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

34–266 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–65

HOUSING ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON HOUSING ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY

MARCH 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Vice Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri

JON TESTER, Montana

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director

DAVID A. MULLON JR. Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Boyd, Rodger, deputy assistant secretary, Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development ......................... 3

Burnette, Juel, retail supervisior and progam director, Native American

Housing Initiatives, Wells Fargo ................................................................. 21

Cabrera, Orlando J., assistant secretary, Office of Public and Indian

Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................... 3

Daniels, Dennis, deputy executive director, National American Indian

Housing Council ............................................................................................ 18

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, chairman,

Committee on Indian Affairs ....................................................................... 1

Lumley, Paul, executive director, National American Indian Housing

Council ........................................................................................................... 18

Perez, Jon, director, Behavioral Health, Indian Health Service .................. 7

Rivera, George, governor, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa Fe, NM ...................... 17

Steele, John Yellow Bird, president, Oglala Sioux Tribal Council ............... 14

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ............................................... 3

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Burnette, Juel (with attachment) .................................................................... 39

Cabrera, Orlando J. (with attachment) .......................................................... 47

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii ....................................... 29

Kane, Micah A., chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission .......................... 29

Lumley, Paul (with attachment) ..................................................................... 75

Martinez, Alyn, Housing Corporation Director, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa

Fe, NM (with attachment) ............................................................................ 33

Perez, Jon .......................................................................................................... 30

Pyle, Gregory, principle chief, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma ....................... 31

Rivera, George (with attachment) ................................................................... 33

Sossamon, Russell, president, Southern Plains Indian Housing Association ................................................................................................................. 37

Steele, John Yellow Bird .................................................................................. 135

(1)

HOUSING ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Dorgan, Domenici, and Tester.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. This is a hearing

of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on housing issues in Indian country.

Today, the committee meets to receive testimony on these housing issues. I welcome all of our witnesses who have taken time

from their schedules to be with us. I know some have traveled long

distances to be here, and we appreciate that.

Housing is one of our basic needs as human beings, and as many

of us know, this basic need is not being met in parts of our country,

especially in Indian country; 40 percent of on-reservation housing

is considered inadequate. One in five reservation homes lacks complete plumbing, and 90,000 Indian families are homeless or underhoused. It is not uncommon in Indian communities for 25 to 30

people to share a single home. Over one-third of the homes are

overcrowded.

It is estimated that more than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed to provide adequate housing in Indian country.

Fewer than one-third of American Indians own their own home,

compared to the national average of 67 percent. It is estimated that

$1.1 billion is needed to meet housing needs in Indian country.

Funding for Indian housing has been stagnant over several years

and has not kept up with the inflation and the rising cost of building materials.

I want to show a series of charts today. I have spoken on the

Floor before about the deplorable housing conditions. I have spoken

in the past about an Indian woman named Sarah Swift Hawk, a

grandmother who froze to death in her own home, laid down on a

cot to go to sleep and never woke up; froze to death in her own

home in this country.

Let me describe the kind of homes we are talking about. If I can

have chart number 1 put up. I think we can see it both here on
2

the dais and also the audience. Carlyle Russell, decorated World

War II veteran, lived in this house on the San Carlos Apache Reservation until he died last summer. His widow Ethel Russell is

standing in front of the house. She continues to live in the house

with two children and five grandchildren; no running water; dangerous electrical work; and no insulation from seasonal elements.

That is the home lived in by a decorated World War II veteran.

No. 2. San Carlos Apache home again. This house is about 35

years old, built from scratch by family members. Now, a young couple and their two children live in this unsafe and unsanitary house

without electricity and without running water.

No. 3. A picture of a kitchen at San Carlos Apache Reservation.

Plumbing problems that deteriorated the entire bottom of the sink

at the floor. A young couple lives in this home with four kids, ranging from 7 to 1 years old, and in addition, an extended family. The

number of family members who live in this home are on a waiting

list for a rental home. It will take months or years to get into a

rental home.

No. 4. Our colleague, Senator Murkowski, will recognize this situation in Alaska. Short-term disposal containers that are used for

emptying the honey buckets at many Alaska Native village homes.

The 5 gallon bucket with a toilet seat placed on top of it, kept in

an outhouse or shed, or in the house itself, and used as a toilet.

These homes lack plumbing, running water, and outhouses can’t be

built in some parts of Alaska because the homes are located on permafrost.

I have two more. Number five. This home is a home in which a

middle-aged lady with five children and one grandchild lives in; no

running water; no electricity; one room home built in 2001 by a

family member with material donated by family members.

Finally, just a bit of good news. No. 7 and No. 6. These are success stories. These are new homes. These happen to be in New

Mexico. Two pictures of the Santo Domingo Pueblo Housing Authority homes, funded by NAHASDA dollars. Five homes were built

in 2004 and 2005. This is a picture of a woman standing in front

of the home, photo no. 6, that you are seeing. This is a new home

of Ms. Angelita Tenorio, whose prior home was built in the 1940’s

and in severe disrepair.

Photo 7 is the picture of a new home constructed for a tribal

elder, Mr. Pachayo, who returned to the reservation in 2000 and

lived in a 20 foot by 30 foot storage unit with an electric stove and

no plumbing until this home was built.

I show these photographs to describe to you a deplorable, shameful condition in which many families are living on Indian reservations.

That is fine. You can take the photographs down. Thank you

very much.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

Act, section 184, Indian Housing Loan Programs, the Guarantee

Programs, we want to hear testimony today about these programs.

I come to this issue, as I do on the issue of Indian health care.

There are no front page stories these days about these conditions,

but my guess is if some of the reporters of the major daily newspapers might walk into a few of these homes and see a small three
3

bedroom home with 23 people living in it; in some cases no plumbing, no electricity, under deplorable circumstances, perhaps they,

too, would receive a front page story, and they, too, would receive

the public attention that is necessary to try to find a way to resolve

these housing issues and the housing crisis that exists on many Indian reservations.

Senator Tester.

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MONTANA

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have laid

it out very, very well.

As we have traveled around through Indian country in Montana,

I have become aware of many needs, sometimes overwhelming in

nature. Health care and water and housing I would say are the top

three. When you take a look at the unemployment rates in Indian

country, in Montana in particular and throughout this country, I

think that we quite possibly could eliminate two problems at once

with housing and putting people to work in Indian country.

I very, very, very much look forward to the testimony today. I

look forward to hearing what you fellows have to say. I think the

key is for all issues that have come before this Committee in Indian country is working together and finding solutions because we

are making a big mistake if we don’t.

So I look forward to your testimony, and I look forward to finding

ways that we can make these programs work to the best ability to

satisfy the needs in Indian country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much.

We are talking about reauthorizing some Indian housing programs in this Congress. We, of course, will also talk about the

funding issues, because there has been no growth and in some

cases there is less funding than there was 6 years ago for these

programs.

Senator Thomas, the vice chairman of this committee, is attending an important Finance Committee meeting, so he is not able to

be with us this morning, but he wanted me to mention that, and

mention his interest in the Indian housing issues.

We are joined today by Orlando Cabrera, the assistant secretary

of the Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing

and Urban Development; and Dr. Jon Perez, the director of Behavioral Health at the Indian Health Service.

Following the testimony of these two distinguished witnesses, we

will have a second panel with four witnesses. Let me welcome Mr.

Cabrera. Thank you for being with us again. Your entire statement

will be made a part of the record, and we would ask that you summarize. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ORLANDO J. CABRERA, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING,

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

ACCOMPANIED BY RODGER BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you.
4

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to provide comments on HUD’s Indian Housing Loan

Guarantee and Community Development Programs. My name, for

the record, is Orlando Cabrera and I am assistant secretary for

Public and Indian Housing at the Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

PIH is responsible for the management, operation and oversight

of HUD’s Native American and Native Hawaiian programs. These

programs are available to 561 federally recognized Indian tribes,

five State-recognized Indian tribes formally eligible under the

Housing Act of 1937, and the State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

We serve these entities directly and through their tribally designated housing entities by providing grants and loan guarantees

designed to support affordable housing and community development activities. Our partners are diverse. They are located on Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, and on Hawaiian

Home Lands.

It is a pleasure to appear before you again, and I would like to

express my appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the

housing conditions of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native

Hawaiian people.

From HUD’s perspective, much progress has been made. Native

Americans and Native Hawaiians are taking advantage of new opportunities to improve the housing conditions of the American Indian families residing on reservations, on trust or restricted lands,

in Alaska Native villages, and on Hawaiian home lands. This momentum needs to be sustained as we continue to work together toward creating a better living environment in Native American communities.

One way to sustain momentum is through the reauthorization of

all Native American and Native Hawaiian housing and loan guarantee programs. The department supports the reauthorization of

those programs and is examining a number of statutory amendments to NAHASDA that may be offered during the reauthorization process.

Here is a brief over view of the amendments the department if

considering. First, we would suggest amending section 201(b)(2) to

allow essentially over-income families to occupy rental housing and

receive tenant-based rental assistance in some circumstances. Currently, certain over-income non-Indian families may be declared essential to the tribal community, while Native American over-income families are not provided that benefit. We believe that those

folks would benefit from curing that exception.

We would recommend or suggest recommending amending section 201(b)(3) so that essential Native American families can also

be housed in those units regardless of income, mostly because the

idea would be if they are providing an essential service, we should

be encouraging Native American families to live in those units.

We would suggest amending section 205 to delete the requirement of what has come to be called useful life and binding commitments for home ownership units and make the provision applicable

only in the case of rental and lease-purchase housing that is owned

or operated by a grant recipient. Current restrictions have some-
5

times prevented the children or spouses of a deceased home buyer

from inheriting the deceased’s interest in the property.

This particular provision comes imported from the Home Investment Partnership Program. One of the problems in a home ownership context is that families, or the estates of people, are being deprived of full value of the home simply because they accepted moneys from these programs. Trying to give them relief, we believe,

would both encourage the value to be kept in the home for the family and encourage those homes to be used by Native Americans.

We would suggest amending section 302 of the Indian Housing

Block Grant allocation formula and stop counting units for FCAS

purposes in the year after they are conveyed, demolished or disposed. This issue came up during the Fort Peck litigation, Mr.

Chairman, that you might recall from last year.

This change would comport with the process established by the

original negotiated rulemaking committee that crafted the Indian

Housing Block Grant regulations. The real issue here is preventing

the allocation of Indian Housing Block Grant money to units that

no longer exist in FCAS.

So we would suggest amending title IV of NAHASDA to clarify

that issues related to the repayment of the Indian Housing Block

Grant and FCAS allocations do not constitute, in and of themselves, substantial noncompliance by grantees. Substantial noncompliance by a grantee triggers a formal administrative hearing

on this issue.

We would suggest amending section 2024, the housing services

component, to clarify that grantees may use IHBG funds for the

maintenance and operation of units developed with IHBG moneys.

Currently, this is considered a model activity, and not an activity

in the ordinary course. The amendment would reduce the paperwork for grantees and for HUD staff.

More importantly, it comports with our mission to make things

more simple, not more complicated when trying to deal with allocating rent money.

We would suggest amending section 102 to simplify and streamline the Indian housing plan submissions requirements by deleting

the 5-year plan requirement, streamlining the one year plan to

eliminate duplicative information, and establish the Indian housing

plan due dates based on the grantee’s program year.

All of this, again, has to do with simplicity and just making it

more workable for tribally designated housing entities to do their

best work. We would suggest amending section 404 to delete the

requirement for a grantee to describe how it would change its program as a result of it’s experiences. We believe most TDHEs find

that to be somewhat of an exercise in redundancy.

Most grantees do not think this information is necessary. A second amendment to the section conforms the APR to reflect any IHP

changes that are made.

We would suggest amending the Section 184(a) Program, authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 in

two ways. We would suggest amending the Act to allow refinancing, and that would give people the ability to borrow or tribes the

ability to borrow money and make it available for refinancing, and

we would amend the act to remove the requirement that the an-
6

nual Native Hawaiian housing plan must include loan guarantee

activity.

