Arizona and BankUSA. Projects included ranged 

from $20 million in Phoenix for transitional housing for very low 

income Native Americans and people with special needs, Whispering Pines Apartments, to 61 new single-family homes for low to 

moderate income, first-time home buyers in Nogales. 

In addition to housing, Whispering Pines will include a kitchen 

and services for the residents such as employment training and 

counseling, health and youth programs and child daycare. The 

Pena Blanca Village homeownership project will include pre- and 

post-purchase homeownership counseling, a community facility and 

child daycare. 

The primary source of the activity by the San Francisco Bank in 

Native American communities is through the Affordable Housing 

Program, and that’s why I was focusing on it. Since the program’s 

inception, seven projects on Native American lands have been approved for grants by the San Francisco Bank. These projects provide 282 units of affordable rental housing and 18 units of affordable ownership housing, resulting in attractive, sound shelter for 

300 families. 

The funding by the San Francisco Bank of AHP projects on Native lands has not been without difficulty, primarily because of the 

unique legal status of tribes and their lands. The sovereignty of 

Native American lands and their trust status create legal problems 

54

for traditional methods of housing finance. That is, traditionally, 

lenders place a lien and have the ability to take possession of or 

sell the property to satisfy the lien. Generally, this tool is not available on tribal lands. 

The San Francisco Bank is committed to working with the Native American community to find solutions to issues that plague 

lending on tribal lands. Differences in tribal laws and sovereignty 

constraints make an across-the-board prescriptive solution for Tribal Native American lending nearly impossible. 

But I do have some good news, as Congressman Renzi well 

knows, and that was that balancing Native American sovereignty 

issues and the lien and foreclosure questions that the bank and its 

members often face is a challenge to provide a mortgage credit on 

tribal lands, but we were able to meet that challenge. 

For instance, in 1999 and 2000, the San Francisco Bank approved direct AHP subsidies for three rental housing projects on 

tribal trust lands leased to the project owner by the tribe. At that 

time, the Federal Housing Finance Board’s AHP regulations, that’s 

our regulator, seemed to require that a lien be taken to secure any 

AHP repayment obligation that might arise in the event of noncompliance with the AHP requirements, including the sale or refinancing of the project. 

In order to fund these projects and not violate federal regulations 

governing the Home Loan Banks, the San Francisco Bank sought 

a regulatory interpretation from our regulator, the Federal Housing 

Finance Board, that would clarify that mechanisms other than a 

lien on the property could be used to secure the AHP repayment 

obligations. After negotiating with the regulator over a protracted 

period, in 2003, the San Francisco Bank received a favorable answer, and that’s how we were able to fund these projects. These 

projects are now finally underway. 

The Bank continues to work with trade groups and other 

collaboratives to find creative solutions to address lenders’ needs 

and the rights of tribes on their land. For instance, the Bank works 

with the National American Indian Housing Council and participated in the development of the One-Stop mortgage process that 

was talked about earlier to streamline mortgage lending. Obviously, we think that one small step—we would like to take many 

more steps but we would like to build from what we were able to 

get accomplished with the Federal Housing Finance Board. 

With that, I thank you for letting me participate and look forward to any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Lawrence H. Parks can be found on 

page 150 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. PAUL.

STATEMENT OF KENT E. PAUL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Chairman Ney and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee to share my concerns regarding the significant 

impediments to improving housing opportunities for Native Americans. 

55

My name is Kent Paul, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of 

AMERIND Risk Corporation, a federal corporation owned and operated by a consortium of Indian tribes and Indian housing authorities, which pool their financial resources to provide self-insurance 

coverage to protect Indian housing, infrastructure, and individuals 

and families in Indian country. 

My testimony will address two specific topics. First, the inadequacy of affordable and available insurance coverage for homeowners in Indian country and its impact on home mortgages; second, the important role AMERIND plays in protecting Indian housing and the impediments restricting AMERIND’s ability to provide 

even more protection. 

The lack of affordable or available insurance. In urban and suburban America, insurance for the most part is readily available 

from over 1,600 insurance companies. The opposite is true in Indian country. To date, less than five insurance companies provide 

products or services that meet the needs of Indian communities, 

tribal governments, reservation businesses and Indian housing. 

Since September 11th, 2001, the affordability and availability of 

insurance in Indian country has deteriorated. In our society, insurance is the oil that lubricates and protects our economic engine. 

Without insurance, banks will not loan money; consequently, 

money for investing in new economic enterprises would stay in the 

bank rather than becoming risk capital; business owners would be 

hesitant to conduct business; and autos would be parked in the garage. 

Why does the private sector turn its back on Indian country? 

There are several reasons: 

One, perceived lack of profit potential due to remoteness of Indian communities, lack of water and inadequate fire protection; 

two, insufficient number of insurance agents servicing Indian country; three, misunderstanding and fear of tribal sovereignty and 

tribal courts; lack of uniform tribal commercial laws or business 

codes amongst the 550 plus federally recognized tribes and an overall perception of Native Americans as poor, unemployed, 

uneducated and unhealthy. 

In any given month, various federal agencies, lending institutions or Indian organizations will provide a seminar or technical 

assistance programs on the topics of homeownership, mortgage 

lending, HUD 184 programs, Title VI programs or tax credit 

projects. Few, if any, of these seminars or programs discuss the 

role of insurance and financial protection in homeownership; yet, 

without such coverage, lending will never be provided. 

In my opinion, this has been one of the major stumbling blocks 

to homeownership in Indian country. Consideration needs to be 

given to ‘‘incent’’ the insurance industry to target Indian country, 

similar to what banks were under—in the Reorganization Act, or 

Reinvestment Act, or we need to broaden the 1986 Act to foster 

more risk pools such as AMERIND. 

There is a conflict between the state’s oversight of insurance, 

McCarren Ferguson, and the federal government’s role and responsibility of providing affordable, sustainable housing in Indian country. 

56

Some additional recommendations would be to streamline the 

lending process. Banks unfairly perceive too much difficulty in 

lending to Native Americans than to non-Natives. There ought to 

be an established, uniform set of rules or procedures. We need to 

find ways to minimize the tribes’ need to waive sovereignty as part 

of the lending process. And, last, allow tribes to validate clear title 

to trust land within their communities with the BIA providing a 

supporting role rather than a primary role. 

The second topic of my testimony is the important role AMERIND has played to encourage homeownership and protecting Indian 

communities. As I mentioned earlier, AMERIND is a federal corporation owned and operated by a consortium of Indian tribes and 

Indian Housing Authorities that are dedicated to protecting themselves and their tribal families. AMERIND is owned by 217 tribes 

and Indian housing authorities, representing over 550 federally 

recognized tribes from 32 states. AMERIND operates purely on a 

nonprofit basis. Since its formation in 1986, AMERIND has paid 

well over $125 million in Indian housing related liability and property claims while at the same time saving tribes and housing development—Housing and Urban Development Department over $100 

million in premiums. We have protected more than 70,000 individual homes, more than six and a half billion dollars in property. 

We provide better terms, conditions, and coverage at nearly onethird the cost of comparable commercial insurance. We’ve remained 

financially stable during difficult market conditions and we provide 

self-insurance coverage for Indian tribes and IHAs located in rural 

Indian communities where commercial insurance companies have 

refused to provide coverage. 

AMERIND, therefore, is an example of the kind of tribal self-determination that Congress intended to foster when it enacted 

NAHASDA under 25 U.S.C. 4131. 

