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

37–550 PDF 2007

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIVE

AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE

AND SELF–DETERMINATION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 6, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–34

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

PETER T. KING, New York 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 6, 2007 ...................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

June 6, 2007 ...................................................................................................... 35

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007

Cabrera, Hon. Orlando J., Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..................................... 7

Chino, Mark R., President, Mescalero Apache Tribe and Chairman, Board 

of Commissioners, Mescalero Apache Housing Authority ................................ 24

Difuntorum, Sami Jo, Executive Director, Karuk Tribe Housing Authority ...... 19

Johnson, Jacqueline L., Executive Director, National Congress of American 

Indians .................................................................................................................. 22

Nosie, Wendsler, Sr., Chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe ................................. 15

Parish, Cheryl, Vice Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing Council ........................................................................................................................... 17

Yazzie, Aneva J., Chief Executive Officer, Navajo Housing Authority ............... 21

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Cabrera, Hon. Orlando J. ................................................................................. 36

Chino, Mark R. ................................................................................................. 50

Difuntorum, Sami Jo ........................................................................................ 53

Johnson, Jacqueline L. ..................................................................................... 62

Nosie, Wendsler ................................................................................................ 82

Parish, Cheryl ................................................................................................... 91

Yazzie, Aneva J. ............................................................................................... 102

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Statement of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities ....................... 109

Statement of the Housing Assistance Council ............................................... 124

Statement of Enterprise Community Partners .............................................. 127

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIVE 

AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE 

AND SELF–DETERMINATION ACT 

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Waters, Cleaver; Biggert and Pearce. 

Also present: Representatives Boren and Kildee. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. I would like to first thank 

our ranking member, Judy Biggert, and each of the members of the 

Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for joining 

me for today’s hearing on the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, also known as 

NAHASDA. 

I would like to start by noting that Mr. Kildee is on his way, and 

I think Mr. Boren, as well. Without objection, both will be considered members of the subcommittee for the duration of this hearing. 

Also, without objection, all members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

I’m looking forward to hearing from our two panels of witnesses 

today on the discussion draft put forward by Mr. Kildee, a proposal 

that Chairman Frank and I were pleased to sign. 

While my own district does not contain tribal lands, I am keenly 

aware of the tremendous need for affordable housing and community development funding among the Nation’s indigenous peoples 

in California and across the country. 

I was privileged to participate in a subcommittee field hearing on 

Navajo land, which put a real face on the compelling national data 

outlining the scope of this crisis. 

In 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report entitled, ‘‘A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country,’’ which found, among other startling facts, that fully 

90,000 Native American families are homeless or underhoused, and 

an estimated 200,000 housing units are needed immediately in Indian Country. 

2

Moreover, too much of the housing that does exist on tribal lands 

is substandard. For example, according to the Census Bureau, 

nearly 12 percent of residents of Native American land lack complete plumbing facilities, compared to just 1 percent of the general 

U.S. population. 

Signed into law in 1996, NAHASDA has been a critical resource 

for tribes nationwide, replacing a number of separate HUD programs with a single block grant to tribes that recognizes their right 

to self-governance. 

In fiscal year 2006, HUD estimates that tribes used NAHASDA 

funds to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate more than 

1,600 rental units and more than 6,000 home ownership units. 

Clearly, we must authorize this essential program before it expires 

on the last day of this fiscal year. 

I think the discussion draft before the subcommittee today is an 

excellent starting point. First, it would accomplish the most basic 

goal of reauthorizing, mainly to enable continued appropriations for 

NAHASDA programs. 

Like so many of our housing programs, NAHASDA has been un- derfunded in recent years. NAHASDA appropriations were $624 

million in both funding year 2006 and funding year 2007, culminating years of flat or decreased funding. The President’s budget 

for this fiscal year proposes an increase of only $3 million. I hope 

we can do better under a reauthorized NAHASDA. 

I’m aware that some controversy exists within the Native American community regarding how HUD distributes the NAHASDA 

funding. Although the discussion draft proposes no changes in this 

regard, the subcommittee will certainly benefit from the witnesses’ 

perspectives on this thorny issue. 

I’m compelled to mention, too, that NAHASDA funding, indeed 

all Federal funding to Indian tribes, is bound up with a recent decision by a tribe not represented here today, a decision to expel certain people of mixed-race background that the Congressional Native American Caucus, among others, find very troubling. However, 

since that tribe is not here today, and the issue is the subject of 

ongoing litigation in both the Federal and tribal courts, I will leave 

that for further discussion. 

In noting these problems, I do not mean to detract from the second key contribution of the discussion draft, namely, modifications 

that would greatly improve and streamline the program. 