A second way to sustain momentum is to continue building upon

current program successes. During fiscal year 2006, tribes and

their TDHEs used the Indian Housing Block Grant funds to build,

acquire or rehabilitate more than 1,600 rental units and more than

6,000 home ownership units. Each of these units has become a

home to a Native American family.

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs has continued to develop more robust performance indicators to measure our progress

and the progress of rent recipients.

At the same time, we are seeking to strengthen data collection

capability to improve reporting and ensure that we can understand

and communicate the rate of program fund obligations, expenditures and production. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

has focused a significant amount of Native Hawaiian Housing

Block Grant resources on the site and infrastructure improvements

to support the development of new home ownership units.

DHHL has also partnered with public entities, private and nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to assist families in achieving

and maintaining home ownership. There are numerous affordable

housing activities in process at more than 14 sites throughout the

State of Hawaii.

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs has continued to develop more robust performance indicators to measure our progress

and the progress of the recipients. At the same time, we are seeking to strengthen data collection capacity to improve reporting and

ensure that we understand and communicate the rate of those

changes.

A third way to sustain and strengthen momentum is to build on

HUD’s success in capital markets. HUD’s goal is to utilize PIH’s

Native American programs as catalysts for economic development

and to contribute to building sustainable economies within Native

American communities. ONAP’s success with the 184 Loan Guarantee Program has greatly increased the incidence of home ownership in Indian country. Expanding the use of title VI and the creation of bond financing programs will greatly assist in accessing

capital markets and building sustainable economies.

Home ownership and the ability to build equity in one’s home is

an important component in development of strong tribal communities. In fiscal year 2006, the section 184 Loan Guarantee Program guaranteed 1,138 single family loans to Native American

home buyers, which represents a $190 million investment in Indian

country. To date in this fiscal year, 470 loans have already been

guaranteed for $77.5 million. This represents an 80-percent increase in the number of loans guaranteed when compared to fiscal

year 2005 program activity, and a 90-percent increase in the dollars invested.

Fiscal year 2007 first quarter totals represent a 49-percent increase in dollar volume over the same period in fiscal year 2006.

In title VI, the real objective is to leverage. We would like to see

this program increase its capacity to leverage IHBG funds on a 5

to 1 ratio. So that would mean for every dollar of IHBG funds, we

would be raising $5 in the private market.
7

This means a tribe can increase its capacity to develop affordable

housing beyond its annual IHBG grant proposal. In fiscal year

2006, 13 loans were either guaranteed or obligated for a total of

$13,185,279, or $1,616,000 in subsidy. For fiscal year 2007, tribes

and TDHEs have 14 projects for about $16,400,000 in process.

Even with this historically high program activity, the program is

under-utilized by tribes. One of the very key ways that title VI can

be used, Mr. Chairman, is by using title VI to enhance infrastructure. We are trying to encourage tribes to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cabrera, I will have to ask that you summarize the remainder of your statement.

Mr. CABRERA. I shall.

I will actually conclude, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, and I

stand ready to answer any questions you might have.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will hear from Dr. Perez from the Indian Health Service. Dr. Perez, you in fact attended a hearing that

I held in Bismarck, ND, a hearing of this committee on the subject

of teen suicide. We appreciate very much your being there that

day, and appreciate your work on that.

You are here today to talk about housing issues. Dr. Perez, thank

you for joining us. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. JON PEREZ, DIRECTOR OF BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My full written remarks will be on the record, I trust.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Mr. PEREZ. I will make this short then.

Good morning. I am Dr. Jon Perez, the National Behavioral

Health Consultant with the Indian Health Service. I am here today

to provide testimony on behalf of the Indian Health Service for this

committee’s oversight hearing on Indian housing.

I understand I am not so much to provide data on housing as to

provide context for this issue and offer some psychological perspective about what it means to live or not live in a home of one’s

choice, and to discuss the impact on individuals and families if they

have no choice, substandard choices, or no home at all.

The compact edition, Oxford English Dictionary, devotes almost

three full pages to the word home. It is one of those big words with

important and manifold meaning and much import. For our purposes today, however, allow me to focus on just one, which defines

home as the place of one’s dwelling or nurturing, with conditions,

circumstances and meanings which naturally and properly attach

to it and are associated with it.

Psychologically, we speak of these conditions and circumstances

as providing four basic things: Safety, security, nurturance, and

respite. It is that physical place and psychological space that is

among the most basic of our human needs and the most important

to our healthy development.

In plain English, it is the essential place where the person or

family lives and is safe.

In Indian communities across the country where housing is difficult to obtain or where waiting lists are long, individuals and
8

families tend to end up in multi-family and multi-generational

housing arrangements, or in a series of such places and arrangements.

The transient or frequently changing living arrangements are the

most difficult for children whose stability and subsequent development can be negatively affected by such moves. Even in the large

extended family and clan relationships where three is generally

easy movement among homes and families, the critical psychological process that is operative here is one of choice. That is, if

people move of their own volition among family relationships, that

I would advocate is a strength of the culture and community.

However, if people are compelled to live this way because they

have no other alternative, that is another and more troubling situation.

Being forced to live in a place even among family where one does

not want to live or may not even be welcome creates an environment where increased levels of anger, conflict and individual and

familial distress are seen. Safety can be reduced, respite limited if

not completely lost, and nurturance subordinated to tolerance or

simply making it through the day.

Because IHS does not specify living arrangements with our clinical documentation software, I do not have levels of homelessness

or people forced to live in alternative housing arrangements among

our patient population. However, in my over 20 years of direct clinical experience with Native people from isolated communities to

major metropolitan areas, I believe I can safely draw the following

clinical opinion.

Where people are not able to obtain housing, they are unable to

create that definition of home, nor enjoy the benefits of such a

place. In fact, the levels of distress and dysfunction increase markedly and can extend into multiple generations.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be

honored to answer any questions you or the committee may have.

[Prepared statement of Dr. Perez appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Perez, thank you very much. That is a different perspective, but an important one on the issue of housing

and its impact on health and mental health. We appreciate your

being here.

Mr. Cabrera, first of all, thank you for your testimony. We will

certainly consider that as we put together reauthorization bills. I

am determined to try to move reauthorization bills and the one

thing that we will do is we certainly will consider the recommendations you have offered, but one of the experiences of this committee

has been in recent years that sometimes agencies offer ideas and

recommendations, and we may not include all of them in the authorization bill, and then the bill gets held up and so on. I am determined to move these pieces of legislation.

We will consult with you; get your best ideas; use those best

ideas. We will put together our legislation. You have a chance to

tell us what you think is wrong with it, and then we are going to

move it. I am not going to hold up legislation because some agency

decides that they don’t like it much. We are going to exercise the

prerogative of the Congress to move.
9

I say that because I have had a discussion with the Justice Department in here just within the last couple of weeks on this subject. But your consultation is important to us. Your statement

today I think gives us some good thoughts about how to proceed,

and we will certainly consider them valuable and work with you.

We appreciate your being here today and offering that kind of cooperation.

You saw the pictures I used at the start of this hearing. You

probably could make the point that you can find pictures like that

in areas outside of Indian reservations. I admit that is the case,

but I think it is acknowledged by almost everyone that this is a

much more acute problem in Indian country on Indian reservations

than in other parts of America.

Would you agree that it is the case that there is such a builtup need and so few resources relative to the need that we are incrementally moving along, but not really making as much progress

as we would like, at least not as much as I would like. Tell me

what you feel about the progress we are making.

Mr. CABRERA. I think the progress is very much incremental. I

would agree with that. I think one of the struggles in my visits to

Indian country is an uneven sense within TDHEs as to how to fully

utilize programs. One of the things that I have found in Indian

country is I can go to a reservation and folks are pretty fully utilizing 184, title VI, and their grant funds. And in other places, and

I have had this experience recently, folks might not even know that

184 exists, or even if they do know it exists, not know how to use

it to its full capacity.

I think one of the things we have been trying to do, and certainly

have been trying to do while I have been assistant secretary, is to

make sure we reach out in every available forum to make sure that

folks know the full breadth of how to use those programs.

The CHAIRMAN. Can I ask, even if the programs are fully utilized

at their appropriated level, isn’t it the case, though, that we still

fall far short? My understanding is that in 2006, tribes and tribal

authorities built, acquired or rehabilitated about 1,600 rental units

and 6,000 home ownership units, 7,600 homes. It seems to me that

that is not a big dent in what is needed. I don’t know what would

have been done had the funds been fully utilized, but my guess is

that we are still far short of doing what we should do to move aggressively to make a big dent in this problem.

Mr. CABRERA. I think that one of the things that can help move

things forward is to address those places where there are impediments to the use of other funds. One struggle I think that exists

with a lot of TDHEs that are looking for new modalities in providing housing is that they keep running up against places inside either Federal regulation or Federal law, outside of NAHASDA, that

impedes their use of the funds.

A second one is cultural. In many places, for example, the preferred modality of living, of having a home, is to own it, which is

fine; that is great. But in some places, the one that makes more

economic sense is to create rental housing, but the rental housing

culturally is not something that a particular tribe might want. So

there are places where I think we would need to address that issue

more forcefully.
10

Finally, one of the things that we have been trying to do, and it

is really an offer of availability more than anything else, but recently we reached out to all 561 TDHEs and we are trying to

marry a convenient resource with something that exists right now,

which was we have FEMA trailers and we are telling all of Indian

country we have them, they are available, would you like them.

That is something we have been trying to focus on.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume the dream of home ownership is the

same dream with the first Americans or Native Americans as it is

for all Americans. About two-thirds of all Americans, at least the

data I have, the national average of home ownership is about 67

percent, two-thirds of the American population. On Indian reservations, it is one-third.

So that is obviously a dream deferred on Indian reservations.

What is the result of that big gap, or what causes that?

Mr. CABRERA. I think in one respect, one of the things that has

been causing that is, frankly, legal. I think we have solved a good

chunk of that recently with the MOU that we have with the BIA.

The CHAIRMAN. Don’t you think it is money?

Mr. CABRERA. I don’t think it is just money. I think a lot of it

has to do with——

The CHAIRMAN. Mostly money?

Mr. CABRERA. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that money is

part of it. I am not going to say that, but I can’t give a conclusion

as to what it is mostly because it is also the fact that the way that

housing gets done in Indian country is remarkably different, or it

can be, than the rest of the country, mostly because it is on trust

land or allotted land. And so now that we have an MOU that allows for those homes to essentially become part of the marketplace,

that incidence of home ownership is actually going up. Just 4 or

5 years ago, in the 184 Program, I think we underwrote, as I recall,

and I am happy to be corrected on this, but I think it was 65

homes. We are up to 1,700 homes in the last couple of years.

The CHAIRMAN. But I think it is the case when you have onethird of the Native Americans owning their homes, and two-thirds

of the American people on average, it is the case that Native Americans are being left behind here. So the question is what kind of

goals can we establish to move up aggressively that home ownership rate?

Mr. Perez makes the point that home ownership is an integral

part of health issues. I assume, Dr. Perez, you look at these examples of shacks that are being lived in without running water, without electricity, that has serious health consequences.

Mr. PEREZ. Yes; it certainly does.

The CHAIRMAN. Stories of a young child living in a three bedroom

home with 23 or 24 people in the home. I assume that has consequences for that child’s mental health, has consequences for how

much homework that child does at home. Is that correct?

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir; it does.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester?

Senator TESTER. I am going to focus most of my questions to Mr.

Cabrera. That does not diminish the statements you made at all,

Dr. Perez. I think that the points you made about mental health
11

and physical health are critically important when it comes to good

living conditions.

I want to focus a little bit on the 184 dollars. How is that money

made available? That is the loan guarantee money, correct?

Mr. CABRERA. Loan guarantee program, and so essentially what

it does is it creates the liquidity available in the marketplace, in

the mortgage-backed security world, to make that a fungible asset

where it wasn’t capable of being one before.

Senator TESTER. Through the banking industry?

Mr. CABRERA. Correct.

Senator TESTER. Where are the 184 dollars used? Throughout the

United States?

Mr. CABRERA. They are used throughout the United States.