There are three basic impediments that keep AMERIND from 

doing more, and we are prepared to do considerably more in Indian 

country. In Indian country, insurance coverage is often unavailable 

because of the commercial insurance industries’ general lack of interest in doing business there. Tribes and IHAs have recently demonstrated to HUD and Assistant Secretary Michael Liu that, but 

for AMERIND, insurance for federally-subsidized Indian housing in 

Indian country would be either unavailable or exorbitantly expensive. This finding corresponds to the reasons why Congress, in the 

1991 and the 1992 HUD Appropriations Act, chose to support Indian housing risk pools and to remove counterproductive regulatory 

barriers to their ability to provide low-cost self-insurance coverage 

for federally-subsidized Indian housing. 

The first impediment is a lack of housing risk pool regulations, 

and AMERIND is the only Indian Housing Risk Pool in existence 

and has the distinct status of operating as a federal corporation 

under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. All other risk 

pools, which there are more than 400, are creatures of state law 

and oversight. Congress intended the creation of housing risk pools 

as an alternative insurance mechanism and instructed the HUD 

secretary to issue regulations regarding the same. To date, no such 

regulations exist. 

57

AMERIND has been working with the HUD secretary and staff 

to reinstitute rules that were in place under the 1937 Housing Act. 

AMERIND consistently complied with those rules and regulations 

until they were withdrawn in 1997 with the passage of NAHASDA. 

Since 1997, there have been no specific rules that address the requirements of an approved plan of self-insurance for Indian housing risk pools, which places AMERIND in a difficult position. Having no standards by which to judge ourselves causes banks, lending 

institutions and others to question our viability as a provider of 

property protection even with HUD’s recognition and approval of 

AMERIND as a provider of self-insurance for Indian housing. 

Number two, federal preemption of state insurance law. Currently, the greatest threat to the continued existence of nonprofit, 

self-funded Indian housing risk pools, such as AMERIND, is not 

state or federal competitive-bidding requirements, but is unbridled 

state and tribal insurance regulations. AMERIND currently works 

in 32 states, representing over 500 tribes. If these states and tribes 

are permitted to impose their conflicting regulatory schemes and 

taxes on a nonprofit, self-funded risk pool, the ability of those pools 

to carry out their congressional mandate to provide low-cost coverage for federally-subsidized Indian housing will be seriously impaired. 

AMERIND and the National American Indian Housing Council 

have therefore requested HUD implement a new regulation establishing uniform federal standards for self-insurance plans. 

And the last is number three, a memo of understanding. A great 

deal of effort has been made to develop coordination between federal departments regarding the One-Stop Shop Mortgage initiative. 

One failure of the initiative has been to recognize approved providers among the various departments. As indicated earlier, 

AMERIND is the market of last resort in many Indian communities. Very few, if any, for-profit insurance companies readily offer 

affordable insurance products in Indian country. For this reason, 

AMERIND is forced to try and respond to the ever increasing need. 

We would strongly encourage a memo of understanding between 

the various federal departments, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

that approve the hazard protection afforded by AMERIND. Once 

specific regulations are established by HUD and AMERIND is 

deemed to be an approved plan of self-insurance, this approval 

should be adequate for USDA Rural Development, the Veteran’s 

Administration, and the two largest buyers of mortgages, Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac. 

This concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Kent E. Paul can be found on page 

153 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Mr. Paul. 

Next is Captain June Sabatinos. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JUNE SABATINOS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMBULATORY CARE SERVICES, TUBA CITY REGIONAL 

HEALTH CARE CORPORATION 

Ms. SABATINOS. Good afternoon, and welcome to Tuba City. I’m 

Captain June Sabatinos, vice president of ambulatory care services 

at the Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation. 

58

At this time, I would like to introduce our board chair, Eunice 

Begay; Lena Fowler, who is a board member; and our chief executive officer of the hospital, Mr. Kirk Gray. 

I appear before you today on behalf of our organization and I especially appreciate that you were able to go out this morning and 

visit some of our people in their homes. I’m going to present a 

slightly different picture for you today, and that is when people 

have inadequate housing, at some point or other, their healthcare 

is going to be greatly impacted. 

So, I appear before you today on behalf of our organization, 

which just a year and a half ago was a federal Indian Health Service medical center. Many of our staff continue their federal service 

through memorandum of agreement with the IHS, but our hospital 

is now a nonprofit tribal organization, and it is our goal to become 

a community hospital one day. 

Through the Federal Indian Self-Determination Act, Public Law 

93-638, our eight-member, all-Indian board of directors separated 

from the federal government for one specific reason: To bring decision-making about healthcare needs back to the local level where 

services are provided. 

Historically, the federal government has fulfilled its trust responsibility to provide healthcare to Navajos and Hopis since the 1920s. 

A little house that still stands on Main Street under the cottonwood trees served as the first, six-bed clinic. The first actual hospital, also on Main Street, was built in the 1950s. Our second and 

third hospitals, which we still use, were built in the ’60s and ’70s. 

Today, we are a 73-bed, acute care facility with more than 60 physicians on staff and a total of 749 employees. Throughout the years, 

Tuba City earned a national reputation for exemplary healthcare 

within the IHS system. Many of our medical and administrative 

staff have been with us for 20 years or longer. We serve a current 

population of more than 35,000 from 11 Indian communities. 

Fortunately, our independent status now allows us the freedom 

to hire more staff as our needs demand. Just last year, our board 

of directors hired our chief executive officer who brings with him 

more than 30 years’ of experience in healthcare administration. We 

have also hired our first chief financial officer, a human resources 

director, a new information technology officer, a new operating 

room manager, and many others. In fact, my husband and I just 

recently joined the staff just four weeks ago, transferring from 

Washington D.C. 

I’m here today to inform you of one of our most pressing needs, 

and that is housing for our hospital staff. If you travelled here from 

the airport or a motel in Flagstaff, you probably noted the stark 

beauty of the changing landscape. Most significantly, you traveled 

at least 75 miles on one of Arizona’s most dangerous highways. 

Every day, approximately 50 to 60 of our employees make the same 

journey twice a day. Each travels 750 miles per week just to come 

to work. 

The reason our staff, Indian and non-Indian staff alike, spend 

three hours a day driving, carpooling or taking our hospital van is 

because we do not have quarters to house them. I appear before 

you today to ask that you assist us in acquiring additional housing 

in order for us to meet the expanding healthcare needs of our InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
59

dian population. Currently, our organization has 258 housing units 

that are 30 to 40 years old. As vacancies occur, asbestos abatement 

has to be done. That makes the housing safer for staff but it also 

increases the waiting time for housing applicants. We currently 

have no available housing, no vacancies, yet 34 current or potential 

employees are on a waiting list for housing, and that wait ranges 

from two to six months. 

Since September of 2003, it has become common practice for us 

to house new employees at the local motels until housing is available. Currently, ten employees live in a motel. As a result of this 

situation, we have lost a large number of very necessary potential 

employees. For instance, our laboratory currently has eight medical 

technologist vacancies. During the past two months, we have lost 

three potential employees because they have families and they just 

could not bear the thought of having to spend months in a motel 

with children. 

Currently, there are 16 registered nurse vacancies. If you think 

that the nursing shortage is bad in the metropolitan areas, it’s 

even more difficult to attract nurses to remote areas. Within the 

next six weeks, we expect five RNs to start employment and they 

will be housed in local motels until housing is available. During the 

past two months, we have lost five registered nurses because of our 

housing, and three of them were very badly needed operating room 

nurses. 

With the anticipated expansion of our facility and services, it’s 

projected that we will require an additional 150 two- to four-bedroom housing units at an estimated cost of $6 million to house current and projected employees. We would love to have a housing 

complex like the beautiful housing complex that the Apaches were 

showing us pictures of earlier testimony. 

Our experience has been that when housing is available for our 

staff, they tend to stay in Tuba City for their entire work career. 

The large number of professionals who have stayed with us for 20 

or more years demonstrates their commitment. It’s not easy to 

come to an area like this to provide healthcare. The people who 

come are very dedicated. They fall in love with the area and with 

the people. 