I’ve heard from the many tribes in California, including the 

Karuk, whom I am pleased to welcome here today, that they want 

flexibility to innovate and target more of their funds to housing 

and community development activities rather than to a bureaucracy created to respond to perceived Federal micro-management. 

I think the bill strikes a good balance between this legitimate desire and the need for reasonable Federal oversight of Federal funding. For example, one provision would eliminate competitive procurement procedures for purchases of goods and services under 

$5,000. So, for example, tribes won’t have to get three competitive 

bids for a box of pencils. 

Additionally, the bill would create self-determined housing activities for the tribal communities program, which would allow tribes 

to buy, build, and rehabilitate housing without being subject to 

3

HUD approval or HUD review. Instead, after 5 years, HUD would 

conduct a review of the program and report to Congress on its results. This provision gives tribes the opportunity to demonstrate 

that they would benefit from increased flexibility and lessened 

oversight as NAHASDA moves into the future. 

Again, I look forward to hearing the perspectives of the witnesses 

on the discussion draft. 

Before I recognize the ranking member, I’d just like to reiterate 

that, while I am certainly in support of and even an advocate for 

expanding funding and making sure that funding has enough flexibility to be used in ways that the tribes would like to use it, I do 

not want those who are present here today to leave thinking that 

somehow we are going to move in a way that does not take into 

consideration the problem that I alluded to with the Cherokee Indians. That is something that must be resolved prior to us moving 

forward to a markup. 

With that, I would like to recognize our ranking member, Ms. 

Biggert, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

for holding this hearing. I would actually like to yield my time to 

the vice ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Pearce from 

New Mexico. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Pearce, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking 

Member Biggert, for holding this hearing. 

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act is an important act for New Mexico. The reauthorization, then, 

is even more critical to addressing Native American housing needs 

in New Mexico and across the United States. 

New Mexico is home to many Native American tribes. In the Second District of New Mexico alone, we have eight tribes, including 

Laguna Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Zuni Pueblo, Isleta Pueblo, Mescalero, the Ramah Navajo Chapter, the Puertocito (Alamo) Navajo 

Chapter, and the To’hajiilee Navajo Chapter. I have visited these 

tribes, toured the reservations, and seen the living conditions many 

of them face. 

I believe that the tribes should have adequate flexibility and autonomy to use Indian Housing Block Grant dollars efficiently and 

in a manner that makes the most sense for each tribe’s specific 

needs, and since NAHASDA was implemented in 1996, tribes have 

obtained more flexibility to use their grant money for infrastructure and rehabilitation of homes. 

Recently, I visited the Pueblo of Zuni. While I was there, it 

rained and snowed, which left standing muddy water, snow, and 

ice build-up in the community. In the main heart of the community, most of the streets in the historic plaza do not have gutters 

to control the water runoff, nor do the roofs of most of the houses 

have the guttering, so the water simply builds up and makes a 

muddy mess in the middle of town. 

The water began to flow that day down through the streets. The 

residents began to surround their homes with bath towels to keep 

the water from flowing in underneath their doors. This is an example wherein the housing dollars should be eligible for infrastrucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 037550 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\37550.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
4

ture, to help these low-income families build gutters in their neighborhoods and protect their homes. 

I’m pleased that my constituent, President Mark Chino, a good 

friend of mine from the Mescalero Apache Tribe, is here today to 

give his thoughts on the NAHASDA and on its reauthorization and 

its impact on Native Americans in New Mexico and across the 

country. The Mescalero Apache Tribe has huge housing needs, with 

over 500 families on the housing waiting list. They consistently 

look for creative ways to bring affordable housing to the reservation. 

In last year’s Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Congress 

authorized FEMA to give Indian tribes any unused manufactured 

housing units owned by FEMA and not used for Stafford Act relief. 

After some bureaucratic red tape was cut, the Mescalero Apaches 

obtained 67 of these manufactured housing units and paid to transport them to New Mexico for use by tribal members. 

I’m interested to know whether NAHASDA is currently flexible 

enough to have allowed the Mescalero Apaches to have used those 

dollars to pay for the transportation cost. There’s a great need for 

more housing that is quality, affordable, and equipped with basic 

utilities including water, plumbing, gas, and electricity. What good 

is a home if it doesn’t have a toilet that flushes or if it is subject 

to flooding every time it rains or snows? 

As a member of this committee from a very rural State, I believe 

it is important to raise these issues, to bring more understanding 

of the realities that New Mexicans and our Native American tribes 

face. 

I understand Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and Congressman Kildee have circulated draft legislation to reauthorize 

NAHASDA, and I look forward to working with them on this critical issue. 

Thanks to the witnesses, and again thanks to President Chino 

for his presence here. I’d like to also recognize his wife, Selene, in 

the audience today. I look forward to your comments. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of the time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Congressman Kildee, a real champion for Indian causes, and the Member of Congress who got me 

to sign up to be a member of the caucus. 