Senator TESTER. And it is specific to housing on Native American

country? Right?

Mr. CABRERA. Not just. You can use the 184 Program off-reservation as well. It is available to anyone who is part of a tribe.

Senator TESTER. When we are talking about in Indian country

itself, is it used for land purchases, as well as the house? Or pretty

much specifically to the building itself?

Mr. CABRERA. No; it is used for any number of things. It can be

used for home equity. It can be used for the purchase of a home

and for the construction of one. It can be used for a variety of

things beyond just a single family home purchase.

It has a very broad application. The only thing it can’t be used

for that we suggested today is for refinancing, which we would recommend that it be used for refinancing.

Senator TESTER. But it is for housing exclusively. It is not for

businesses. It is not for infrastructure as far as sewers, water, and

that kind of stuff. It is for housing.

Mr. CABRERA. Correct. Title VI is for infrastructure and for other

uses.

Senator TESTER. Okay. And you said in 2006, $190 million was

spent, or made available?

Mr. CABRERA. Guaranteed.

Senator TESTER. That $190 million was guaranteed. What was

available in 2006? Did that use the entire appropriation?

Mr. CABRERA. It did not use the entire appropriation as I recall.

It would not be the appropriation, it would be the amount of authorized guarantee.

Senator TESTER. Okay. I am hesitant to bring out my figures, because I was just penciling them out here with a pencil, and there

is about six more zeroes in these figures than I am used to dealing

with. My calculator doesn’t go up that high.

But if my math is correct, $190 million, if you round it to 1,200

households in 2006, that is right at $160,000 a house. Does that

seem reasonable?

Mr. CABRERA. It depends upon where you are buying the house.

I mean, remember that these are places that that is an average.

It could be much higher than that. The issue for the 184 Program

is who is the ultimate user. It is not just a member of a federally

recognized Indian tribe, but it is also the tribe itself.

Senator TESTER. Okay. I am a bit confused, and I know houses

up here on the Hill run $500,000 and up. Houses where I come
12

from, you can buy a pretty doggone good house for $50,000 or

$60,000. I don’t know where this is. Where is this located?

The CHAIRMAN. That is Apache, New Mexico.

Senator TESTER. Compared to this, it is a giant leap. But I am

curious is if the money is really getting to the housing. That is

really my question, at $160,000 a pop.

Now, I have to tell you I am a dry land dirt farmer from North

Central Montana, where land sells for $700 an acre. And I don’t

want to say that have everybody rush to North Central Montana

and buy land because it doesn’t rain there and the wind blows a

lot, so it is not a good place to go, but it is a great place to farm

and live.

But my concern here, quite frankly, is that $160,000 a house,

when we are not talking about building mansions. We are talking

about building something that people can live in. It is not like they

have a hot tub in the back and all that stuff. Do you guys do accountability to make sure that this money is actually making it to

the ground for the Native American folks who need the housing,

because I think it is critically important.

Mr. CABRERA. Yes; it would have to be. These are loan guarantees going to people who are served by NAHASDA. I think, Senator, we can provide you the data you would want in terms of what

the price ranges are in different parts of the country. But real estate, as you know, because I think you are a pretty sophisticated

dry dirt farmer, that varies all over the country. So if you are in,

for example, Washington, you might have a higher per unit cost

than you would, let’s say, in Nevada.

So we can provide that to you. We will be happy to do that.

Senator TESTER. That would be good to know because the areas

that I am used to visiting in Montana, and that is all I can refer

to, $160,000 is a lot of money.

Mr. CABRERA. In the Northeast, though, where we have a lot of

tribes, $160,000 is not. It actually is a challenge. And so the good

news is the 184 Program is pretty flexible, so there is a wide variety of values.

Senator TESTER. I will just close by saying that I agree with the

chairman’s remarks that I think we need to invest more money in

this program. But one of the things that really has amazed me as

I become more and more involved at the Federal Government is we

spend a lot of money on, for instance, I will give you an interesting

example, and this is a little off-topic, so forgive me, Mr. Chairman.

There is a $300,000-study going on in Montana right now on a

dirt project. You could buy all the land around it for $300,000.

They are going to study it for $300,000. And $160,000 is still a lot

of money in my book, and I can tell you in Montana, when they

are moving houses off of Malmstrom Air Force Base to the Rocky

Boy Indian Reservation, that is not $160,000 project.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you. You raise some excellent points. We have been involved with Walking Shield and other

programs that move duplexes off of air bases that are going to receive new housing. Those duplexes, old, smaller duplexes are put

on some foundations out on Indian reservations. I think what we

will do is have the staff of the committee work with Mr. Cabrera
13

and others to try to come up with some ideas about what the average cost is to create housing units and so on.

I wanted to ask Dr. Perez, we have been concerned a lot about

children, especially, with this committee. I mentioned teen suicide,

but violence and substance abuse and other issues. Can you describe circumstances in which housing affects children’s mental

health, and the incidence of violence and abuse with children? Is

there a connection?

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. It goes back to the choices that I was talking

about. When you have limited housing options, generally what happens is you fall back on family. There are very strong traditions for

family support, as you have described in some of the photos, and

that we deal with on a daily basis; strong clans, strong extended

family relationships.

What you have also described and what we have heard today is

that you can have multiple families in one place at one time, and

under the best of conditions, you are going to have problems. Now,

when you are talking about violence and substance abuse, those

sorts of things, if it is in that home and it is not part of what that

family or that section of the family would otherwise want to be

part of or close to, but you can’t go anyplace else, certainly you are

stuck there, and certainly you are going to be in a place for it to

continue to take place, to not have that safety, to not have that respite, to not have that place to get away from it otherwise, of course

it is going to continue.

I think for me as a clinician, it adds to that calculus of despair,

if you are talking about the poverty of possibility. It identifies itself

in different ways, whether it is housing, whether it is education,

whether it is family, whether it is substance abuse.

I look at housing clinically as one of those variables, one of those

factors that negatively affects so many of our people.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Perez, thank you very much.

Shelter is indeed one of the basics of life. Frankly, in this area,

I think we are not doing such a good job. I am concerned about it

and we are going to try to pass the reauthorization bills that are

necessary to find the resources to improve on what we have done.

We will be interested in continuing to consult with both of you.

Mr. Cabrera, thank you for being here. And Dr. Perez, thank you

for being here.

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will call up the next panel.

The next panel of witnesses will be John Yellow Bird Steele, who

is the president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota; George

Rivera, Governor of the Pueblo of the Pojoaque Tribe in New Mexico; Michael Cook, the secretary of the National American Indian

Housing Council; and Juel Burnette, the retail supervisor and program director, Native American Housing Initiatives at Wells Fargo.

I thank all of you for being here. Mr. Yellow Bird, you were at

a listening session I held in Minneapolis, MN a couple of months

ago. We appreciate your being here again. We will begin with you.

I would ask all of you to summarize, if you would, the testimony

that you will offer. Your entire statements will be a part of the permanent record.
14

Mr. Yellow Bird, thank you for traveling to Washington, DC to

be with us. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN YELLOW BIRD STEELE, PRESIDENT,

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL

Mr. STEELE. Thank you, Senator Dorgan, for inviting me. I would

like to thank all of the other witnesses. I believe that their testimony is very excellent and needed here.

From the perspective of, and you know the conditions back home,

Senator Dorgan, being from Montana—I mean North Dakota—but

I would say that I have a Code Talker on Pine Ridge. You should

see his living conditions in Wanblee. You, the Senate, did consider

a bill to honor the other Code Talkers in the Navajos, and he just

was in my office I believe the day before yesterday. He wanted a

little financial assistance. He was living with someone else, and

now he wants to go back to his home, which was very unlivable

during the winter, but he is going back there this summer, to those

conditions.

I would like to say that the 184 Program that was testified on

here today, I don’t think we have one participant from Pine Ridge,

and I would believe, Senator, that from the price of those houses,

that Montana doesn’t have any participating in that program either. The people are unaware of the details of it. They are unaware

of how to access it. I don’t think they can find a bank to go with

them to do the guaranteed program part of it. This is something

we need to work on.

And to answer your other questions about do the people want to

live like the rest of America, yes. You know that no matter what

their housing conditions, they have a TV. And they see the way

America lives every day. And they just want to live like the rest

of America.

Senators, this is why when we as responsible for their welfare

and running the Government come up here, we always holler about

our treaties. This establishes the relationship we have with the

Federal Government, and the different laws that have been passed

by the U.S. Congress dealing with the Indians. In 1877 when they

first established the reservations, and killed all the buffalo, they

promised to aid the individual Indian and tribes in whatever to see

that they were civilized and were able to live like the rest of America.

We still have what is called a commodity program in USDA, but

that doesn’t address, and we see it and we interpret that 1877 Act

as having responsibility also for housing, because of the hides of

the buffalo. These were our homes that were taken away in the

past. The Federal Government has an obligation to aid the individual Indian in the housing area.

Now, the way I personally see this, Senators, is that I have a

term for it. I call it inherent Federal neglect, whereby through

most of the 1900’s, all the Federal departments had nothing to do

with it, a very large land base in the middle of the United States

called the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. They

said that was Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs

responsibility.
15

I don’t fault them, because of the scope of the responsibilities

that they had, but the infrastructure isn’t there for economic development to happen. The tribes in the past few decades have been

working on this infrastructure, very much, very hard, so that economic development with private entrepreneurs and turning over

that dollar can happen. We worked on our water, yes. We got help

from the Senate. We thank you very much for that. We just took

over the responsibility of roads here about 4 years ago from the

BIA. They patterned our roads different. I mean wrong. And they

are sending our dollars directly off-reservation. It is easier to get

goods and services off-reservation.

You can’t turn over that dollar in our communities, which is economic development in our local areas. We worked on communications. We got cell towers up. Solid waste, we got a system because

we are a very large reservation with a lot of people, and we had

to come up with our own system and disposal according to EPA

standards.

Housing and health care are very hard to address. Housing is so

great in magnitude that you don’t want to work with the Housing

Authority back home, because every day you are inundated with

requests from individual people like the Senator mentioned some

of them here, but each and every one of them.

And the living conditions, Senators, is as you described them. I

give you Senators my two daughters’ living conditions, and that is

just from my private family. This is just about with every family.

And last night, my eight grandchildren, and mother and father,

lived, slept in this donated home from Michigan, Grand Haven,

Michigan. You know how they pull out those rooms that makes an

extended living room? Well, that wasn’t there, and it was just an

open space of about 15 feet.

My son-in-law, with scrounged-up materials from his Grandpa

Joe White Hawk and myself, built that wall in there. The furnace

doesn’t work, I said. They installed their own wood stove with the

chimney going out of one of the windows. That is their only heat.

It is an outside outhouse, and it is not a good constructed outhouse.

It is put together with materials that they found in different places

also.

And I have another daughter living in a trailer donated out of

Denver. And it is with these two inch walls, and people weren’t living in it down there because different States have upgraded their

codes for mobile homes. They have to get rid of them and it costs

them to take them to the dump, so they give them to the reservation and we get some monies here and there to get them dragged

back to the reservation.

But these living conditions are just such that they watch the TV,

my two daughters, both don’t have TVs. Well, they have TVs, but

they can only see the videos on them. They can’t get reception with

an antenna because of the location of their homes so far into a

rural area. But the roads to their homes wrecks their cars, and the

poverty that exists prevents them from taking part.

Secretary Cuomo during the Clinton Administration, I met with

him. And he said, John, let’s do 200 homes on Pine Ridge this year.

And he was so enthusiastic, he thought it was just that we could

go down there and do them. When we got there, he did some job
16

fairs in several parts of the reservation. And to date, after several,

several, several years, that program has developed into what we

call the Partnership for Housing. And the 200 homes, after all of

it he wanted to do in 1 year, after all of these several years, only

has 70 people that it has served. And that is because of the poverty. People are not able to get a mortgage like the rest of America.

And this is for several reasons. One of the main reasons is Indian Health Service. They sent my mother up to Rapid City for an

MRI x-ray. She has a bill for $6,000 she can’t pay because she is

just on SSI and a little bit of Social Security. Her monthly expenses

are just with that. She can’t pay that and she has a bad credit rating. Now, this applies to a lot of the people back home.