Our housing shortage severely hinders us in recruitment and retention of staff. Because we are on a reservation here in Tuba City, 

each governmental institution has its own housing complex for its 

own employees. For instance, the public school district has its own 

teachers’ housing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has its own employee housing. As a former IHS facility, we have the housing that 

was available for IHS employees. Although the Navajo Housing Authority has low-rent housing in Tuba City, our staff does not generally qualify for its use because of their income level or not being 

Navajo or not being Native American. Because there is simply not 

much land available locally to be developed, there is no opportunity 

for entrepreneurs to build rental housing to meet community 

needs. 

If all of the professionals working in Tuba City working for the 

various agencies were able to be housed here, it would create a 

substantial income base for the Navajo Nation and an incentive for 

business enterprises to locate here. 

60

In summary, community housing is extremely necessary, but 

housing for our professional staff is equally as important. It is estimated that a 150 2-3 bedroom complex will cost us $6 million to 

provide housing for our staff. I ask you, is there a way for us to 

obtain housing for our staff? We generally don’t meet the guidelines for housing on Indian reservations. As we expand our 

healthcare system to meet the demand that we have, it’s critical 

that we have the necessary staff to do this. We cannot meet their 

demands if we don’t have adequate staff. If we don’t have adequate 

housing, we cannot meet the needs of the healthcare professionals. 

Thank you for offering us the opportunity to testify today, and 

we hope that we have provided the committee with the essence of 

our housing dilemma for healthcare—for housing for our healthcare 

staff. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, Captain Sabatinos. 

[The prepared statement of June Sabatinos can be found on page 

164 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Sossamon. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, Congressman Renzi, Congressman Matheson, on behalf of the members 

of the National American Indian Housing Council and its board of 

directors, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to participate in the first-ever Congressional field hearing in Indian country. 

As the only national organization dedicated solely to Native 

American housing, development and advocacy, you can imagine 

how pleased NAIHC was when you brought this idea forward. My 

name is Russell Sossamon, and I’m both the Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council and the Executive Director for the housing authority of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. 

Today, I would like to focus on the legislative initiatives we hope 

this committee will support as well as some of the issues raised by 

the committee in preparing for this hearing. 

The passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA, in 1996 was a giant step forward for Indian housing and the amendments passed in the last 

Congress with the help of this committee moved us forward toward 

the goal of providing quality housing for Native Americans. However, challenges remain. For the fourth year in a row, the proposed 

NAHASDA block grant does not include any increase to reflect inflation in housing prices, increased construction costs, or a growing 

Indian population. The ’05 proposal also zeros out the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program, about $25 million that 

about 96 entities took advantage of last year, approximately 30 of 

which were in Indian country. 

It also zeros out about $2.5 million for NAIHC to continue to provide its technical assistance and training specifically for tribes, 

which is designed to build tribal capacity so that they can fully utilize the resources that are available and be creative in financing 

to meet the housing needs of their tribal peoples. 

You heard mentioned earlier about the momentum that’s growing in Indian country and about the progress that’s being made to 

61

achieve and bring private financing to tribal areas. And you also 

heard discussed the real possibility of recision of loan guarantee 

authority. Now is not the time to rescind that authority. We have 

seen this progress being made over the last three years, and it’s a 

direct result of all the efforts of the people that have been before 

you here today and are still before you. These efforts are just about 

to come to fruition, so to eliminate funding or underfund these efforts would be to set us back on what’s already been gained. 

If you look at it, the mortgage industry has had to be created in 

Indian country, and we have identified specific barriers. We have 

narrowed them down to just a few barriers and we have overcome 

several of them, so now is not the time to pull back. 

Also, this flat funding level for NAHASDA makes it all the more 

important. The tribes who administer this housing program do it 

as efficiently and flexibly as possible to meet the requirement for 

data on the effectiveness of the program to insure that our goals 

are being met and that progress is being made. Second, the short 

history of NAHASDA also requires us to continue to amend the 

statute to improve upon what works and eliminate the parts that 

hinder the delivery of housing. 

We understand that Congress has been frustrated with the lack 

of hard data to support the yearly budget requests for housing. As 

was pointed out by the chairman, when Congress looks at what we 

have, all of this money appropriated and then looks at the spend 

out rates, we share your frustration. You may be aware that last 

year, HUD’s Office of Native American Programs, ONAP, underwent a performance assessment from the Office of Management 

and Budget. ONAP received a poor score due mainly to its lack and 

therefore its inability to measure performance, its lack of data and 

its inability, therefore, to measure performance. Rather than 

through performance itself. We had hoped this would lead to swift 

implementation of data collection systems that would allow tribes—

to allow for what tribes already know, that this program is working. HUD collects data yearly on Indian housing plans and annual 

performance reports on such items as the number of overcrowded 

units, the number of units constructed, the number of housing 

units rehabilitated. 

Unfortunately, HUD still does not have a data base that can pull 

this data together to give a national picture. This is another symptom of what we see as being a real problem. There needs to be an 

upgrade in the standardization of not only the computer hardware 

but the programs used by agencies and that can be accessed and 

utilized by the private sector at the tribes’ request. 

While NAHASDA has improved the ability of tribes to serve the 

housing needs of their tribal members, several requirements of the 

Act have continued to hamper progress. In response to a call for 

overall federal housing delivery to Native Americans, Senator Tim 

Johnson of South Dakota introduced the Native American Housing 

Enhancement Act of October 2003, which is now cosponsored by 

Senator Michael Enzi from Wyoming. The bill contains the following provisions: 

It amends the 1949 Housing Act which governs USDA housing 

programs to allow the tribes the same rights to Indian preference 

as HUD housing programs. It reestablishes the eligibility for tribes 

62

in HUD’s Youth Build program. It amends NAHASDA to allow for 

the establishment of operating reserve accounts for tribes. A technical correction for the treatment of program income under 

NAHASDA. It also amends NAHASDA to allow for replacing the 

requirement of charging no more than 30 percent of adjusted income to a ceiling of fair market rents. 

As the committee with jurisdiction over Indian housing legislation in the House of Representatives, we hope the Financial Services Committee will support the passage of this legislation before 

the end of the 108th Congress. This committee has raised several 

specific issues with NAIHC in preparation for this hearing that 

were addressed in our detailed written testimony. We are encouraged that two questions have focused on two of the areas that are 

critical to the success of housing programs, partnerships and 

leveraging of the first programs and challenges of achieving higher 

levels of homeownership. With the federal government’s main Indian housing program, the Native American Housing Block Grant, 

only able to produce about 5,000 new units per year nationally, 

looking to other partnerships is the only way that people can hope 

to make progress. 

And, in fact, the very structure of NAHASDA has a lot to do with 

an increase in partnership and leveraging. Indian country stands 

out in its extreme level of need and warrants the investment of resources that can fund a more aggressive and comprehensive approach to solving our problems. 

New initiatives in Indian country over the past five years are to 

numerous to be recorded here, but a list of the partners involved 

in the provision of Indian housing was included in our written testimony. 

Finally, the goal of homeownership is as important to Native 

Americans as it is to all Americans. Native Americans, with the 

complications associated with land held in trust and the limited although improving access to financial institutions, have not been 

historically successful in obtaining mortgages for homes on reservation. We applaud the One-Stop Mortgage Initiative as a step in the 

right direction and feel that the educational initiatives are vital for 

both tribes and financial institutions to not only address the complications of doing business on the reservation, but also to see the 

opportunities. 

Before I leave, I’ll just remind you of a few things that you’re 

probably already aware of but I think are very important and 

worth mentioning. 

Housing has to be approached on a spectrum. Not all folks are 

in a position to be homeowners. They are not ready for mortgages. 