Mr. Kildee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

Ranking Member Biggert. Thank you for holding this hearing today 

on the discussion draft of the bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. 

I want to take this opportunity, Madam Chairwoman, to mention 

that you are indeed a founding member of the Congressional Native American Caucus, and as the Democratic chairman of that 

caucus, I praise your established record as an advocate for protecting the sovereign rights of Indian tribes. 

I look forward to being the chief sponsor of this reauthorization 

legislation. I thank you and Chairman Frank for signing onto the 

discussion draft. 

NAHASDA, enacted in 1996, was the first piece of comprehensive 

housing legislation directed solely to Native Americans and Alaska 

5

Natives. It has become the basic program aiding Native Americans 

in tribal areas with affordable housing development, including 

home ownership, rehabilitation, infrastructure development, and 

other affordable housing assistance. 

The success of NAHASDA is clear. Since its enactment, thousands of housing units have been constructed or are in development. Despite this record, however, there is still a substantial 

unmet need for housing units, a need that continues to grow for 

one of the fastest-growing population groups in the country. 

The discussion draft is based largely upon the recommendations 

made by the Native American Indian Housing Council. In addition, 

my staff has, on several occasions, met with the House Financial 

Services Committee staff, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

staff, HUD officials, tribal housing directors, inter-tribal organizations, and tribal leaders themselves. 

The primary objective of this bill is to improve housing conditions 

in Indian Country. One of the most important benefits of 

NAHASDA is that it promotes self-determination among the tribes. 

The discussion draft builds upon the basic framework of 

NAHASDA. These revisions will give tribes greater flexibility in 

meeting the housing needs of their tribal citizens. 

To that end, I’m especially pleased that the discussion draft creates a self-determination program which authorizes tribes to set 

aside 15 percent of annual NAHASDA grant funding, up to $1 million, for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing. 

The year before the next NAHASDA reauthorization in 2011, HUD 

would report to Congress the results of this program. 

Among other revisions, this draft will: make certain that tribes 

can compete for Home Investment Partnership Act funds; removes 

competitive procurement rules and procedures for purchases and 

goods under $5,000; makes Federal supply sources through GSA 

more accessible to tribes; recognizes tribal preference laws in hiring 

and contracting for NAHASDA activities; allows tribes to carry 

over NAHASDA funds to a subsequent grant year; and permits 

tribes to establish a reserve account up to 20 percent of the tribe’s 

annual NAHASDA grant. 

Madam Chairwoman, reauthorization of NAHASDA will build 

upon this success over the past 11 years by providing more housing 

development on our Nation’s Indian reservations. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and moving 

forward on that legislation, and I thank you for this courtesy. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Congressman Boren for an opening statement, 

for 5 minutes, and also recognize the fact that he certainly is a 

champion of Indian causes and Indian housing. He is the author 

of H.R. 1675, that would provide 100 percent loan guarantees, 

which I believe is now on the President’s desk. 

Mr. BOREN. That’s correct. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Congressman Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I really appreciate all of your work on this issue, and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for holding today’s hearing on Native American housing issues, specifically, the 

reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

6

Self-Determination Act. This is an issue that is very important to 

me, to Oklahoma tribes, and to many Native American constituents 

in my district. 

I appreciate the work the chairwoman and the subcommittee 

have done to this point, and again, I want to thank the chairwoman for her help on H.R. 1676, which is the Section 184 Loan 

Guarantee Program that is hopefully going to be signed by the 

President very soon. 

You know, extremely poor housing conditions are clear signs of 

poverty and economic stress in Native American areas. In fact, the 

lack of affordable, quality housing has reached crisis proportions in 

some communities, with nearly one-fifth of homeowners and over 

30 percent of renters spending more than one-third of their income 

on housing each month. 

The poverty rate for Native Americans is nearly 3 times that of 

other Americans, which contributes to Native American people living in the worst housing conditions in our Nation. These substandard housing conditions are worsened by overcrowding that is 

3 times more prevalent throughout Native American lands. 

Poor housing conditions frequently go hand-in-hand with poverty. 

Forty percent of Native Americans residing on Indian lands live in 

housing that does not have adequate plumbing, 10 times the national level. That is simply unacceptable. 

While persistent poverty, inadequate housing, and household 

overcrowding are enormous challenges for Native American populations, the lack of infrastructure in Indian Country further contributes to the cost of developing new housing options. 

These factors, combined with a high rate of loan denials, leave 

Native people in this country with real barriers to safe and affordable housing. In my home State of Oklahoma, affordability problems are consistently the highest in the Nation. I feel this legislation we are here to discuss today addresses many of the concerns 

that I have with housing in Native American areas. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and moving this 

legislation forward. 