She went up in good faith because they had made the appointment. They sent her up. It was her back. And then they don’t pay.

And so a lot of this bad credit, people can’t take care of. And a lot

of people just don’t have a credit rating at all, because they haven’t

been able to get a loan anywhere. They don’t have any kind of relationships with financial institutions to get a credit rating.

The CHAIRMAN. President Steele, I want to interrupt you just for

1 moment, because I want to get to hear the other witnesses as

well before we ask questions.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Your two daughters live in these trailer homes.

Do either of the homes have indoor plumbing?

Mr. STEELE. No; they don’t even have running water near their

homes. They haul water.

The CHAIRMAN. And they use a wood stove?

Mr. STEELE. A wood stove, yes, that was just for heat and then

they have——

The CHAIRMAN. How many people live in the trailer? There are

two trailers. How many people live in them?

Mr. STEELE. Two trailers. One daughter and her husband have

eight children. My other daughter has three children, and is expecting another one in another couple of months.

The CHAIRMAN. So you have 11, soon to be 12 grandchildren living in homes without running water, without indoor toilets.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think, in your describing the circumstance of contract health care, which is another issue, and the

ruining of credit ratings for people. So I appreciate it. Your testimony is more direct and more gripping on this subject because you

and your family live it. Your willingness to come and speak on behalf of our tribe is very much appreciated. We appreciate that a lot.

We would like to ask you some questions, if you could hold. Do

you want to make a last comment before I turn to Mr. Rivera?

Mr. STEELE. I would just like to thank you, Senator, for holding

this hearing.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Steele appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. It is not easy for you to come here and speak

publicly of these circumstances, but doing so I hope will help your

family and others as well. You as president of the Oglala Sioux

Tribe I know have a great passion to try to improve things for the

members of your tribe. You are great to come here and it will make

a difference.
17

Mr. STEELE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivera is the Governor of the Pueblo of

Pojoaque, NM. That is a small tribe in New Mexico. You are going

to talk about how you have used NAHASDA funding. Thank you

very much, Governor.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RIVERA, GOVERNOR, PUEBLO

OF POJOAQUE, SANTA FE, NM

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester. Thank

you for having me here today. I also have with our Housing Director, Alan Martinez and our attorney, Frank Demolli. We have submitted a written statement. We wanted to come here today to support the reauthorization of NAHASDA and talk about the Pueblo

of Pojoaque and how we have used it, and some of the recommended changes that would make NAHASDA better.

First of all, the Pueblo of Pojoaque is a very small Pueblo in

Northern New Mexico. We are about 374 tribal members. We have

a long history and heritage in building and in housing. In fact, the

Santa Fe area and the whole Southwest has become famous based

on Pueblo housing and the architectural style there.

We do have a construction company that works on our own buildings, our traditional buildings, as well as our housing projects. We

have been able to utilize our construction company to help us implement our new housing projects with NAHASDA funding, plus

State funding, with Federal funding and private institutions.

Good morning, Senator.

We are here today to present to you a couple of ways that

NAHASDA funding formulas can grow with the new structures of

alternative housing. I think some of them were mentioned by the

earlier presenter, but we have run into some roadblocks. Recently,

we built 50 homes in the last 7 years. As I said, we are a small

tribe, so that is not a big number, but it is a fair number of homes

for our size.

Phase 1 was 30 homes and then 20 homes. And one of the conflicts that we ran into is that the way that NAHASDA is written,

it doesn’t allow IHS to match NAHASDA in a way that the tribes

can really maximize both of those. So I think language that makes

NAHASDA more flexible in terms of matching and working with

other Federal entities, as opposed to it becoming a penalty, and

then us not even being able to use NAHASDA.

In our second phase, we didn’t use NAHASDA for that reason because the IHS money was a larger pot of money and it would be

more beneficial, but what it did do is to take away from the whole

project. We weren’t able to use NAHASDA so we weren’t able to

complete all of the infrastructure.

I think when we talk about construction of new homes and we

do have infrastructure to consider, so although the prices of our

homes are up at over $100,000 per unit, that also includes water,

sewer and all the other utilities that need to be brought into the

area, including paved roads. We have also leveraged the BIA funding to pave our roads.

Really, what we are looking for is some formulas in NAHASDA

that can help the Pueblo to better balance against the other Federal, State, and private funding, so that the tribe can benefit from
18

it the most. We look forward to working with you and your staff

on coming up with some language to do that.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rivera appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Governor, we will be interested in talking

to you further about your experience as we put together this reauthorization bill. The ability to remove impediments is really very

important as we try to increase the housing stock.

Your Senator has shown up, a member of this committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, and we have just heard from the

Governor, Senator.

Senator DOMENICI. First of all, I made a special effort, Mr. Chairman, because George Rivera is a distinguished leader of not only

of his tribe, his Pueblo, but throughout New Mexico, the Indian

people, they know when there is somebody that is a leader, and you

can feel it and see it. And he is one. I came to congratulate him

on what he has been able to do with the small amounts that this

bill permits.

Clearly, the key to it is when we draft a new bill is to not make

it more rigid, but to rather make it more loose in terms of what

you can put together in order to match and get more for your dollar. I know that is what you are interested in. I have heard you

say that, and I know these Governors are fully aware that that is

one of the big problems.

Thank you, Governor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici, thank you. Senator Domenici

and I held a listening session in Albuquerque, NM with some of the

tribal leaders and tribal members. Senator, that was a very informative time for me to have a chance to hear some of the leaders from

Indian tribes that I had not previously had a chance to meet. So

thank you very much.

Michael Cook was to be the next witness. My understanding is

that Paul Lumley is here in his stead. He had to cancel. Michael

is secretary of the National American Indian Housing Council. The

National American Indian Housing Council will be represented

today instead by Paul Lumley. Mr. Lumley, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF PAUL LUMLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL,

ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS DANIELS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR

Mr. LUMLEY. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan, Senator Tester,

and Senator Domenici. It is a great honor to be here this morning

to testify. I thank you for the invitation.

My name is Paul Lumley and I am the executive director of the

National American Indian Housing Council. I am also a citizen of

the Yakama Nation. Since 1974, the NAIHC has assisted tribes

with their self-determined goals of providing culturally relevant,

decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing on Indian reservations, in Indian communities and Alaska Native villages, and on

Native Hawaiian Home Lands.

It is an honor to appear before you today to provide our views

about the reauthorization of NAHASDA.
19

Built on the solid foundation of Indian self-determination law

and policy, NAHASDA was signed into law in 1996 and was enacted to recognize tribal authority to provide housing and related

infrastructure to their members in a way that maximizes tribal decisionmaking and flexibility in meeting their housing goals.

In launching NAHASDA, Congress made clear that it was acting

pursuant to the trust responsibility owed by the United States to

the Native people of this land. NAHASDA encourages tribes to administer their housing programs according to the unique and local

circumstances of each Indian tribe. It also enables greater tribal

participation in regulations through the negotiated rulemaking

process and spurred housing development through the leveraging of

Federal funds.

Congress also found that in meeting its trust responsibility, it

should recognize the right of Indian self-determination and tribal

self-governance by making assistance directly available to Indian

tribes. Without a doubt, self-determination was and continues to be

the hallmark of NAHASDA.

Ten years into NAHASDA now, we have seen the key element

of the law, the Indian Housing Block Grant, become the largest

source of housing capital in Indian country. Since fiscal year 1998,

over $5.7 billion in housing assistance has helped Indian families

make down payments on homes, make monthly rents, helped with

home rehabilitation and new construction. Prior to NAHASDA implementation, an estimated 2,000 units a year were being built;

6,000 units were built in NAHASDA’s first year alone. By all accounts, it has been a tremendous improvement over the previous

Federal housing statutes.

NAIHC is composed to 450 members and is the only national Indian organization representing Native housing interests. On a consensus and grassroots basis, NAIHC is proposing amendments to

the law. On behalf of our membership, we have been working with

committee staff on proposed amendments to the law. I would like

to highlight four of them.

First, in the area of Indian self-determination, clarity in the law

is needed on Housing and Urban Development’s oversight role. We

need uniform application of the law across the six regional offices.

Second, similarly, the NAIHC membership proposes that Congress respect tribal authority when it comes to determining the

minimum and maximum rents for NAHASDA-funded rental units.

They propose lifting the so-called 30 percent rule which prevents

tribal administrators from charging members more than 30 percent

of their annual income per month.

Third, members also ask that homes built with NAHASDA funds

be included as part of the current assisted stock. It makes no sense

to build homes with NAHASDA funds and then not allow them to

be maintained with the same funds.

Fourth and finally, infrastructure development needs to be directly addressed in the implementation of NAHASDA. For example,

tribes need to be able to provide the desperately needed sewage

systems before homes are built.

All in all, NAHASDA has been a major shift of Federal Indian

policy. It must further evolve to accommodate Indian country’s

growing population. NAHASDA confirmed what we knew in our
20

hearts, and what has been repeatedly made clear through research

such as that from the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development:

When tribes make their own decisions about what approaches to take, and what

resources to develop, they consistently out-perform non-tribal decisionmakers.

Robust housing programs, economic development and self-sufficiency are all great things to talk about, but to make all our efforts

bear fruit, tribes need adequate funding. Indian communities still

have among the poorest housing conditions in the Nation. We

therefore encourage the committee and Congress to seek additional

funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant.

The NAIHC estimates a need of $750 million to meet current Indian housing programs needs.

In the future, as Indian nations become more and more self-sufficient, the Federal Government’s assistance will not be as crucial,

but we are not there yet. We ask you to reauthorize NAHASDA

and to give us the flexibility to achieve our hopes of adequate housing of all America’s people.

Before I conclude, Mr. Dorgan, I do want to add a few personal

notes. I do want to thank you for being very aware of how housing

transcends many other areas of our lives. The need to improve

health and education, I have lived through those personally. I have

been homeless. I have lived in substandard housing. I have reached

and exceeded great odds to get to where I am today. I have lived

through those conditions.

So I have seen it first-hand. I know what it means to live in overcrowded housing.

I would also like to add that as a part of being the American

Dream, building personal home equity is very important. We have

seen from gaming enterprises, in a handful of communities, we

have seen equity being built. But in order to really achieve the

American Dream nationwide, the American people need to build

personal home equity. It will also add to the economic development

initiatives that we definitely want to work with you on.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lumley appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lumley, thank you very much.

Tell us where you grew up and what tribe you were affiliated

with?

Mr. LUMLEY. I was born and raised on the Yakama Reservation.

I also lived a short time on the Nisqually Reservation.

The CHAIRMAN. And the location of the Yakama Reservation?

Mr. LUMLEY. It is located in Washington State.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Finally, Juel Burnette, who is the rail supervisor and program

director of the Native American Housing Initiatives with Wells

Fargo.

Mr. Burnette, I appreciate your being here.

I want to say, too, that I will at some point have to depart. I am

scheduled to speak on the Floor of the Senate in just a bit. When

I do depart, Senator Tester has agreed to continue chairing the

hearing and inquiring of the witnesses. I certainly appreciate Sen-
21

ator Tester’s active participation on this committee and interest in

these issues.

In the meantime, Mr. Burnette, why don’t you proceed with your

testimony?

STATEMENT OF JUEL BURNETTE, RETAIL SUPERVISOR AND

PROGRAM DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING INITIATIVES, WELL FARGO

Mr. BURNETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester, and

committee members. Thank you for the invitation to testify before

the Committee on Indian Affairs regarding the various Indian

housing programs that fall under this committee’s jurisdiction. I

am honored to be here.

My name is Juel Burnette. I am the Native American lending

sales manager for Well Fargo Home Mortgage, based in Sioux

Falls, SD. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage has full-time mortgage consultants based in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and

South Dakota who work directly with Native American customers

on home loans across the United States.