And the very low income people need heavily subsidized housing 

assistance, and that requires substantial investment. But, it’s also 

our desire to move these folks up on this spectrum of housing, to 

take them and develop with them their individual housing plans, 

which is also connected to their economic well-being. 

So, while we focus and hear a lot about mortgage financing, let’s 

not forget those who will need more heavily subsidized housing assistance, sometimes as transitory assistance but sometimes as permanent assistance. So I would like to continue to point that out. 

63

Another thing is when we talk about housing, remember, it’s the 

third thing that’s listed on the basic hierarchy of human need: 

Food, clothing and shelter. And as was pointed out earlier, it discounts our efforts in other areas such as education, healthcare, 

crime prevention and family development if housing is not available. So, what’s needed is an adequate investment, federal investment as well as private investment, in Indian country. And if we 

put up the investment up front, if we can make that investment 

in the future, it’s going to reduce the federal cost burden and will 

also lead to economic security in Indian areas. 

Thank you. I will be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Russell Sossamon can be found on 

page 178 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you, panel. 

I had a question for Mr. Paul on the McCarren Ferguson just to 

clarify. Are you saying that the state regulatory process is hampering the ability to properly do business? 

Mr. PAUL. As respects Indian country, McCarren. 

Ferguson has an impact on Alaska and Oklahoma because they 

are people reservations, they are not land-based reservations. So 

it’s tough to distinguish the authority of a tribe to exercise its sovereignty in the area of risk pooling insurance in those two states. 

So from that extent, it’s a problem. 

Chairman NEY. As you’re aware, we have a federal charter bill 

that’s starting to wind its way through the House committee. 

Would you see that the federal charter bill, if it passed, would be 

a help or would it not be? 

Mr. PAUL. It would be of help if it has specific information relative to Indian country and recognizes the tribes’ abilities to create 

insurance law. 

One of the problems that we see of being the only organization 

providing hazard protection is a lack of uniform insurance code 

within Indian country. And with federal help, that would be nice 

to have that so it’s consistent. Or for anybody that does business 

in Indian country. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the panel for the time that 

you have spent with us today, the information that you shared 

with us. And I suppose if we had a couple more weeks to spend 

here, we could have a real in-depth conversation with you about all 

of this information that you have shared with us today. 

I’m going to attempt to ask a few questions of several of you, and 

I’m going to try and make my questions as concise as I possibly 

can. And I’m not going to require long answers, and I would hope 

that you could respond quickly so I could turn the microphone over. 

For Fannie Mae, I work very closely with Fannie Mae and I like 

the fact that they now have the flexibility to have partnerships 

that can do a lot of creative and innovative things. I want to ask 

you, given that Fannie Mae has purchased these mortgages on the 

secondary market and they appear to be working with organizations such as Ms. Konski has identified, because you are so connected to over 112 banks, you have some influence there, why can’t 

you help to get more banks interested in providing mortgages on 

the reservation? 

64

Ms. GREEN. Congresswoman Waters, I think it is an education 

process, and that’s what we’re working through with our Native 

American Business Council, with our partnership offices that are 

on the ground working with the lenders on a daily basis, is to educate them more about the process of lending on Native American 

lands. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. That’s good. And what I think probably could 

happen is given the level of influence you have with these banks, 

because you’re picking up the mortgages on the secondary market, 

it perhaps would be helpful to identify how you do this, whether 

it be through holding seminars, or identify maybe 50 to a hundred, 

have them identify individuals in the banks who will make this a 

specialty and learn about it so that each of these institutions will 

have someone that can implement that. I just want to kind of put 

that into your thinking. 

Wells Fargo, how many mortgages have you made here? 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Is that in reference to the Navajo Nation? 

Ms. WATERS. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Reference the Navajo Nation? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. With the Navajo Nation, recently the Carigan 

Development Project in Window Rock, St. Michaels, Arizona, we 

have closed 39 184s and four conventional loans. However, that’s 

fee lands where we can utilize 184 mortgage product. 

Ms. WATERS. What lands? 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Fee land. It’s fee land surrounded by Indian operating area, so it allows us to utilize the 184 program. 

Ms. WATERS. I’m really talking about where it’s most difficult to 

do it where it’s trust land. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Trust land, we have three transactions that we 

are about to——

Ms. WATERS. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Trust land, we have about three transactions 

about to complete here in Tuba City, which would be a purchase 

of an existing home, construction to perm financing and—two construction to permanent financing. So three in Tuba City. 

Ms. WATERS. I really do appreciate all of the education that you 

described and the kind of outreach that you’re doing, but at some 

point in time, it really does have to resolve the matter of mortgages 

in order to move this agenda. 

Miss Konski, how do you do it? Can you help us to understand—

I have heard some contradictions here today about the ability to 

make these mortgages based on the land trust questions and 

whether or not there’s one law, tribal law, to deal with foreclosures 

and all of that. How do you do it? 

Ms. KONSKI. Well, obviously, that’s the first thing I do look at, 

is making sure that the tribe is familiar with the One-Stop and 

also approved that initiative. 

I’m sure that the jurisdictions are in place should that become 

necessary. Okay? So that’s the very first thing that has to happen. 

The next thing that I have to look at is obviously making sure 

that the family is really ready to purchase, to qualify for that mortgage, whatever product I’m choosing. Once I sometimes know that 

65

I have that family ready, I then need to look at the issues that 

come with the particular land that they are going to buy. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, what I’m hearing and reading and I’m picking 

up on is there are a lot of denial and turndown rates in Indian 

country, Navajo Nation. And someone told me earlier today that 

some of the turndowns, when you look at them, they look as if they 

would qualify for conventional loans but they are turned down. And 

what’s absolutely remarkable on some information I just saw is 

that the foreclosure rate is very low. 

So what is happening here? 

Ms. KONSKI. I can’t answer that because I don’t have that many 

turndowns. My issues don’t come down to the family not qualifying 

for the loan, not when you have that many products and that many 

funds available to help families. When you put together a combination of, say, NAHASDA funds or the Relocation Act funds, mortgages are possible. Products are possible. I don’t have that many 

turndowns. 

One of the things I always tell my family when I begin to work 

is I can only work as hard as they can work. Sometimes it does 

take time. In my opinion, the challenges for me come specifically 

with getting the information from the BIA. 

Ms. WATERS. BIA is your biggest obstacle? 

Ms. KONSKI. Yes. Biggest obstacle for me is BIA. 

Ms. WATERS. So it is possible to do. And if we could expedite the 

issues with BIA, you could do even better. 

Ms. KONSKI. Particularly if you could expedite the issues with 

BIA. 

Ms. WATERS. I understand that you had a recent number of closings. 

Ms. KONSKI. Recently, as recently as last week, Friday, I did in 

fact close nine separate loans for the Cocopah Indian Housing Authority and Development, located in Summerton, Arizona. That 

represented four tri-plexes and five single-family units, all put together with the Cocopah Indian Housing Development as the borrower. The tribe themselves did the interim financing. My 184 

product came in and paid off the permanent loan, paid off the interim financing for the permanent 30-year mortgage. 

Ms. WATERS. If it wasn’t for the fact that this was a competitive 

business, I would ask you to teach Wells Fargo and some of the 

others how to do this. But I know it’s competitive, but I am really 

interested in trying to get that information to others. 

Mr. Maryboy, your testimony centered a lot around the need for 

the private sector to be more involved. But as I see it, the private 

sector needs to want to be involved. They need to want to do this. 

Do you have any suggestions for how to get the private sector 

more interested? 

Mr. MARYBOY. The particular area that you are alluding to is a 

challenge for the Navajo Nation, and I’m asking Congress to establish a bylaw and to establish a blue ribbon commission to discuss 

or to research this particular area. But we do believe that there 

needs to be—this is a problem and a solution needs to be provided 

in this area. 