And Madam Chairwoman, I would like to end by saying I know 

that you have concerns specifically with the Cherokee Nation and 

some of the issues that are going on. The Cherokee Nation is within the Second Congressional District in my district of Oklahoma. 

I look forward to working with you on those issues. I know that 

we want to make sure that we have equity both in the Native 

American community as well as the African American community, 

and I thank you for your leadership. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are certainly welcome. 

At this time, I’d like to introduce our first panel, which consists 

of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing for the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Orlando 

Cabrera. 

Assistant Secretary Cabrera, thank you for appearing before the 

subcommittee today, and without objection, your written statement 

will be made a part of the record, and you will now be recognized 

for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

7

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ORLANDO J. CABRERA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Biggert, and members of 

the committee, thank you for inviting HUD to provide comments 

with respect to the reauthorization of the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act. 

My name is Orlando Cabrera, and I am Assistant Secretary for 

Public and Indian Housing (PIH) 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 Housing and 

housing-related programs. These programs are available to 562 federally recognized Indian tribes, five State-recognized Indian tribes, 

and Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Homelands. 

We serve these entities directly and through their tribally designated housing entities, which I’ll call TDHEs, by providing grants 

and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and 

community development. 

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. 

Momentum has been attained in Indian Country as it relates to 

housing, and one way to sustain this momentum is through the reauthorization of all HUD Native American and Native Hawaiian 

housing programs, including, of course, Title VI of NAHASDA. 

The Department supports reauthorization and is examining a 

number of statutory amendments to NAHASDA that may be offered during the reauthorization process. 

Here is a brief overview of the amendments HUD would propose 

that might add value to NAHASDA in the context of reauthorization. 

In order to encourage more valued service providers to live on 

reservation land, allow for over-income and essential families by 

amending Section 201(b)(2) of NAHASDA. 

Currently, certain over-income Indian families may be declared 

essential to a tribal community. These families may participate in 

home ownership, Title VI, and model activities, but not in the rental program. Rental is a more appropriate activity many times for 

people who may not stay in the community for an extended period 

of time. 

Secondly, amend Section 201(b)(3) so that essential Indian families can also be housed, regardless of income. Through an oversight, current law allows only non-Indian families to be declared 

essential. 

In order to help families in Indian Country retain the value of 

their property, amend Section 205 to delete the requirement for the 

so-called ‘‘useful life requirements’’ 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. 

8

Current restrictions have sometimes prevented or discouraged 

children or the spouses of a deceased home buyer from inheriting 

a deceased’s interest in property, and sometimes severely hamper 

home values. 

Amend Section 302, the IHBG allocation formula, to stop counting units for FCAS purposes in the year after they are conveyed, 

demolished, or disposed of. This change would comport with the 

process established by the original negotiated rulemaking committee that crafted the IHBG regulations. 

Amend Title IV of NAHASDA to clarify that issues related to the 

repayment of FCAS allocations do not constitute, in and of themselves, substantial noncompliance by a grantee. The declaration of 

substantial noncompliance triggers a formal administrative hearing, which is costly and time-consuming, and there’s no reason to 

begin with such a process when a grantee mistakenly reports on 

an overcount or undercount in terms of the number of units under 

management. 

With respect to the operation and maintenance of NAHASDA 

units, amend Section 202(4), the housing services provision, to clarify that grantees may use their IHBG funds for the maintenance 

and operation of units developed with IHBG funds. Currently, they 

may do so, but this is considered a model activity and requires specific HUD approval. 

This amendment would streamline operations, save money, and 

reduce unnecessary paperwork for grantees and HUD staff. 

Amend Section 102 of NAHASDA to simplify and streamline the 

IHP submission requirements, the Indian Housing Plan, by deleting the 5-year plan requirement, streamlining the 1-year plan to 

eliminate duplicative information, and establishing IHP due dates 

based on grantees’ program years. 

Finally, delete the requirement for a grantee to describe how it 

would change its programs as a result of its experiences. We believe that most grantees would agree that these amendments would 

relieve them of administrative burden and free them to concentrate 

on what they do best—house people. 

Amend NAHASDA so that it makes clear that tenant-based or 

project-based assistance created through IHBG will be considered 

the same as tenant-based or project-based assistance under Section 

8 of the Housing Act of 1937, for all practical and legal purposes, 

if those programs comply with provisions of that Act. This will help 

Native Americans better qualify to live in properties financed by 

the low-income housing tax credit. 

Finally, amend the Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program, 

Section 184(a), and conform it to the 184 program, so that the 

NHLG program allows refinancing and removes the current requirements on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands that the 

annual Native Hawaiian housing plan must include cross references to any loan guarantee activity. 