For many years, Wells Fargo has been pleased to work with this

committee, as well as with individual members on various Federal

initiatives to improve the availability of credit for Native Americans. We look forward to a continued collaboration with Congress,

tribes and relevant organizations as Congress proceeds with the reauthorization of Indian housing programs.

Wells Fargo has been serving Native American tribes for more

than 50 years. Today, we provide capital and financial services to

more than 150 tribal nations across the United States. We have

been a leading home mortgage lender to tribal nations for more

than 25 years, and Wells Fargo was the first financial services

company to originate a home mortgage loan on tribal lands.

In 2005, we closed mortgage loans on 47 different reservations in

20 different States. We were also the first major national financial

services company to dedicate more than 10 professionals to serve

Native American and tribal nation housing needs. In 1991, we created Native American Banking Services, a specialty financial services group for tribal nations.

The role of this group is to develop non-gaming credit opportunities with tribal governments and middle market Native Americanowned companies. The group also supports tribal relationships and

underwrites the sovereign risk associated with all lending to tribal

nations and governments, both on taxable and tax-exempt loans.

I have appended a fact sheet summarizing our Wells Fargo programs tailored for use on tribal lands and to Native Americans. I

ask that it be made part of the committee’s hearing record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

[Referenced document appears in appendix.]

Mr. BURNETTE. Today, I would like to concentrate my remarks

on a few main issue areas: First on the viability of the HUD Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program; and second, concerns with the

Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Titles and Records Office.

As you know, the HUD Section 184 Program was created by the

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This program

offers a loan guarantee to private sector lenders such as Wells
22

Fargo Home Mortgage, who then make mortgage loans to eligible

borrowers for homes on Indian land, near reservations, and other

eligible areas.

In 2006, Wells Fargo’s Native American Lending Group originated 241 HUD 184 loans. This is an all time high for Wells Fargo

and leads all financial services companies. We strongly support reauthorization of the HUD 184 Program. We believe that the HUD

184 Program could be improved with addition of staff. Currently,

there are only two HUD Office of Native American Program underwriting staff members. While these two individuals do an outstanding job, we believe that additional staff would increase efficiency

and better accommodate for increased utilization of this program.

With regard to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Titles and

Records Office, a number of areas could be improved. We believe

that lenders, borrowers and others involved in the process would

greatly benefit from the development of a streamlined, consistent

policy for a timely processing and delivery of necessary documents.

Unfortunately, we have experienced a number of inconsistencies

with requests for documents such as recorded homesite leases and

certified title status reports. In fact, I have been working with the

Pacific Regional Office and the Southern California Agency for the

past three years on obtaining recorded mortgage documents and

the certified title status report. These delays are the most significant barrier to providing more home loans to Native Americans in

a State that has more tribal nations than any other State in the

country.

With these challenges, there are also successes within the Bureau of Indian Affairs that should be recognized. The work of Nila

Solaman and Brenda High Rock at the Great Plains Regional Office is exemplary. Their consistent, timely processing is an example

that should be followed throughout the agency. BIA agencies located at the local reservation level should be commended for their

efforts to facilitate processing of requests as well. The Northwest

Regional Office in Portland, OR and the Southwest Regional Office

in Albuquerque, NM have been helpful, particularly when receiving

requests from the local agencies.

The personnel at the regional offices do a lot of good work. However, consistent and streamlined processes would facilitate the

lending of more mortgages and greater utilization of these housing

programs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of the committee for the opportunity to present our views on

Federal Indian housing programs. In our view, a partnership

among all interested parties is critical for financial success on tribal lands. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you

may have. Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Burnette appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burnette, thank you very much.

I will have to leave momentarily, but President Steele, let me

ask you. How long have you been president of the Oglala Sioux

Tribe in South Dakota?

Mr. STEELE. Sir, I was 2 terms on the tribal council, 2 terms as

vice president, and 5 terms as president.
23

The CHAIRMAN. So you have been a part of the governing body

of that tribe for some long while.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask your perspective about the housing

situation on your reservation only. Is it getting better, substantially better, dramatically better? Or is it about the same?

Mr. STEELE. It is getting substantially worse. We have a very

much increased population. We have 1,700 HUD homes right now.

They haven’t been supplying the homes under NAHASDA that they

should, we think. Partnership for Housing supplied 70, as I said,

a new program that Secretary Cuomo tried to institute.

The housing situation, it is very hard to be in any of those areas

of the NAHASDA housing authority because of the need. People

are just so hard up for homes. It is really pitiful.

The BIA has zeroed out the home improvement program, [HIP]

which hurts us. They zeroed out their social services almost program, and they told me when I went over here at Washington that

we zeroed it out because we knew you would go to your Senators

and get it reinstated. This is not right. It goes to show that we

don’t need social services, when that is the most important program to us.

The burial insurance, the training program, tribal work experience program, their reasoning is out of line here in zeroing out

those programs, especially the HIP.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Steele, you heard the testimony of Assistant

Secretary of HUD, Mr. Cabrera. I think the testimony from the Administration here is that a lot of programs are working, making

some progress and so on. And yet you say the housing situation on

your reservation is getting worse, not better. How do you reconcile

that?

Mr. STEELE. I think that one of the things we have been trying

to address with the tribe in NAHASDA is their formula for allocating the monies. I have a whole county that they won’t count the

population. It is part of the reservation because of a 1910 criminal

court case in Martin, SD, they said it wasn’t part of the reservation. And so it has always been, since the reservation was first created, a part of it.

But because of that, the BIA says no and the Census Department

does not count all of those people in there. When I questioned

them, they said you can look at it as tribal members on trust property adjacent to the reservation. And they used the Census figures

in the allocation of that money, and it is not all of our people there.

But we do service them anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. First of all, thanks to the other three witnesses.

I regret I don’t have the time. I have to be over on the Floor of the

Senate right now. But thank you very much for appearing and contributing to this discussion that we are having as we start this

process of putting together the reauthorization bills, and think

through what we can do to try to light a fire under all the agencies

and the circumstances that need prodding to try to begin to make

some real improvements in this area.

Again, Senator Tester has indicated he will continue to chair to

the end of the hearing, and I am sure he has questions as well.

Senator Tester, thank you very much.
24

Senator TESTER. [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this committee on all the issues that are

important in Indian country. Give them heck on the Floor.

I will just continue a little bit with President Steele. You said

you have about 1,700 homes that are HUD homes currently.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Senator TESTER. Can you just give me a ballpark on what is the

total need out there for homes?

Mr. STEELE. I think somebody wrote my testimony and put 3,000

homes needed.

Senator TESTER. About 3,000.

Mr. STEELE. We need more than that, Senator. I need about

4,000 homes.

Senator TESTER. Is that over and above the 1,700?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Senator TESTER. Okay. And the black mold issue has been something you have been dealing with. How responsive has the BIA and

IHS been to that?

Mr. STEELE. There is no response from any Federal department,

sir.

Senator TESTER. None whatsoever? Okay.

I want to echo the chairman’s comments about the fact that you

bring a sense of reality to this issue. I appreciate your coming here

today.

Mr. STEELE. Thank you.

Senator TESTER. I have some questions for, hang on here for a

second, for Governor Rivera. First of all, have you been able to utilize the NAHASDA grant funding in your building programs?

Mr. RIVERA. Yes, Mr. Chairman; we have been able to use

NAHASDA and we leveraged it with other Federal, State, and private funding, banks basically.

Senator TESTER. Okay. And what, if any, difficulties have you encountered with NAHASDA?

Mr. RIVERA. In 2000, we did 30 homes, a $5.5-million construction project, and $36,000 a year from NAHASDA went toward this

project. The biggest problem was that when we went to go to the

second phase, it became almost like a penalty when we tried to use

NAHASDA again because we were looking at IHS, BIA, financial

institutions, the State tax credit programs, to put it all together,

and NAHASDA actually became a conflict with the Indian Health

Service funding that we use for infrastructure.

Senator TESTER. I got you.

Mr. RIVERA. So we chose to use Indian Health Service funding

because it was a higher dollar amount and the infrastructure was

needed.

Senator TESTER. So the $36,000 was NAHASDA funds per

house? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. RIVERA. No; that was for the whole project.

Senator TESTER. For the whole project.

Mr. RIVERA. Yes; for 30 homes.

Senator TESTER. Could you just give me, and this may be unfair

because I know you don’t have all these figures in your head, but

how much of that was NAHASDA of the $36,000?

Mr. RIVERA. The $36,000 was NAHASDA.
25

Senator TESTER. Oh, okay.

Mr. RIVERA. The $36,000 out of $5.5 million in the total housing project, and $36,000 is what NAHASDA put in.

Senator TESTER. Total?

Mr. RIVERA. Yes.

Senator TESTER. Okay. All right.

Mr. Lumley, once again thanks for being here. From your perspective, what are some of the major barriers in utilizing the Indian Housing Block Grant Program?

Mr. LUMLEY. The largest barrier is not necessarily related to the

act itself, but in terms of the funding level, which I have heard

from my members as being inadequate. So my member tribes have

been working to increase the funding level.

Senator TESTER. Okay.

Infrastructure is a huge issue in Indian country. Any recommendations there?

Mr. LUMLEY. I would take a regional approach to addressing infrastructure issues. Each region of the country is completely different. In some areas of the country you have problems with energy

and water. In other areas, you have problems with temperature,

great temperature swings. So each region has a completely different infrastructure issue.

Senator TESTER. Okay. Going back to block grants for a second. You said, and correct me if I am wrong, there was $750 million

that went out in block grants. I think that was correct. Is the demand significantly more than that? And how much more?

Mr. LUMLEY. Actually, I think we are recommending that it be $750 million. Right now, it is $627 million.

Senator TESTER. Okay. That is good. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Burnette, I want to first of all thank you very

much for the work that you and Wells Fargo have done in Indian

country. We have a few questions.

Wells Fargo has about 241 loans under the 184 Loan Guarantee

Program, is what I believe you said. Were all these loans for homes

built on tribal land?

Mr. BURNETTE. The 241 was what we did in 2006, Senator.

Senator TESTER. On tribal land?

Mr. BURNETTE. Yes; and we have had constant growth every year

as far as our program participation. Actually, what I said was this

is our greatest year to date.

Senator TESTER. Can you give me some of the barriers that Wells

Fargo has as far as providing those loans on tribal lands?

Mr. BURNETTE. Going back to answering your previous question,

a majority of those loans were done in the tribal service area, and

that is something that we really focus on. We don’t want to forget

what the program was really designed for, was those Native American families living on or within the service area of the reservation.

Senator TESTER. Right.

Mr. BURNETTE. As Mr. Cabrera alluded to earlier, the program

is allowed to be used outside of the service area in 20 or 21 different States. So I think South Dakota is the third leading State

as far as the number of 184 loans done per State. We have Oklahoma and Alaska that lead the way as far as number of loans done

in those States.
26

Senator TESTER. Let me run that back one more time, repeat

what you said. South Dakota is number one?

Mr. BURNETTE. South Dakota is number three. Oklahoma then

Alaska then South Dakota then California, I believe. I think Wisconsin is in there pretty close, too, as far as number of loans done

due to the 184 Program.

Senator TESTER. Just hang on here for a second.

President Steele, your tribe is in South Dakota, correct?

Mr. STEELE. Right.

Senator TESTER. Are there a lot of other Native American tribes

in South Dakota?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; nine of us.

Senator TESTER. There is nine of you? Okay.

Mr. STEELE. The service area is not on-reservation.

Senator TESTER. Got you. Okay. A point well taken. Okay.

What kind of barriers, Mr. Burnette, do you see as far as giving

loans in Indian country?

Mr. BURNETTE. The committee has touched on a few, infrastructure being a major one. The BIA, as I mentioned, is a huge obstacle

in some cases. In the Great Plains Region it is not, but throughout

the country, as I mentioned in my previous testimony, that we

have closed loans on 47 different reservations in 20 different

States. We work to try and partner with the BIA in many cases

when we are dealing with trust land. But infrastructure, as far as

the Native American population wanting to live out in an area of

their own lands, if you will, there is the cost to develop that area.

Senator TESTER. I want to touch on getting those documents

from the BIA for a second. Can you give me an average length of

time?