Ms. WATERS. That’s because you think there is some fear of jeopardizing trust lands by getting the private sector involved, and I 

66

think there was some reference to how they did it in Palm Springs? 

Is that what you’re talking about? 

Mr. MARYBOY. Something similar like that. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Parks, there seems to be some contradiction in 

your testimony about the inability to get involved in picking up the 

secondary mortgages, I guess, because of the land trust issue. I 

think there was some discussion in your testimony that you didn’t 

do it. 

So what’s the contradiction here? 

Mr. PARKS. I wouldn’t think of it a contradiction, but what I was 

trying to do from my testimony was to tell you that we had some 

limited success but it remains a tough thing because we are dealing with this narrow slice of the Affordable Housing Program. It 

doesn’t mean that the other regulators are necessarily going to pick 

up on the regulatory interpretation of the Federal Housing Finance 

Board. 

And so a lot of the lenders will say, gee, okay, in the case of the 

Affordable Housing Program, your regulator was allowing you to 

take something other than title in sovereignty. It’s not necessarily 

the position of OTS, FDIC, or OCC. So when a lender goes to get 

examined, for instance, there they still may be obstacles they have 

to overcome. 

Ms. WATERS. So the 38 banks that you have some influence on 

may have a way to do it if we can clear the way. 

Mr. PARKS. Sure. I think it still remains one of those fertile 

grounds. I think what we have right now is the opportunity to 

build upon something that’s been done through the help of the Federal Housing Finance Board. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Paul, you referred to a memo of understanding, 

since you are the market of last resort, and since Fannie Mae has 

given you some kind of acceptance, you’re asking why can’t you 

have this memorandum of understanding because you are willing 

to do it and lot of others are not. What would you have us do? 

Mr. PAUL. Correct. It was nice of Fannie Mae to give us a national recognition. Part of the problem in Indian country is we deal 

with a lot of different lending institutions. And when we are dealing with small community banks or Federal Home Loan Bank or 

Fannie Mae, we have to go out and consult with them to try and 

to get them to approve us because we are not an insurance company. We are a self-insurance pool owned by the tribes. 

With the approval of Fannie Mae, which reviewed our financial 

position and has graciously accepted our Indian mortgages purchased on their behalf in which we provide hazard insurance, we 

were hoping to leverage that with USDA Rural Development, with 

the Veteran’s Administration and the other lenders so that we have 

one national letter through a mutual understanding between the 

various departments so it would preclude us from having to go out 

and deal with every local institution that loaned money and where 

we provided hazard protection in Indian country. It would be a 

cost-effective measure. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Miss Sabatinos, I appreciate your testimony but I wanted to get 

over to Mr. Sossamon to ask about funding. 

67

You believe the key to our ability to develop more housing is the 

federal government’s commitment for funding. Would you just tell 

us one more time? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Absolutely. Well, beyond the treaty commitments, which I think the treaty commitments were designed to—

the federal government had promised to assist Indian tribes, not 

take us on as welfare recipients. 

What we need is, what you see happening in other states and 

communities, is enough commitment from the federal government 

to develop our own infrastructure, to allow us at some point to 

achieve self-sufficiency. 

Ms. WATERS. Infrastructure development. 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Exactly. Infrastructure. And, also, as I talked 

about, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program, 

these type programs that allow us to create within our own tribal 

areas a private sector of our tribal members. Because what draws 

private investment is return on that investment. And with the 

small profit margins that our infant mortgage industry has to offer 

at this point, we need to look closer to our own human resources 

and develop jobs within that private mortgage industry of our tribal people. And that develops our local economy. And not only our 

mortgage lending industry can be developed, but our tribal construction, private construction can be developed. 

And once we start to generate those tribal businesses, and private tribal businesses start to generate income, then the rest of the 

private market is going to follow suit. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the extra time. 

Chairman NEY. Congressman Renzi. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to pose a question to the Honorable Mark Maryboy. The 

first question—I know we were talking about private investment. 

Ms. Waters touched on the issue. 

Wouldn’t it be true that private investors would be able to approach the Navajo Nation if we didn’t have this impediment of this 

business leasing issue? We have heard it touched on today. Isn’t 

that one of the major things we can look at, whether it be legislation to help fix that or working with BIA? If you are approached 

by private industry, I mean, isn’t it an immense amount of time 

they have to go through in order for them to be able to approve this 

leasing, Mr. Maryboy? 

Mr. MARYBOY. I agree with the statement that you made there, 

Congressman. I would like to give a brief time to our executive director of NHA, Mr. Chester Carl. 

Mr. RENZI. State your name, please, for the record. 

Mr. CARL. Again, Chairman Ney and members of the committee, 

your question is very much to the point. 

As you know, the world is ruled by property law, both fiscally 

and also legally. And so long as you own property, then you have 

some type of leverage, whether in the private world or the world 

abroad. 

And that’s basically what’s lacking in Indian country. So long as 

you don’t have true ownership to the land versus the trusts, then 

you don’t have that leverage with a private institution. So, in order 

68

to address that, one of the things that we did related to the mortgage industry is we were able to design a mortgage program that 

is 100 percent guaranteed by the Navajo Housing Authority and we 

were able to negotiate with Fannie Mae to get to that point. And 

that guarantee, we use NAHASDA construction dollars, that’s construction financing, and then what we do is we take families that 

have high debt ratios, high 65 percent, take them through home 

buyer education and get them done to a lower level to get them 

qualified. We take families that have no credit history but have 

dealings with pawn dealers or trading posts, take their records and 

take that into account to get them qualified. 

By doing so, we see this as a bridge to take them from the old 

assistance program to a more conventional setting. And it’s going 

to take time, but the transition is there. 

And what we have done, also, with Fannie Mae is develop an offset reserve account so that if there is an unforeseeable foreclosure, 

then we are able to take monies out of that account and pay off 

the delinquency. And the Navajo Housing Authority also provides 

all the foreclosure process, as well. 

So, in addition to many of the stories that you hear, this is one 

of the ways we can provide that bridge to allow the financing world 

to come in. 

Mr. RENZI. I appreciate your explanation. 

I move to Freddie with Wells Fargo. You talked about dealing 

with first generation home buyers. I know you all have gone out 

of your way to find methodologies to really push financial counseling, literacy programs. I’m going to ask a question in a minute 

about why it is that we have $54 million left and we haven’t spent 

it down. Okay. 

My intuitions tell me that one of the reasons is because we are 

dealing with a generation whose fathers and mothers didn’t buy 

homes and teach them how to buy homes. They are having to go 

through an application process. We learned in the Education Subcommittee that many Native American people never go to college 

because the application process to go to college is too complicated. 

And my thought is that maybe it’s the same thing for homeownership, that the application process, while regular Americans go online and get mortgages within 48 hours, the application process for 

Native American people must be a huge stumbling block given if 

you are the first one in your family who’s ever even thought about 

owning a home. 

And so I want to ask you about the successes that you’ve had 

with Wells Fargo as it relates to counseling programs or breaking 

through this impediment, please. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. I had mentioned earlier that we have a training 

program, community development training program for home buyers and counselors and also leveraging and resources, tribal resources, to initiate community development and housing opportunities. That training is in conjunction with the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. So that’s how we are addressing that issue, 

home buyers education. It’s designed for tribal leaders, housing entities, lenders, and anyone, practitioners who are involved with 

lending on trust land. That’s how we are addressing that issue. 

69

You also have posed a question as to why do we have so many—

so much money available and we are not lending. You know, we 

could describe how HUD 184 program is set up, how the process 

works. I have attended training where it says this is what we need 

to do and, yes, I come back to the Navajo Nation, but what happens is I sit down and meet with a client and we run into lease 

issues, we run into title status report issues, archaeological clearance, environmental assessments, recordation. By the time you are 

finished with a client, it is no longer a 60-day deal. It has gone on 

to two years. 