On a personal note, I would like to thank the members of the 

subcommittee for swift passage of H.R. 1676, the reauthorization of 

Section 184, and the Housing Loan Guarantee Program. 

The dramatic increase in the use of the Section 184 program is 

a success story for tribes, TDHEs, and especially for thousands of 

9

Native American families who are now homeowners as a direct result of this program. 

This is an exciting time. More and more opportunities are opening up to create new housing and economic development in Indian 

Country. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today. I 

stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Cabrera can be found on 

page 36 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I’m going to ask you to expand on the Administration’s view of 

20 percent for housing activities outlined in the tribes’ housing 

plan. Could you tell me a little bit more about the position that you 

have taken about this reserve account, and whether or not you 

think that there is the possibility of abuse of some kind. 

Mr. CABRERA. Well, reserve accounts in the context of housing 

generally come up on deal-specific issues, so that, for example, if 

you’re borrowing money, you’re going to have a reserve account to 

take care of things like ongoing maintenance concerns, replacing a 

roof, doing very specific things, or taking care of debt. 

If the purpose of NAHASDA funds as a block grant is to produce 

housing, reserving funds really does not get money out and utilized 

as quickly as one would want, and allowing for up to 20 percent 

of the IHBG grant to be set aside when you want, I think one 

would want to have those funds used well and quickly, and leveraged wherever possible, would be a policy determination that I 

don’t think we would feel comfortable with as an Administration. 

Further, reserve accounts generally, when it comes to public 

housing, when it comes to Section 8, have been somewhat controversial, so it is a two-headed construct. 

Number one, the issue is moving, moving appropriated money, 

taxpayer money in an efficient way, and number two, not creating 

kitties that really don’t get the job done for housing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. How much discussion have you had with 

the leadership of the Indian tribes, the Native American tribes? 

Have you engaged them in, or have they engaged anybody at HUD 

in this discussion, and why they think it’s important to have— 

Mr. CABRERA. We have discussed that issue with NAIHC, on at 

least two occasions with, respectfully, ma’am, your staff, and with 

Senate staff present. 

So yes, we’ve had pretty extensive conversations with the panel 

that represents most TGHEs or many TDHEs in Indian Country. 

Chairwoman WATERS. All right. Thank you very much. I have no 

further questions. I will recognize the ranking member, Ms. 

Biggert, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you spoke about the reserve. 

How do the amendments that you just suggested compare to the 

draft legislation being circulated by Chairman Frank and Congressman Kildee? What provisions in the draft do you support and 

which do you find troubling? 

Mr. CABRERA. Madam Ranking Member, we can provide you a 

pretty detailed list of those things. There’s a lot to go through— 

10

Mrs. BIGGERT. Sure. 

Mr. CABRERA.—and I couldn’t cover it in 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And I wouldn’t remember. 

Mr. CABRERA. But our overwhelming concern would be that those 

funds that are allocated through NAHASDA, primarily the Indian 

Housing Block Grant, be as flexibly utilized with other funds as 

they can be. 

So, for example, the Indian Housing Block Grant allows for any 

number of uses, not just to build units, but, for example, a TDHE, 

a tribally designated housing entity, can create a tenant-based 

rental assistance program, or even a project-based rental assistance 

program if it so chooses, but then it becomes tough to dovetail that 

with another Federal, I’m not going to call it a subsidy, but a program, the low-income housing tax credit, because inside of Section 

42 of the Internal Revenue Code, which I know is not the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, there is an allusion to the Housing Act 

of 1937 that excludes income. 

So if the predicate is laid inside of NAHASDA allowing for that 

tenant-based rental assistance program to be considered as if it 

were the Housing Act of 1937, which is one of the things that we’ve 

proposed in this oral statement, it would allow for families who 

want to live in those units that are developed with the low-income 

housing tax credit to access those units more readily. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. And you were talking a little bit about—

you mentioned infrastructure, and that the needs are significant. 

What programs within NAHASDA can be used to meet the infrastructure needs? That was mentioned in your opening statement, 

it was mentioned by you, that there seems to be some real needs, 

you know, running water, etc. 

Mr. CABRERA. Right. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What programs can be used to meet those needs? 

Mr. CABRERA. You know, in my 16 months now in the chair that 

I’m currently inhabiting, and I’m quickly evaporating in, the two 

programs that we promote most often are Section 184, which is not 

under NAHASDA, it’s under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, and Title VI, which is NAHASDA, it’s Title VI 

of NAHASDA, Title VI is a program that allows the leveraging of 

funds with, as I recall, a 95 percent Federal guarantee for any 

number of uses beyond housing. 