Mr. BURNETTE. Anywhere from 30 days to 3 years.

Senator TESTER. Have you had to deny any loans because of that

length of time?

Mr. BURNETTE. No; we just keep plugging along and being a

thorn in your side, if you will, in asking for the documents month

after month.

Senator TESTER. Why would it take longer than 30 days? Any

ideas?

Mr. BURNETTE. Yes; The BIA, if you call them, they will tell you

that they are severely behind in their recording process, and they

are not funded appropriately to staff the number of employees that

they need to catch up on this recording process. And that is consistent I believe nationwide, if you were to call the BIA. In some cases,

regionally, it is better than others. As I mentioned in the California

area, compared to South Dakota and the Great Plains Region, it is

like day and night, Senator.

Senator TESTER. California is better?

Mr. BURNETTE. California is way worse.

Senator TESTER. So would the number of loans that you have in

Alaska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota correlate to the length of

time when you get these documents back?

Mr. BURNETTE. The reason being Alaska and Oklahoma lead the

way, Senator, is because a majority of the land, probably 90 some

percent of it, is all fee simple, so we are not dealing with the BIA.

So that attributes to their success.
27

Senator TESTER. So it does directly impact your ability to give

loans in Indian country.

Mr. BURNETTE. Yes; for your home State, we are involved in the

Rocky Boy Project. We are still waiting for that certified title status

report to proceed with those 64 units.

Senator TESTER. All right.

I want to talk a little bit about credit, lack of credit, bad credit.

What kind of role does that play in your ability to give loans to individual Indians?

Mr. BURNETTE. Mr. Steele hit it right on the head. A majority of

the time we are running into medical collections that hinder the

progress of Native Americans pursuing their dream of home ownership.

Senator TESTER. Yes.

Mr. BURNETTE. The program requirements are that there cannot

be any outstanding judgments or collections that are showing unpaid on their credit bureau report. So that hinders the process.

This program is not a credit score-driven program, so we are not

concerned about what the credit score is. We are concerned about

what the makeup of the credit bureau report is and what is on

there as far as open collection items, judgments that are unpaid

and what have you.

We see a lot of medical bills that IHS has not paid for in Mr.

Steele’s example that he provided.

Senator TESTER. Okay. So other than the health care and unpaid

medical bills which you encounter when IHS runs out of money,

are there any other credit issues that appear to be unique to Native Americans?

Mr. BURNETTE. No; really, it gets a little easier from there.

Sometimes we run into a problem with debt to income ratios with

Native American families; you know, the necessity for a good operating automobile.

Senator TESTER. Okay. Can you give me an idea of what your average loan is on the 184 Program?

Mr. BURNETTE. I was hoping you would ask me this question. Our average last year was $178,000, but that is really skewed high

because of some of the higher cost areas that we have done loans

in. For example, Florida, we can’t do a loan in Florida, build a

home for less than $300,000. So our average loan size in Florida

is probably in the mid-$400,000. That really skews the average.

I think if you take those loans out of the average, I think we are right around the $100,000 mark.

Senator TESTER. Okay.

Mr. BURNETTE. So if you look at nationwide, I think Mr. Cabrera

talked about it, it matters on the geographic location of where you

are really doing business at.

Senator TESTER. Okay. One more question on that topic, and that

is administrative costs. Do you think that, in your opinion, because

you are on the ground, you are one end, and the folks that are trying to get the house are on the other end, do you think that there

is excessive administration costs with this money? Is it getting

down the ground, I guess that is the question.

Mr. BURNETTE. I have seen a lot of progress in the last 2 years,

Senator. The HUD ONAP office has done a lot of outreach to tribes
28

trying to make them aware of the program. As you can see in the

numbers, it has drastically increased over the last two years as far

as the number of people who have participated.

So I think we are making headway with the program. Is there

a lot of work that can still be done? Absolutely.

Senator TESTER. Do you have any recommendations on that

work? I would sure like to hear it. You don’t have to give it today.

I mean, just pass it along, anything we can do to help make the

program work better in Indian country I think is a step forward.

With that, I just want to thank you guys once again for showing

up to the hearing.

We are adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(29)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend the committee for holding this hearing on

Housing Issues in Indian country.

Through its unique trust relationship the United States has historically provided

housing services to Native peoples. Today, more than ever we are facing a crisis

among Native communities when it comes to housing. According to a 2003 report

published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights approximately 90,000

Native families are homeless or underhoused. I am certain that this number has

only increased since 2003. Poverty has run rampant in Native communities and because of this Native communities are faced with overcrowded and substandard living conditions.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians—

which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of

Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are among the highest in the Nation.

In light of these disheartening reports, I cannot stress to you how important it

is to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

Act [NAHASDA], in particular title VIII so that we can continue efforts to assure

that the Native people of Hawaii and across the Nation may 1 day have access to

housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this much needed hearing today.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICAH A. KANE, CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN HOME COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

My name is Micah A. Kane and I am chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important issue of providing housing opportunities in Native American communities including Native Hawaiian communities located in the State of Hawaii. We believe that there is a continuing need

to support HUD’s efforts to provide housing opportunities and encourage other Federal agencies to partner with HUD to address the severe housing needs of all Native

American communities and enhance the lives of all Native people who live on Trust

lands and continue to have significant housing needs.

Native Hawaiians as defined under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920,

share many of the same attributes as Indian people. Their housing needs are significant and their trust lands require significant infrastructure to realize new housing

developments. The difficulty at securing financing for large scale infrastructure can

be linked to a lack of private capital and private financial institutions and their inability to understand the needs of the Native Hawaiian community and the various

legal issues associated with development on their lands.
30

Native Hawaiians continue to work with the National American Indian Housing

Council, National Congress of American Indians, and HUD’s Office of Native American Programs.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

[NAHASDA] created the Indian Housing Block Grant [IHBG] and Title VI Tribal

Housing Activities Loan Guarantee programs [Title VI]. On December 27, 2000, the

Omnibus Indian Advancement Act [Pub. L. 106–569] amended NAHASDA by adding a new title, ‘‘Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians.’’ Title VIII authorized

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, which is similar to the IHBG

program, but serves Native Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the Hawaiian

Home Lands.

The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act also established the Section 184A Native

Hawaiian Loan Guarantee program. This single-family home loan guarantee program for Native Hawaiians is similar to the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee program authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

[Pub. L. 102–550, 12 U.S.C. 1715z–13a].

We support the reauthorization of all Native American and Native Hawaiian

housing and loan guarantee programs and we are hopeful that these programs will

be supported by Congress.

All Native people including Native Hawaiians should be allowed to participate in

affordable home ownership on as widespread basis as possible and enjoy the development of Hawaiian Home Lands as originally intended by Congress when it passed

the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921.

We look forward to working with you and the committee on future housing initiatives that will dramatically enhance the housing development opportunities for all

Native People across the Nation.

Thank you for allowing the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to provide testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON PEREZ, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CONSULTANT, INDIAN

HEALTH SERVICE, OFFICE OF CLINICAL AND PREVENTIVE SERVICES

Good Morning. I am Dr. Jon Perez, Behavioral Health Consultant with the Indian

Health Service, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services. I am here today to provide testimony on behalf of the Indian Health Service for this committee’s oversight

hearing on Indian Housing. I understand I am not so much to provide data on housing so much as to provide context for this issue and to offer some psychological perspective about what it means to live—or not live—in a home of one’s choice; or, to

discuss the impact on individuals and families if they have no choice or no home

at all.

The IHS provides health services to more than 1.8 million federally recognized

American Indians/Alaska Natives through a system of IHS, tribal, and urban [I/T/

U] health programs. The mission of the agency is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians/Alaska Natives to the highest level,

in partnership with the population we serve. The agency goal is to assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable and public health services are available and accessible to the service population. Our duty is to uphold the Federal Government’s responsibility to promote health of American Indian and Alaska Native people, communities, and cultures and to honor and protect the inherent sovereign rights of

tribes.

The Compact Edition Oxford English Dictionary [1981] devotes almost three full

pages to the word ‘‘home.’’ It is one of those big words with important and manifold

meanings. For our purposes today, allow me to focus on just one which defines home

as, literally, ‘‘The place of one’s dwelling or nurturing, with the conditions, circumstances, and meanings which naturally and properly attach to it, and are associated with it’’ [v.1, pg. 1322]. Psychologically, we speak of those conditions and circumstances as providing safety; security; nurturance; and respite. It is that physical

place and psychological space that is among the most basic of our human needs and

the most important for our healthy development. In plain English, it is the essential

place where the person or family lives and is safe.

In Indian communities across the country where housing is difficult to obtain or

where waiting lists are long, individuals and families tend to end up in multifamily

and multi-generational housing arrangements, or in a series of such places and arrangements. The transient or frequently changing living arrangements are the most

difficult for children, whose stability and subsequent development can be negatively

affected by such moves. Even in the large extended family and clan relationships

where there is generally easy movement among homes and families, the critical psy-
31

chological process that is operative here is choice, that is, if people move of their

own volition among multiple family relationships that, I would advocate, is strength

of the culture and community. However, if people are compelled to live this way because they have no other alternative, that is another and more troubling situation.

Being forced to live in a place, even among family, where one does not want to live

or may not even be welcome, creates an environment where increased levels of

anger, conflict, and individual and familial distress are seen. Safety can be reduced,

respite limited if not completely lost, and nurturance subordinated to tolerance and

just making it through the day.

Because the IHS does not specify living arrangements with our clinical documentation software, I do not have levels of homelessness or people forced to live in

alternative housing arrangements among our patient population. However, in my

over 20 years of direct clinical experience with Indian people from isolated communities to major metropolitan areas, I believe I can safely draw the following clinical

opinion: where people are not able to obtain housing they are unable to create the

definition of home, nor enjoy the benefits of such a place. In fact, the levels of distress and dysfunction increase markedly and can extend into multiple generations.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and I will be very pleased

to answer any questions you may have for me.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY PYLE, PRINCIPLE CHIEF, CHOCTAW NATION OF

OKLAHOMA

My name is Chief Gregory Pyle, principle chief of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the third largest tribe in America, with over 185,000 members. I am submitting this testimony for consideration by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate on issues involved in the reauthorization of the Native American Housing and

Self-Determination Act.

I would like to continue to voice my support for the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act [NAHASDA] of 1996. I know that this committee will be faced with reauthorization NAHASDA and look forward to working together.

In the past decade of tribal control over the resources provided by NAHASDA to

tribes and Native Alaska villages and organizations for housing of American Indians

and Alaska Natives, we have made progress. I think we sometimes gloss over the

fact that the title of this act for housing includes the term ‘‘Self Determination’’.

NAHASDA is a logical extension of Public Law 93–638, the Self Determination and

Education Assistance Act, the original act recognizing tribal and Alaska Native

rights to make decisions controlling our lives and the lives of our adults and children within the Council Chambers, not in distant offices. The statute recognizes and

embodies local control in needs analysis and action definition. We stress that the

statute and the Congressional action passing it, recognized that right, it did not create that right. Our right to control tribal programs at the local tribal level is inherent in our sovereignty. In recent decades that premise, long forgotten or suppressed,

has again taken root, and we feel that this recognition is responsible for the

progress we have made. We will continue that progress as long as we work together

to enable tribal decisions and do not revert to trying to make ‘‘one size fits all’’ solutions.

The creation of a single block grant to be distributed to tribes and their Housing

Authorities really put meaning in the terms ‘‘self determination’’ and ‘‘local control’’.

It created both the power to determine needs and the ability to address them quickly with local decisionmakers. As a result, housing for our people in the last decade

has made a dramatic step forward. The legislation recognizing the ability of tribes

and their people to make good decisions quickly placed the authority to act with the

need for action. Tribes are required to develop and put in place a plan for their

housing activities and submit it to the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] but so long as we stay with the plan we develop, the HUD becomes

an enabler, a part of the solution.