Mr. RENZI. Sixty days being—you have 60 days to access it and 

then you can’t get it. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. No. Your traditional to close a loan and fund, 

you look at it with 60 days. But with Navajo, being it’s trust land, 

it goes beyond that. And by that time, the applicants have pretty 

much backed out or you’re still waiting for a document. 

Mr. RENZI. That’s a good question. I can hear Ranking Member 

Waters. 

Renee, how do you get around the 60 days? 

Ms. KONSKI. I don’t get around the 60 day. First of all, on a fee 

simple transaction, yes, for Freddie and me, both, I think we both 

agree, we could—normal transaction, fee simple land, you’re talking 30 days. 

When you’re talking trust land and you’re talking waiting for 

your environmentals, waiting for your approved lease, waiting for 

your title status report, your home buyer education, you’re not talking 60 days. You’re lucky to be talking a year and a half, two years. 

Mr. RENZI. So the 60 days is a lock in the interest rate, right? 

Ms. KONSKI. No. There is no such thing as a lock in the interest 

rate when it comes to Native American lending, which is a whole 

other ballgame. Traditionally, if I am purchasing a house in Phoenix and I go out and I build this home and now I’ve taken out this 

construction loan to develop and build my house, along comes my 

permanent 30-year mortgage. My 30-year mortgage is going to pay 

off that house and provide me with a 30-year mortgage. 

A lot of the problems that I come up against in dealing with both 

the Navajo and many of the other reservations as well is we get 

that construction financing in place, we have the house completed, 

we are ready to put that permanent mortgage on there and give 

that family that 30-year fixed mortgage rate. The problem is, before we can complete that transaction, we are again at the mercy 

of the BIA waiting on that title status report. That title status report is telling us, really, who is the beneficiary of that land or that 

lease. In order for my mortgage to come in and correct that one, 

I have to have a correct one in place so I can then close the loan. 

Mr. RENZI. Is the BIA title office understaffed and that’s the reason for the wait, or is it——

Ms. KONSKI. It is my personal opinion, upon visiting the BIA offices, and more than just one, they do fluctuate between local BIA 

offices. That’s where the problem is. It’s the staffing, it’s the budget, it’s the——

Mr. RENZI. We are going to pay a visit as a result—this is really 

an idea that deserves credit to Congresswoman Waters. We are 

going to pay a visit to the BIA offices and see if we can light a fire. 

70

Mr. Sossamon, I appreciate your testimony, sir. We’re going to 

talk about why we haven’t spent it. You and Renee have now 

talked about the fact that $54 million is left in the kitty and we 

are going to turn it back to the federal government unless we use 

it, okay? And we are not able to use it because of the impediments 

and the roadblocks with the titles and the environmentals. 

Why do you think we didn’t spend it down? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Why do I think we need to spend it down? 

Mr. RENZI. Why do you think we weren’t able to spend down the $54 million? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Well, a lot of it goes to what we have identified 

here today. And I hate to pick on the BIA because they are not 

here to defend themselves, but the problem is—and it was mentioned earlier—that there’s a 113-year backlog in getting title status reports. And you just asked do you think they have an adequate staff to deal with that. The answer is no. They cannot deal 

with processing any kind of title status report request. 

So we need to now maybe look at funding to clear up that backlog. And perhaps the way to do it is not add more staff to the BIA, 

but contract that out to the individual tribes themselves and allow 

them to establish their own procedures to sort out these records 

and establish their own title offices that will benefit them in the 

future. And then it’s locally——

Mr. RENZI. Stay there. So you’re saying forget building an agency 

in Washington and all the bureaucratic little arms that go along 

with it. Give the ability of doing the title searches directly to the 

Navajo or the Hopi people or the Apache people. And then what 

would do you? You would move the federal oversight—because it 

has to be certified, right? 

Mr. SOSSAMON. Exactly. 

Mr. RENZI. So we would essentially move our people into their 

location and handle it at the local level? And take the backlog with 

them, then. 

Mr. SOSSAMON. They would have the role of oversight and review, but the actual work would be done right here where the people understand what’s going on. 

And, also, it goes toward doing what I said we have made great 

strides towards in the last three years, creating a mortgage industry in Indian country. Not imposing it from outside Indian country, 

but creating our own mortgage industry. 

Mr. RENZI. We are going to make it a reality. We are going to 

find a way together, bipartisan, to make it happen. 

Mr. SOSSOMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. You’re welcome. 

I also want to thank Captain June Sabatinos for the visit I paid 

about two weeks ago to the hospital here in Tuba City. Great facility. We have to bring money home to help. It’s one of the best regional facilities I have ever visited, particularly as it relates to the 

health issues you saw with the children today. We talked, and the 

reason I asked you to come was a story you told me about the fact 

we are seeing so much turnover on the staff, the inability to retain 

good, high-quality people. You talked today in your testimony, 

three nurses you’ve just lost in the acute emergency area, if I’m 

correct. I’m summarizing your testimony. 

71

You also talked about a gentleman you had who was committed 

to serving the Navajo people who actually lived in a tent for several 

months. What can we do? Is multiple family housing, if we had a 

compound for the hospital—many times, when we go overseas, 

you’ll see American interests represented, hospital staffs, teaching 

staffs, you’ll have a housing compound. 

Is that kind of a formula possible? 

Ms. SABATINOS. Yes. That is what we need, is a housing compound or a complex. We have very limited land that we could put 

this building on, and we would certainly need the funding to do it, 

but that would basically meet the needs of our facility. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. 

Finally, I want to point out the good work of the Indigenous 

Community Enterprise. I know, Freddie, you have worked with 

them, you serve on the board. We visited a hogan today, we saw 

the ability for you all to use small diameter wood. 

Can you just expand on that just a little bit and talk about some 

of the, maybe some of the impediments or where we can assist in 

helping you produce more units for the people? And I also heard 

that you’re also thinking about using multi-family or you’re expanding your product base. 

Mr. HATATHLIE. Being a board member for Indigenous Community Enterprises, presently, right now, I have tried working with 

them where we could go through the 184 program. And being that 

the hogan octagon shapes are not your traditional homes, you 

know, that HUD would finance, you know, being that it’s non-conforming, we had discussions with that to see how we could utilize 

the log hogans to finance, but we were unable to do that. 

We met with the marketing person for Southwest Traditional 

Log Homes and also the underwriters of HUD, and that’s something that’s still being discussed. I’m also, Indigenous Community 

Enterprises is working with a local chapter how they could establish an elderly compound type of homes, and that still is in the 

works also, too. 

So they have really stepped up with the limited funds that they 

have been utilizing on their part. 

Mr. RENZI. Thanks, Freddie. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. 

This may circle back to an issue we talked about, sort of at the 

start of the hearing, relative to utilities reaching specific housing. 

Mr. Maryboy, I noticed in your discussion about the need for the 

blue ribbon commission to address these issues and the impact on 

sovereignty and whatnot, you mentioned something that applies to 

something as simple as a utility right-of-way. Is that one of the impediments to getting electric lines strung to these houses today. 

We were in two different locations today, one was not in the Bennett Freeze, where there is housing and there is local distribution 

lines within a stone’s throw away, and they are not hooked up. Did 

I understand your testimony that certain rights-of-way, is that one 

of the impediments? 

72

Mr. MARYBOY. I think the commission could try to oversee the 

whole array of projects that could be included, utility, roads, and 

the like. 

Mr. MATHESON. It struck all of us as a pretty strange thing to 

see the electrical lines so close and not hooked up. 