So that would include, for example, conceivably, water and 

sewer, roads, lighting, any number of things, and some tribes, some 

TDHEs, have used that well. Pasquamadi in Maine have used that 

well. White Mountain Apache have used that well. 

And I think one of the issues for us is trying to get—there are 

basic camps within Indian Country that accept greater amounts of 

risk and lesser amounts of risk, and the issue for us is going to be 

getting to a point to use that program to develop that infrastructure where possible. 

Now, in some parts of the country, even with that program, it’s 

very tough. So, for example, if you go to Alaska, it’s very difficult 

to create a water and sewer infrastructure in Alaska, because of 

just technical and engineering problems. You can’t do that in permafrost. 

11

And in many villages, if you go to Bethel, for example, what you 

will see is their water and sewer infrastructure is above ground, 

and that may or may not suit certain communities. 

But in those places where that’s not an issue, that’s certainly a 

program that is enormously useful, and we are going to continue 

to try to promote. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Seems like there’s a lot to do there. 

What about manufactured housing? Is that an alternative to help 

meet the affordable housing needs of tribes? 

Mr. CABRERA. It is an option for many tribes. 

A year ago, I approached Director Paulison at FEMA about trying to use many of the units. There are different kinds of units that 

FEMA has, and one of those kinds is really a modular home more 

than a trailer. And so we began a long conversation with FEMA 

and BIA and HUD, obviously. I’m missing someone; it could be 

DHS. 

Today, I signed a memorandum of understanding that allows for 

the platform to exist so folks can access those units on top of which 

I know that Congressman Pearce asked a few minutes ago whether 

IHBG funds could be used for the transportation of those units. 

We have stated already, and we will state here publicly, that the 

answer is yes, provided those units are used as housing. 

So, for example, if a tribe goes and tries to acquire one of these 

units and converts it to an office, that would not qualify for an appropriate use, whereas if it does for housing, that’s fine. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cleaver, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Before I go into my questions, I would like to associate myself 

with the opening comments of Chairwoman Waters. 

And now let me move to the concerns or questions. 

HUD is taking an active role, perhaps not as active as I would 

like, in terms of building new housing to take into consideration 

the whole issue of energy efficiency and the use of renewable resources. With many of the Native American tribes in and around 

the timber industry, is there any effort being made, are there any 

plans on the drawing board to move toward a greener development 

of housing in this program? 

Mr. CABRERA. Congressman, might I have a second? I think my 

staff is trying to get my attention. Excuse me. 

[Mr. Cabrera consulted with his staff.] 

Mr. CABRERA. This is Roger Boyd. He is our Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Native American Programs. 

He just informed me that this year ONAP has reached out and—

reached out to TDHEs in order to start developing ideas on basically green construction and green issues. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chairwoman, I’ll hold my additional comments. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kildee is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

12

First of all, Mr. Secretary, I deeply appreciate your broad knowledge and deep concern for Indian housing. 

That is very helpful, I know, to this committee and to the Indian 

community out there. So I’m very grateful for that. 

Recently, we sent a letter to the Secretary about the distribution 

of 45 trailers to one tribe. We were concerned about a process being 

developed for the distribution. I think you have about 2,000 that 

could be distributed, and these were distributed without that process being in place. How far along are we in developing a process 

so that tribes can apply under that process for these? 

Mr. CABRERA. From HUD’s perspective, we’re pretty far along. 

The memorandum of understanding, as I noted earlier, Congressman, I signed it today. Director Paulison signed it, as well. 

That would leave my counterpart, whose name escapes me right 

now, because I think he was just recently appointed at BIA, to sign 

it, and someone at DHS to sign it; I don’t recall his name. 

Your issue is extremely well received by us. Our issue was that 

we have tranches of available units, and so our big concern was 

making sure that those, that everybody who wanted them would 

have a fair shot at them as opposed to having a free-for-all. 

That said, we are continuing conversations to expand the universe of available units, and so on the one hand, no, I don’t have 

any assurances at this point that we’re going to have more, but 

we’re trying to create a larger group of units so that anybody who 

wants them and can pay for the transportation can do so. 

Mr. KILDEE. And you will have a process that you’ve signed 

today? 

Mr. CABRERA. The MOU is the process. The reason that the process—there are several issues, and I know that they are called bureaucratic, but they are beyond that; they are legal issues. 

The Stafford Act does not allow for the uses of those trailers in 

quite a seamless way, and for very good reasons. It’s because when 

we’re struck by a national disaster, the issue becomes one of availability. So there is an evaluation process within FEMA that they 

have to undertake. 

The second one is an issue of what happens to the trailer once 

it’s delivered off-site, and that’s a commercial issue. That means 

what happens to the trailer once it gets put on a tractor trailer? 