However, sadly, all the witnesses testifying before the committee today will agree

that there are still very serious problems in housing for our Indian people. Severe

shortfalls in adequate housing resources exist throughout Indian country. They exist

on reservations, but they also exist in rural, non-reservation settings. Lack of housing, inadequate housing, housing with inadequate plumbing and insulation, and

housing which is in need of rehabilitation and/or modernization maintenance seems

to be commonplace in not only isolated spots, but also in rural areas with heavy

Indian and Native American populations.
32

As one witness will testify today, lack of adequate housing casts a shadow over

many facets of a child’s life. It can make it more difficult for families to stay together and thrive. It becomes a multiplier in terms of the effects of other social factors, such as health, socio-economic circumstances and, most importantly, hope.

A major part of this problem is the lack of resources for the tribes. The National American Indian Housing Council has determined a need for a minimum of $1.1 billion in annual appropriations to meet this need. Unfortunately, we only have $627

million requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget, actually down from the fiscal year

2004 appropriations level of $654,100,000. Native American Tribes are asked to do

more with less. We are told to meet the needs of all with resources only adequate

to a few.

We are realistic. While we ask for your help in obtaining higher appropriations

levels, we know that for the foreseeable future, our emphasis must be on equitably

distributing the money we do receive. It is in that context of fairly distributing the

small ‘‘pot’’ of Federal housing funds that a problem has arisen.

One of the most difficult decisions to be faced by the committee is this question

of distribution of funds. In the original NAHASDA authorization, many questions

were placed into a rulemaking committee, made up of tribal and Federal representatives. We are sure the aim of the committee in setting up this process was to encourage tribes and Alaska Native groups to work out their differences in a collegial

and dispassionate fashion. It showed the committee’s commitment to self-determination and the recognition of tribal sovereignty and we applauded the effort then and

we support it now. By and large, it worked out very well and its very establishment

showed the committee’s wisdom to resist any urge or call to set arbitrary limits or

standards.

Unfortunately, we have to be frank and say that the rulemaking committee was

unable to resolve the toughest issue given to it—how to divide up the money in the

Block Grant. More specifically, which set of data on population to use for one of the

factors in the formula.

When the rulemaking committee failed to reach consensus, the HUD, realizing it

was faced with a no win proposition but forced by circumstance and need to make

a decision, did what it thought was right. This decision, and the HUD decision, was

immediately attacked by a sector of the tribal representatives, on several grounds.

I will not rehash that debate today, but everyone here knows the debate tore at the

solidarity of tribes and their leaders at a time they should have been supporting

higher appropriations for this program. Appropriations debate centered not around

need but around political fixes and as a result, we have spent 2 years of internecine

debate and dissension. We, and I include all those who have debated the issue, have

deeply wounded what has always been a strong center of support for the undisputed

needs of all Native American and Alaska Native housing authorities and their people.

I am not here to take a position on this issue, either of support or of opposition.

I come from a State which has many tribes [37] and many proud people of Indian

heritage. Many of our members have multiple heritage, and we celebrate that fact.

For years, Oklahoma was an afterthought in any program created to benefit Indian

people legislation would be written, and late in the process, someone would remember our State and hastily add in an ‘‘Oklahoma provision’’. Well, as you can see from

my testimony today, we are from Oklahoma and we will participate from the start.

I am here, however, to ask the committee to continue its support of Self Determination and tribal control in its deliberations on this issue and in reaching it decision. I am concerned that in discussions with staff on the Hill, there does not seem

to be a feeling of urgency to have a debate on the issue of data to be used in distribution, with all points of view involved and considered.

We are tired of having our program essentially controlled by provisions in annual

appropriations bills which were established without debate, without input from the

vast majority of tribes and without public consideration. NAHASDA should be reauthorized and this committee needs to step up and take on the issue of clearly defining how the funds in this program should be distributed. We have listened to the

reasoning on this issue for 4 years and we suggest that the committee resist any

easy solution involving embracing one simplistic solution or another. No matter

what solution is made, unless it allows tribal governing authorities the right to have

a say in which data base is used, this committee will have taken a step back, and

not a step toward the future.

At the same time, I recognize the responsibility of the Federal Government to

shepherd scarce resources, and its need to be sure that it ultimately reinforces its

government to government relationship with tribes. That recognition, however, does

not need to be restrictive on tribes. There are a number of data sets which tribes

and the Federal Government should be compared when evaluate the equity in the
33

distribution of funds. As well as the sets produced by the Census, there are data

sets produced by the Indian Health Services and other Federal programs. Tribal

governments have their own data sets, though they have a range of sophistication

in their systems for maintaining these. Some have made calls for the formation of

new data sets, with a new collection of information. In my opinion, such a set should

have the following guidelines:

• does not deplete scarce resources needed for housing ‘‘bricks and mortar’’;

• includes definitions and methods which substantiate the ‘‘facts on the ground’’

for all tribes and is not simply an arbitrary collection based on restrictive rules;

• is collected in an objective fashion, preferably by a third party and within a set

timeframe; and

• the results are statistically valid and verifiable, through reference to other existing data sets. A variation is, of course, probably, but should be within predicted range.

For tribes in Oklahoma, I believe and recommend the selection of which data to

have the Department use in the distribution of funds should be a matter of tribal

determination. Upon submission, it is the job of HUD to validate the data submitted. However, as long as the data is statistically valid for the Tribe involved, it

should be a matter of self determination. It would allow Tribes to make the choice

and support sovereignty.

I know this committee has its work cut out for it with the reauthorization of

NAHASDA. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma wishes to work with you and will be

ready to offer any assistance we can.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE RIVERA, GOVERNOR AND ALYN MARTINEZ,

HOUSING CORPORATION DIRECTOR, PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE, SANTA FE, NM

Good morning Chairman Dorgan and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Indian affairs. My name is George Rivera. I am the elected Governor of the

Pueblo of Pojoaque. I have been the Governor of the Pueblo since 2004. From 1992

to 2004, I was Lieutenant Governor. With me is Alyn Martinez, director of the Pueblo of Pojoaque Housing Corporation.

We are here today to thank Congress for providing funds for low and moderate

income housing. We ask that you re-authorize the Native American Housing and

Self-Determination Act [NAHASDA] and make changes so that the funds can be

used to help more low and moderate income tribal members from smaller tribes,

such as ours. Primarily, we are also here to share our housing success story. We

will answer any questions you have about the nuts and bolts of funding tribal housing developments by using Federal, state and tribal funds.

The Pueblo of Pojoaque is located in a rural, high desert area, approximately 12

miles north of Santa Fe, NM. According to the best scientific evidence, the Pueblo

has been occupied since 1150 A.D. From 1540 to 1848, the Pueblo fell under Spanish, then Mexican domination. In 1848, the Pueblo became part of the United

States. The Pueblo’s Spanish land grant was confirmed by Congress in 1858 and

patented by the United States on November 1, 1864. The confirmation was in the

form of a quit-claim deed. The Pueblo of Pojoaque has always owned its land in communal title—the Pueblo has never been a Federal reservation.

The original land grant was 13,438.15 acres. Between 1848 and 1913, the Federal

Government did not protect the Pueblo from encroachment by outside settlers. In

1913, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Pueblos of New Mexico were to be considered ‘‘Indians’’ for the purpose of protection by the Federal government.

In a high desert, water is vital to survival. The Pueblo lost 1,845.64 acres of its

best lands, located near the waterways, to encroachment by settlers. By 1913, due

to the encroachment and loss of its irrigable lands, most of the Pueblo of Pojoaque

members had left the Pueblo to live and work in neighboring Pueblos and surrounding communities.

In 1924, the Federal Government, through the Pueblo Lands Act, authorized payments to the Pueblo for lands lost due to Federal negligence. In 1932, five Pueblo

of Pojoaque families returned to their traditional homelands and organized the community according to its traditional government. The traditional government has declined to adopt a Constitution. The traditional government consists of a tribal council, open to all enrolled members over the age of 18. The tribal council elects the

tribal officials for a 2-year period.

Until the 1980’s, the Pueblo’s unemployment rate was estimated at 80 percent.

Due to the lack of economic opportunity, many tribal members lived and worked in

neighboring Pueblos, communities, and throughout the United States.
34

To address the economic, zoning, infrastructure and housing problems, the Pueblo

of Pojoaque Tribal Council adopted the W.C. Kruger and Associates Community Development Plan in May 1988. The Community Development Plan was a blueprint

for activity within the 11,600 acres still owned by the Pueblo of Pojoaque. Substantial and successful economic growth followed the adoption of the plan. Today, we

own and operate a golf course, two gas stations with convenience stores, two hotels,

a convention center, a sandwich store franchise, a tourist information center, two

restaurants, a supermarket, a hardware store, a laundromat, a mobile home park

and an apartment complex. We lease space and buildings to outside businesses, a

medical center and credit union. We also own and operate a casino with a buffet.

There is 100 percent tribal member employment—a job is available for any member

who wants it.

The Pueblo of Pojoaque enrolled members are young. According to the 1990 Census, there were 177 Pueblo members; currently there are 373 enrolled members. According to the New Mexico Voices for Children-Kids Count Special Report of 2005,

the 2000 Census reported that of the 311 Native Americans living on the Pueblo,

123, or 40 percent of the population, were under 18 years old. The Pueblo has a

long list of young families who qualify for low- to moderate- level income housing.

According to the current Federal guidelines for the Santa Fe area, in order to qualify for low-level income housing, a family of four must not have a gross income exceeding $26,400. According to current Federal guidelines for the Santa Fe area, in

order to qualify for moderate-level income housing, a family of four must not have

a gross income exceeding $39,600. Currently, rent for a three-bedroom subsidized

home in the Santa Fe area may range from $150 to $891. The Pueblo only provides

subsidized homes for enrolled members.

No casino funds have been used in the housing projects. The housing projects

have been funded through the Federal and State governments, with the Pueblo of

Pojoaque providing the land, most of the labor, and administrative staff.

Prior to 1988, Pueblo housing consisted of 40 Department of Housing and Urban

Development [HUD]-financed homes located within the Pueblo’s main and north villages.

Since 2000, the Pueblo of Pojoaque has developed and completed construction on

phase I of the new housing project, known as White Sands. Phase II is now under

construction. The housing projects are located within the Pueblo on 200 acres of

Pueblo-owned land. The first phase of the White Sands Housing Development was

begun under the auspices of Pojoaque Limited Liability Company #1, a tribally chartered corporation. Thirty low-income houses were built.

White Sands, Phase I, cost approximately $5,500,000. The costs were for infrastructure and home construction. NAHASDA funds provided $36,000 a year for 20

years. The Pueblo secured a $400,000-bank ‘‘construction gap’’ loan using part of the

NAHASDA funds as collateral; $3,000,000 was provided through the Federal and

State tax credit program; $400,000 was provided by Indian Health Services for

water and sewer infrastructure; $300,000 was provided through the Affordable

Housing Program [AHP]—a program provided through regional banks; $400,000

was provided by the HUD-Rural Housing and Economic Development [RHED] program, for power, gas, and telecom infrastructure; $ 1,000,000 was provided by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] for roads.

The second phase of the White Sands Housing Development was begun through

the auspices of Pojoaque Limited Liability Company 42. Twenty low-to-moderate income homes are being built. The project has cost $4,150,000.

The Federal and state tax credit program provided $2,000,000. The Pueblo used

a tribal Certificate of Deposit as collateral to secure a $400,000 bank security loan.

The $400,000 bank security loan was then used to secure a $310,000-AHP Grant;

$605,000 was provided by the HUD-Indian Community Development Block Grant

[ICDBG] program; $300,000 was provided by RHED. $300,000 was provided by the

New Mexico Tribal Infrastructure Fund; $360,000 was provided by the Indian

Health Service for sewer and water infrastructure. The funding for the road infrastructure is not complete.