Miss Konski, I had a couple questions for you. 

You mentioned that a fee simple transaction could be done in 

maybe three days and then trust lands, two years. We talked about 

the BIA title issue, and you also mentioned there is the environmental and you’re stuck waiting on that for a substantial amount 

of time. 

Are there other factors that cause the delay beyond those two? 

Ms. KONSKI. Utilities can sometimes cause a delay. In getting my 

utilities to my house, they have in the past caused me a small 

delay. That’s a fact. 

Mr. MATHESON. You mentioned you completed, was it nine transactions a week ago? 

Ms. KONSKI. Correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. And they were all 184 loans? 

Ms. KONSKI. All 184s. 

Mr. MATHESON. Were all of those 100 percent guaranteed 184? 

Ms. KONSKI. The 184 is not a full 100 percent guarantee, but it’s 

very close. 

Mr. MATHESON. If the percentage of that were to have been 

dropped lower, would that put those transactions in jeopardy? 

Ms. KONSKI. No. It’s not my belief it would have. You’ve got the 

housing authority, who has just built the houses and put all that 

money out to build all those homes. They are going to take families, put families in that are going to qualify and assume those 

mortgages in the near future. If they have the money to go out and 

build those homes and they are coming in to, say, a 98 percent 

guarantee—and I’m talking about getting a mortgage for, the housing authority themselves——

Mr. MATHESON. I’m just asking what if it goes lower, to 90? 

Ms. KONSKI. Oh, what if it gets—it does get lower. An example 

of that is a USDA loan. That is a 90 percent guarantee. 

Mr. MATHESON. Maybe I’m having trouble articulating my question. 

Ms. KONSKI. Are you talking about guaranteeing my mortgage? 

Mr. MATHESON. I’m talking about 184 loans, at the guarantee 

levels that you have now for those transactions you’ve done. If we 

are limited, if the word comes out where the 184, those are not allowed to be guaranteed at that level any more, it has dropped 

down—I don’t know if it’s 80 or whatever——

Ms. KONSKI. Okay. Proposed. 

Mr. MATHESON. Is that going to put those transactions in jeopardy? 

Ms. KONSKI. I believe it would have an impact, yes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. 

Mr. Parks, I guess I get the impression that the different Federal 

Home Loan Bank offices have some level of autonomy. Mr. 

Maryboy’s own testimony indicated they like the Seattle Home 

Loan Bank. 

73

Is there communication between the different offices about products and approaches? Do you talk to Seattle? 

Mr. PARKS. What you’ve got to remember, the Home Loan Banks 

are all separate entities. The only thing, we are cooperatively 

owned by our own, individual membership, and the only thing we 

do is issue debt collectively. There are separate boards, they are actually separate institutions. So you can think of them as 12 separate institutions that have no interaction. 

We do talk, and I think what happened was, in Seattle’s case, 

they at one point were more comfortable with the fact that, subject 

to their regulator’s interpretation, with taking a risk. We tend to 

be a more conservative bank and the culture of our board of directors is if we don’t have some certification, we are uncomfortable 

with that. 

So we pursue the route of getting some kind of certification and 

creating some type of certainty that if, in the worst-case scenario, 

our regulator is going to find that’s okay. And that’s what we have 

found. So that’s why they are able to do more. 

And everybody has different relationships. We, our relationship 

to the Navajos is obviously strengthening. Our relationship with 

other tribes is stronger than with others. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I appreciate the panel. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll give it back. 

Chairman NEY. What we will do is I will also note for the record 

that members may have additional questions for the panel and 

they may wish to submit them in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to the witnesses and 

place their response in the record. 

And also for the record, if I can read Mr. Johnson’s handwriting, 

bear with me, these will be submitted into the record by these individuals, organizations, or tribes. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Navajo Partnership for Housing, Arizona Department of Housing, Cameron 

Chapter of Housing, the testimony of the Blue Tribal Housing Authority, Choctaw Nation Housing Authority, Spirit Lake Housing 

Authority, Housing Authority of the Village of Winnebago, Lower 

Brule Sioux Housing Authority, Trenton Indian Housing Authority 

and Crow Sioux Housing Authority. 

[The following information can be found on pages 236, 222, 213, 

217, 219, and 235 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Let me see if I can make a few closing remarks 

before turning it over to my colleagues. Let me just say that I appreciate all three panels and I just think the testimony was well 

worth the trip here. We see things in D.C., we read about things 

and we get research, but being here and visiting, going to the locations today, but also being able to get your input today, and the 

other two panels, is invaluable. 

Obviously, we are going to have to go back and look at issues, 

and I think BIA, it’s very clear, is going to have to be looked at. 

There is also legislation that is pending in Congress where it’s 

going through the system. The federal charter is going to be also 

important for us to look at as to how it applies, which you’ve raised 

an issue has not been discussed at least to my knowledge in WashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
74

ington. If we do a federal charter, how does it apply to the Indian 

nation. I think we need to be cognizant of that. 

Home Loan Banks, there is the question of the implication for 

the entire country, but also the Indian nation. And I think also 

with Fannie Mae and the flexibility for programs, and if, in fact, 

some of the legislation being talked about takes that away from 

Fannie Mae, how this could affect, also, the Indian nation and their 

ability to devise programs. 

So I think there is a lot of other issues now that have come to 

the surface, but this has been the high note for me, well worth the 

trip to be here. 

Let me also once again thank the entire staff of Financial Services, Tallman Johnson, Cindy Chetti, Jeff Riley, Jaime Alisiga, and 

also Congressman Renzi’s staff, Alix Crockett and Joann Keene, 

and most of all my colleagues and Walter—I’m sorry, Walter 

Phelps. 

But let me just say that Congressman Matheson, I appreciate all 

of your work on this issue, your diligent work. And I can’t speak 

enough for our ranking member, Ms. Waters of California, who has 

been so patient to go through how many hearings in the House 

subcommittee and yet still has a smile. So her work has been invaluable and her concern and caring for many, many issues and, 

obviously, this one in particular. And also Chairman Mike Oxley 

and Ranking Member Barney Frank, who also made this possible. 

And last but not least, my colleague Congressman Renzi, who 

makes all of us aware every day in the U.S. Capitol about concerns 

of the Indian nation. I appreciate his idea to do this. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I’d like 

to thank you for holding this hearing. This absolutely could not 

happen without you. Your willingness to come here and to put your 

staff to work, to organize this hearing, is commendable, and I’m delighted that I have had the opportunity to be here today to learn 

more and to understand better what we can do in Congress. So, 

again, I would like to thank you. 

I’d also like to thank Congressman Renzi, because I know that 

it’s his advocacy and his request to you that caused you to respond. 

We have talked about this, Congressman Renzi and I, on any number of occasions. We have talked about the plight of Native Americans. He’s described this to me in conversations, but I had to come 

here to see it, and I thank you for giving me that opportunity. I’m 

delighted to be here with you. 

Let me just say to our audience here today, I have traveled extensively and I have traveled extensively to many third world countries, and what I saw today is similar to what I’ve seen in some 

of the most impoverished areas of the world. What I saw today is 

synonymous with what I saw when I first visited the 

‘‘Bountosawns’’ in South Africa, and it’s appalling. It’s unacceptable, and we must use whatever power we have in Congress to 

change the plight of Native Americans here and everywhere. 

I would like to just close by saying I represent a rather diverse 

district. One area of my district is a poor area, but it is heaven 

compared to what I saw here today. When you hear discussions 

about South Los Angeles and people who are in poverty, I want to 

tell you, again, when you compare it to what I saw today, it’s alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\96546.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
75

most as if those people who are described as living in poverty live 

in luxury. This is absolutely unconscionable. 

So being here today helps me to know how I can better support 

changing the ability for Native Americans and for the Navajo Nation to do something. 