And the other issues are mechanical ones, making sure that people 

know where to go and where the trailers are. One group of trailers, 

as I recall, is in Texarkana and the other one is in Hope, Arkansas. 

So that’s really what the agreement addresses, and we’re happy 

to share the agreement, if anybody would like to see it. 

Mr. KILDEE. That would be very helpful. 

Again, I thank you, and thank you for your service. 

Mr. CABRERA. You’re welcome. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Congressman Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming today. I have just a couple 

of questions. 

One is in regards to reporting. Indian tribes or the tribally-designated housing entities have brought up the issue of reporting reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 037550 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\37550.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
13

quirements and the lack of long-term locally determined goal-setting involved in preparing and planning for housing. 

What is being done at HUD through the regional offices to assist 

the tribes and the TDHEs in setting these long-term locally-determined goals? That’s the first part of the question. 

And a little bit more: With the current reporting requirements, 

how are tribes or TDHEs benefitting from the successes and failures of other tribal projects? 

And then finally, I know this is long: 

In other words, what method of communication is being used to 

facilitate communication between tribal entities to share best practices for housing needs? 

Mr. CABRERA. That is long. 

In what we propose today in the oral statement, one of the things 

I think we’re trying to focus on is to relieve tribe stakeholders, 

TDHEs, from essentially having to comply with a lot of production 

of plans. 

The shorter term plans make a lot of sense. To us, they’re 1-year 

plans. It is helpful in order to make sure that everybody has a 

forum to communicate about what expectations are for the tribe. I 

mean, one of the central elements of NAHASDA is self-determination. 

The issue that we really have is the 5-year plan which tends to 

be of less value, and since we have less value because it is such 

a long window—60 months in housing and 60 months in almost 

anything is a very long time—so the utility of the 1-year plans is 

important. 

What are we currently doing? 

You know, I have to say that this community has no hesitation 

whatsoever about communicating with me or anybody else, and I’m 

grateful for that. 

And so I think one of the things that we’ve done is made a commitment to make ourselves as available as possible, whether that 

be regionally or nationally, and that commitment will continue. 

And I don’t recall your third question. 

Mr. BOREN. The third was, in other words, what method of communication is being used to facilitate communication? You basically 

answered that. 

But let me ask you something else. 

How often do you personally go into Indian Country, and would 

you be willing to come to Eastern Oklahoma, for instance? 

Mr. CABRERA. Well, you and I were in Eastern Oklahoma. I don’t 

mean to—but just to refresh your recollection, I was with you in 

September, at the Cherokee Nation. 

Mr. BOREN. That’s why I was bringing that up. 

Mr. CABRERA. I’ve been to the Kackapoo Tribe. I’ve been through 

a good amount of the Alaska Regional Councils and Tribes. I’ve 

been to the Miccosukee Tribe, because I’m from Florida, and I’ve 

been there often. I can’t make a representation that I can be everywhere. 

Mr. BOREN. I mean, do you feel that is a valuable experience, to 

go out like you did with the Cherokee Nation? 

Mr. CABRERA. It is enormously valuable. 

14

Come September, I think there’s a plan for me to go to the Navajo event, and I just find that enormously useful. 

And on top of that, you know, we go to the stakeholder meetings, 

so NCHSI, or I’m going to an NCAI event now in Alaska again. 

Mr. BOREN. I personally want to thank you for coming to my district. 

Also, one last question. The ultimate goal of self-determination 

is a solid, thriving economic structure. Many of the tribal communities in our country lack this structure. While it is evident that 

the implementation of the structure is beyond the sole scope of 

your agency, HUD can play an important role in this development. 

What is HUD doing solely or in collaboration with other Federal 

agencies and local/tribal entities to develop an infrastructure to 

promote a thriving economic system? 

Mr. CABRERA. We are a very narrow slice of Indian Country, important but narrow, and I have to defer to our sister agency at Interior on a lot of that. 

That said, we have always kept a very open, wide open channel 

of communication with BIA, and wherever possible, facilitated 

issues. 

The best example I can give you is a title issue. 

Most of what we do is, we guarantee on the lending of money so 

that mortgages can be sold on the market and therefore be made 

available to Indian Country and make Indian Country capable of 

being underwritten so folks can own their homes. 

And a critical aspect of that is to have title that is marketable 

that a lender can rely on when they get a title insurance policy, 

a mortgagee policy. 

We began a conversation with BIA 3 years ago that culminated 

again in a memorandum of understanding, and that has worked 

reasonably well. 

When there were bumps, we simply picked up the phone and 

said, ‘‘We need to meet, this is the bump, we need to resolve the 

bump.’’ 