No. 1. NAHASDA does not allow for funds to be used for maintenance of the

homes on the most recent housing projects, such as phase I of White Sands. The

original Federal funding for the first 40 homes on the Pueblo of Pejoaque included

funding for maintenance of the homes. Maintenance over the 15-year life of the

home may exceed the budget of a low- or moderate-income level owner. The burden

for maintenance of the homes falls upon the Pueblo of Pejoaque or the low- or moderate-income level owners. The Pueblo believes that NAHASDA should allow, or restore, funds to be used for maintenance of the homes on housing projects that

NAHASDA helps fund.
35

No. 2. NAHASDA and IHS funds are mutually exclusive. In other words, if

NAHASDA funds are used for the housing project for any purpose, IHS will prorate

the amount of IHS infrastructure funds that can be used for the housing project.

For example, the NAHASDA funds that were used as leverage to supplement

phase I construction funds [the ‘‘construction gap loan’’] were deducted from the IHS

infrastructure budget. Therefore, there was an unintended consequence for the overall project—there was a tradeoff in the quality of wastewater systems in phase I.

Due to the deduction by IHS of NAHASDA funds, the Pueblo was not able to fund

alternative wastewater systems.

Also, by curing the problem of securing a ‘‘construction gap loan’’ for phase I with

future pledges of NAHASDA funds, the Pueblo has used all of those NAHASDA

funds. The needs for future housing remains. However, the NAHASDA formula for

funding does not address our small tribe’s future housing needs. According to the

current formula, we cannot access NAHASDA funds unless our population grows—

yet we still have housing needs not addressed.

The solution is to allow NAHASDA funds to supplement the IHS infrastructure

funds, without deducting the NAHASDA contribution from the IHS infrastructure

funds. NAHASDA funding should also be increased to allow all tribes to address

their housing needs.

No. 3. The Pueblo of Pojoaque has proven that by using creative financing, tribal

housing needs can be addressed. NAHASDA does not currently provide goals or incentives for smaller tribes to meet all of the housing needs. The economies of scale

should be incorporated in NAHASDA funding formulas. With a goal-based, incentive

laden formula, the Pueblo of Pojoaque could meet all of its housing needs by using

Federal, State, and tribal financing.

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNOR GEORGE RIVERA, PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE, FROM HON. PETE

V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator DOMENICI. Governor Rivera, I appreciate your being here this morning.

I want to applaud you for your diligent approach to solving problems, and for your

dedication to the Pueblo of Pojoaque.

I have reviewed your testimony with great interest.

You indicated in your written testimony that during the 1980’s unemployment on

the Pueblo was estimated at 80 percent.

No. 1. How has the housing work you have done contributed to the economic

growth of the Pueblo of Pojoaque?

No. 2. What are some of the unique challenges that smaller tribes and Pueblos,

like yours, face in trying to provide housing for low and moderate income tribal

members?

I know that the Pueblo takes great pride in maintaining its own community water

and wastewater systems. You state in your testimony that because NAHASDA

funds were deducted from IHS infrastructure funds that you had to modify your

wastewater system.

No. 3. If those funds were available, how would the construction of your wastewater system been enhanced.

Questions with responses from Governor Rivera

Question. How has the housing work you have done contributed to the economic

growth of the Pueblo of Pojoaque?

Answer. Affordable housing has been historical problem in the Santa Fe area.

This same trend has been evident since the 1980’s—low wages, high home prices.

The 2000 Census stated that the per capita income in Santa Fe County was

$23,594. According to the latest figures used by the Pueblo of Pojoaque and the

Santa Fe Association of Realtors, the county’s median sales price in the first quarter

of 2007 was $517,000, up from $449,750 in the first quarter of 2006.

Economic growth is directly related to the economic sophistication of the Pueblo

members. All economic decisions must be authorized by the tribal council. The economic plan is carried out by Pueblo supervisors. In order to keep Pueblo members

with an economic background from leaving the area, and to attract Pueblo members

to return to the Pueblo, the Pueblo has followed a two-prong strategy since the

1980’s. The first prong is to keep housing affordable. The second prong is to provide

educational incentives, such as stipends and tuition reimbursement, for the members. Therefore, the cycle of education and economic growth is vital to the Pueblo’s

culture.

In order to provide affordable housing, the Pueblo chartered the Pueblo of

Pojoaque Housing Corporation to build the necessary infrastructure and to develop,

operate, and maintain housing for the growing population. By reducing the need for

profits required by outside developers, the Pueblo has kept down housing costs. The
36

Corporation also provides jobs for qualified members, thereby also keeping the income, within the community.

Question. What are some of the unique challenges that smaller tribes and Pueblos, like yours, face in trying to provide housing for low and moderate income tribal

members?

Answer. The challenges center around funding Federal, State, and tribal funding

for infrastructure, development, maintenance, operations and construction of housing. Unfortunately, for smaller tribes, Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act [NAHASDA] Helps in providing funds for the planning, designing, and

constructing affordable housing—but the funds can’t be stretched sufficiently to

meet the housing needs.

There is no overall coordination between the Federal agencies. NAHASDA funds

cannot be co-mingled with Indian Health Service [IHS] funds. Specifically, the use

of NAHASDA funds proportionately reduces the amount of funds that IHS will provide for housing. The Pueblo’s recommended solution is to simply place all Indian

housing funds under one agency. That, agency could then take the funds and determine how much money could be used for the different phases of Indian housing. Allocations could be based on a formula that balances housing needs and rewards

tribes who meet the needs. Such a formula would guarantee Congress that Federal,

State, and tribal funds are, being used to provide needed Indian housing and such

a formula would reward small tribes for completing construction projects.

Question. If [NAHASDA and IHS] funds were available, how would construction

of your wastewater system have been enhanced?

Answer. The, inability to co-mingle NAHASDA and IHS funds forced the Pueblo

to build an inadequate wastewater system. An alternative system would have eliminated the possibility of ground contamination and provided reusable water for residents, The solution is to allow NAHASDA funding to be co-mingled with other Federal funding sources, such as IHS funds.

The first phase of the White Sands Housing Development wastewater system was

forced to revert to conventional septic systems. Septic systems pose groundwater

issues with contamination from nitrates leaching into the water table. Septic tanks

must be periodically pumped. Septic tanks must be managed appropriately to ensure proper operation.

The Pueblo considered alternative onsite wastewater systems to treat the wastewater and reclaim the water. The alternative systems could not be purchased due

to the restriction on co-mingling NAHASDA and IHS funds.

Question. With a NAHASDA funding allocation of $205,000 a year, how many

homes does the Pueblo build?

Answer. The meager NAHASDA allocation was used to leverage other State and tribal funding for the homes. The $205,000 provides for the Pueblo to manage current stock. The NAHASDA funding formulas do not allow for the construction of additional homes.

Question. How important was leveraging NAHASDA grant funding when planning your multi-phase housing development?

Answer. The leveraging of NAHASDA funds was critical to funding the first

phases of the White Sands Development, NAHASDA funds were used to leverage

funds for a loan to meet a gap in the construction phase of building. Specifically,

NAHASDA funds were obligated to meet monthly payments on the loan. Therefore,

the NAHASDA funds could not be used for operating costs.

Since we used NAHASDA funds on the housing project, IHS funds limited our

funds for ‘‘wet’’ utilities [water and sewer]. As a matter of fact, using NAHASDA

funds seems to be a deterrent for development and construction of new housing

projects for a small tribe. It seems that larger tribes are not as proportionately limited in the use of IHS funds. For a smaller tribe, the consequences of using,

NAHASDA funds is detrimental.

Question. What can Congress do to provide further incentives encouraging tribes

to use creative financing for home development?

Answer. As discussed earlier: Place the Indian new housing programs under one

agency, divide the money into separate categories such as—infrastructure, development, design, archaeological. home construction, operation, maintenance on old

stock, and then create an allocation formula that rewards tribes for meeting their

housing goals.

Question. How important was the use of State funding in putting together the

$5.5 million Pueblo’s White Sand Development?

Answer. The State Tax Credit Program administered by the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority was crucial to the White Sands Development. The State Tax

Credit Program provided 50 percent of the cost of the total White Sand project. The

State Tax Credit Program provided for 80 to 90 percent of the actual home construc-
37

tion. The State Tax Credit Program is critical for small tribes with limited resources

to develop new, affordable housing. Without the State Tax Credit Program, the

houses could not be built.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN PLAINS INDIAN

HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Russell Sossamon and I am president of the Southern Plains Indian

Housing Association [SPIHA] which consists of close to 50 tribally designated housing entities that cover the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and

Kansas. We are submitting this testimony on certain issues of concern regarding Indian Housing for consideration of your committee.

First, SPIHA would like the record to reflect that it supports reauthorization of

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act [NAHASDA]

of 1996. We look forward to working with you and the committee on the many

issues related to reauthorization in the near future.

Second, SPIHA would like to make clear that it believes that while there are no

perfect methodologies, it should be recognized that it is the sovereign right and responsibility of each tribal government to determine the least flawed and most accurate methodology that reflects the tribal population of their area. Each tribal government has the opportunity and obligation to engage in direct government to government consultation and or negotiations with the Federal Government to substantiate the validity of the data set the tribe has determined to utilize. In other words,

SPIHA members believe that ‘‘choice’’ should be provided to tribal governments as

to use of a validated data set.

Each tribe is unique and that uniqueness needs to be preserved and respected.

Imposing one data set over another would be an ill-considered policy.

Additionally, attempting to fund a special census that all tribes would undertake

could only be done at an enormous cost. For instance using estimates based on procedures that have been validated by the U.S. Census Bureau, a census of Maricopa

County in Arizona would cost $10 million. The cost of doing a census in an area

that is 62 times larger than Maricopa County like Alaska would be incalculable. To

cover the formula areas in Oklahoma, all 1,514,400 housing units in that State

would have to be surveyed. The cost of what would essentially be a duplicate census

would be over $67 million, based on guidelines available from the U.S. Census.

Providing funds for all tribes to complete their own census would be an extravagant use of resources that would not guarantee any better result than what currently exists in terms of data sets. SPIHA would not be in favor of draining funds

that are already inadequate to meet the housing needs of Native Americans and

Alaskan Natives for a universal census. Any additional funds should be targeted to

building more and better homes for our people.

However, for those tribes that desire to conduct their own census, the mechanism

exists today for that to occur under NAHASDA. Every tribe has the ability to

present data to HUD with proper documentation. In addition, the cost of such data

collection is an allowable use of Indian Housing Block Grant [IHBG] funds. Examples of successful utilization of this process include presentation of alternative data

to HUD by the Ogalala Sioux and Lumbee State Tribe of North Carolina.

Under SPIHA’s ‘‘choice’’ proposal, this data collection option would be preserved.

Finally, the concept of a ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision that requires all tribes to take

an across the board cut in funding under the proposed Federal Fiscal Year 2008

budget points out the problem with the formula as configured by the appropriators

for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In that formula, HUD is directed to use a data base

that supposedly allocates the most money to a tribe, and then if the total tally exceeds the appropriated amount, HUD reduces the amount for the tribes with an

across the board cut of a certain percentage to stay within the appropriated amount.

The problems with this approach are many, and include:

• Again the element of ‘‘choice’’ is eliminated. A tribe has no say as to what data

set is to be used.

• The hold harmless across the board cut is a draconian method of meeting artificial limits and creates uneven impacts, with many smaller tribes taking a much

larger cut in proportion to their overall budgets than larger tribes.

The result also is illustrative of why the IHBG formula needs to be discussed

within the context of other elements of NAHASDA and not just through the narrow

lens of the appropriations process. In the controversy over use of certain data sets,

it has been forgotten that more significant portions of the IHBG formula are influenced by elements such as overcrowding, housing cost burden of over 50 percent,
38

and percent of households that are of very low and low income. These need to be

considered as part of the overall review of reauthorization of NAHASDA.

Providing ‘‘choice’’ of data sets to recipients of IHBG funds under NAHASDA is

the option that best represents the ideals of the United States while simultaneously

respecting the sovereignty of tribal governments. And if tribes are interested in conducting their own tribal census, they should have the ‘‘choice’’ to do so, using existing protocols that work.

The Southern Plains Indian Housing Association thanks you for allowing us to

submit remarks on this very important subject. Furthermore, we appreciate and acknowledge your hard work, and the efforts of your committee members and staff,

in analyzing all views on NAHASDA in a fair and considered fashion.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141

Æ