What’s encouraging about all of this is the resources that are 

here. We have the possibility to do this. It appears that there’s too 

much bureaucracy. I think perhaps there are some people who may 

have gotten a little bit soft on the job and they aren’t doing everything that they could do. I don’t know. I don’t know, but I think 

we need to figure that out. And, clearly, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should have been here today. The fact that they are not here 

means that I know Mr. Renzi and my chairman is going to not only 

talk about paying them a visit, but maybe helping them to understand that if you don’t utilize the power that’s given to you, maybe 

you don’t need to keep it. So, I’ll just put that out there. 

So with that, I’d like to give the microphone back because I know 

Mr. Matheson, Congressman Matheson has a lot that he would like 

to say. On the way here, he was describing to me his challenges 

and how he borders this entire state and what he’s trying to do. 

So with the two of these gentlemen working together representing 

both sides of the aisle and engaging all of us, I am extremely optimistic, no matter how difficult it gets. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I don’t have a lot to say, fortunately. But 

I often like to tell people that it’s always good to get out of Washington D.C. And spend time in the real world, and I think that’s 

what we have had a chance to do today. And I think it’s been a 

great experience for me and I suspect for everyone else here on the 

committee. 

But I want to thank all of you for coming today. I think it’s really 

important that in this system of democracy, we participate, and I 

thank you for taking your time to do that. I have learned a lot 

today and I want this process to continue. 

But it’s my pledge, and I think I speak for everybody, it’s our 

pledge that we are going to work the best we can to make progress 

on all these issues. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. We will give closing comments to 

Congressman Renzi. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you for letting me wrap up. 

I want to begin by thanking everyone here who has sat through 

a four-and-a-half, five-hour hearing, those of you who came out 

from the community, taking time away from your families and 

businesses and obligations to share with us, all the panels and 

their testimony, some of it very riveting. It’s true patriotism to engage in the great debate, and I thank you very much. 

I have to thank Chairman Ney. The idea of making history, him 

allowing us to come out here, him making history and bringing all 

of us with him, to have for the first time Congress address Native 

American Indian housing issues in the field truly is historic. It took 

his leadership to get it done. 

I have been to many hearings in the past. I have never been to 

a hearing where Republicans and Democrats came together so well. 

I want to thank Ranking Member Congresswoman Maxine Waters 

76

from California. I was so surprised to think that we got together 

to see the conditions because it’s so severe out there that over the 

years to come, as we’re wrestling with this, whether you be Republican or Democrat, or who is in control of the House or who is in 

power—I whispered to Ranking Member Waters that maybe some 

day, you know, if you guys are in power, at least you’ll have been 

able to see firsthand the conditions. So it doesn’t matter who is in 

power. We will work together to get through the issues. 

And my neighbor to the north, Jim Matheson, Congressman 

Matheson, has been a great friend in Washington. We work hard 

together on the issues as it relates to housing. He is taking such 

a wonderful lead on the issues relating to uranium. We are looking 

to have a workshop together in Washington as it relates to those 

issues. 

If you would allow me, please, there is a couple people I want 

to acknowledge. I want to acknowledge the members of the Assisted Independence Program here in Tuba City. I know you have 

strong concerns today. I wish I had done more to acknowledge you 

earlier on. I’m thankful I had a chance to talk to you briefly. My 

Window Rock office, Walter Phelps, my personal assistant Joann 

Keene and myself personally will meet you with and in future endeavors we would like to hear your testimony publicly. 

I also want to acknowledge a friend who is—a couple friends who 

are with us today. As many of you are aware, we lost Lori 

Piestewa, the first Native American ever killed in combat. And 

Terry and Percy Piestewa and Lori’s two children, Brandon and 

Carla, have sat through the last hour and a half hour of this hearing. They are beautiful people. Terry and Percy, if you would stand 

up and be acknowledged. 

I think Lori would be proud that we are here today in her hometown. Lori represents the warrior spirit of the Hopi and the Navajo 

people. The women of their ancestry would stand next to their men 

and fight. They did not flee. And Lori represents that tradition and 

she deserves to have a mountain named after her, let me tell you. 

Also, in closing, let me say this. I want to say thank you to Mr. 

Andrew Todd, who is the superintendent of the Greyhills High 

School where we stayed today. And he was such a great hope, 

showed great hospitality. 

And, finally, to the staff of the Navajo Housing Authority for 

your housing, your refreshments, the information booths you set 

out today. Thank you all very much for being with us today. In my 

opinion, you are all true patriots. May God bless you. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X

May 3, 2004

78


96546.001
79


96546.002
80


96546.003
81


96546.004
82


96546.005
83


96546.006
84


96546.007
85


96546.008
86


96546.009
87


96546.010
88


96546.011
89


96546.012
90


96546.013
91


96546.014
92


96546.015
93


96546.016
94


96546.017
95


96546.018
96


96546.019
97


96546.020
98


96546.021
99


96546.022
100


96546.023
101


96546.024
102


96546.025
103


96546.026
104


96546.027
105


96546.028
106


96546.029
107


96546.030
108


96546.031
109


96546.032
110


96546.033
111


96546.034
112


96546.035
113


96546.036
114


96546.037
115


96546.038
116


96546.039
117


96546.040
118


96546.041
119


96546.042
120


96546.043
121


96546.044
122


96546.045
123


96546.046
124


96546.047
125


96546.048
126


96546.049
127


96546.050
128


96546.051
129


96546.052
130


96546.053
131


96546.054
132


96546.055
133


96546.056
134


96546.057
135


96546.058
136


96546.059
137


96546.060
138


96546.061
139


96546.062
140


96546.063
141


96546.064
142


96546.065
143


96546.066
144


96546.067
145


96546.068
146


96546.069
147


96546.070
148


96546.071
149


96546.072
150


96546.073
151


96546.074
152


96546.075
153


96546.076
154


96546.077
155


96546.078
156


96546.079
157


96546.080
158


96546.081
159


96546.082
160


96546.083
161


96546.084
162


96546.085
163


96546.086
164


96546.087
165


96546.088
166


96546.089
167


96546.090
168


96546.091
169


96546.092
170


96546.093
171


96546.094
172


96546.095
173


96546.096
174


96546.097
175


96546.098
176


96546.099
177


96546.100
178


96546.101
179


96546.102
180


96546.103
181


96546.104
182


96546.105
183


96546.106
184


96546.107
185


96546.108
186


96546.109
187


96546.110
188


96546.111
189


96546.112
190


96546.113
191


96546.114
192


96546.115
193


96546.116
194


96546.117
195


96546.118
196


96546.119
197


96546.120
198


96546.121
199


96546.122
200


96546.123
201


96546.124
202


96546.125
203


96546.126
204


96546.127
205


96546.128
206


96546.129
207


96546.130
208


96546.131
209


96546.132
210


96546.133
211


96546.134
212


96546.135
213


96546.136
214


96546.137
215


96546.138
216


96546.139
217


96546.140
218


96546.141
219


96546.142
220


96546.143
221


96546.144
222


96546.145
223


96546.146
224


96546.147
225


96546.148
226


96546.149
227


96546.150
228


96546.151
229


96546.152
230


96546.153
231


96546.154
232


96546.155
233


96546.156
234


96546.157
235


96546.158
236


96546.159
237


96546.160
238


96546.161
239


96546.162
240


96546.163
241


96546.164
242


96546.165
243


96546.166
244


96546.167
245


96546.168
246


96546.169
247


96546.170
248


96546.171
249


96546.172
250


96546.173
251


96546.174
252


96546.175
253


96546.176
254


96546.177
255


96546.178
256


96546.179
257


96546.180
258


96546.181
259


96546.182
260


96546.183
261


96546.184