Are things perfect? No. But I think that’s because it’s a very complicated issue. You’re dealing with trust land. You’re dealing with 

562 TDHEs. You’re dealing with allotted land. 

The fee land is different. Fee is fee. But at the end of the day, 

that complication is when it’s going to be—it’s not so much insidious, but it’s going to be—it’s going to be a perennial issue, to a 

degree. 

The good news is that a lot of it has been solved, a lot of these 

pieces are in place, and people are taking advantage. 

We’ve gone from having something on the order of 40 home loans 

6 years ago to up to 1,400 as I recall. 

So the mission in housing is always slow, steady progress. It’s 

never one fell swoop. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and so we’re 

pretty committed to that. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

15

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to this witness and 

to place the responses in the record. 

I’d like to thank the Secretary for coming today. We really do appreciate it. This panel is now dismissed, and I would like to welcome our second panel. 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the committee. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I’m pleased to welcome our distinguished second panel. 

Our first witness will be Mr. Wendsler Nosie, Sr., chairman of 

the San Carlos Apache. 

Our second witness will be Mr. Mark Chino, president of the 

Mescalero Apache Tribe. 

And Mr. Kildee, I think you have someone here you would like 

to present. Would you please present your witness who is here 

today? 

Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much again 

for your courtesy on this. 

I would like to first of all welcome all the witnesses, but recently 

I was out in Arizona and had a hearing on No Child Left Behind, 

and at that hearing, I heard great testimony from San Carlos 

chairman, Wendsler Nosie, and it’s good to see him here again 

today. 

And if you will give as good testimony on housing as you did on 

education, we’ll learn a lot here today. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Our third witness will be Ms. Cheryl Parish, executive director 

of the Bay Mills Housing Authority in Michigan, who is here on behalf of the National American Indian Housing Council. 

And from my own State of California, I’m pleased to welcome our 

fourth witness, Ms. Sami Jo Difuntorum—would you please tell me 

the correct pronunciation—Difuntorum, executive director of the 

Karuk Tribe Housing Authority. 

Our fifth witness will be Ms. Aneva J. Yazzie, chief executive officer of the Navajo Housing Authority, representing several States. 

And our final witness will be Ms. Jacqueline L. Johnson, executive director, National Congress of American Indians. 

Without objection, your written statements will be part of the 

record. 

I will now recognize our first witness, Mr. Nosie, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WENDSLER NOSIE, SR., CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY: TERRY RAMBLER, 

CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS HOUSING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

AND MEMBER, TRIBAL COUNCIL; RONALD BONI, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, SAN CARLOS HOUSING AUTHORITY; AND DIANA 

LOPEZ JONES, ESQ., HOUSING AUTHORITY COUNSEL 

Mr. NOSIE. Chairwoman Waters, and members of the committee, 

thank you for holding this hearing today. 

16

My name is Wendsler Nosie, Senior, and I am the chairman of 

the San Carlos Apache Tribe. I am honored to be here to express 

some of our views. 

With me today is Tribal Council member Terry Rambler, who 

sits behind me, chairman of the Housing Board of Directors, and 

also Mr. Ronald Boni, director of the Housing Authority, and Diana 

Lopez Jones, our Housing Authority counsel. 

First, I’d like to take a little turn here on the testimony and reflect back to 1962, 1963, and 1964, when my mother traveled here 

to Washington, D.C., and spoke to the House of Congress, and also 

to a subcommittee, on the opportunity of having future homes on 

the reservation. 

She stood before the committee and expressed the dire need of 

the people in San Carlos, and also stood with an African American 

who also had expressed their need of housing. 

But first, let me just say that before the reservation, people lived 

as they did in our cultural ways. Second, under reservation life, 

there were many that were living within their wickiups and with 

canvas homes, only for the scouts to have what the United States 

Army had given them. 

And then in the 1920’s, the Coolidge Dam was requested to be 

built on the reservation, and forcibly done, which caused the people 

to move to what we call now the new San Carlos, but before then, 

when the old San Carlos was being taken apart, they allowed the 

people to take parts and pieces, boards, and to assemble what they 

would call a home, but many live again in wickiups and makeshift 

homes. 

Then in 1962, 1963, and 1964, that’s when the opportunity came 

for housing. 

And as you can see, I submitted an article from the ‘‘Arizona Republic’’ that shows my mother, and that little boy there is me. 

As you see there, some of the things that are stated in that paper 

was how they no longer had to go to the compound to receive 

water, and it talked about the use of the house of taking the hardship of the people. 

Well, before I came to Washington, I had asked my mother, what 

can I say, or what should I say? 

She said, ‘‘You know, the intent was good back then when they 

had discussed, but it seems like they idled off and have gone backwards, because now, many of our people need homes.’’ 

So she asked me the question to ask you: what happened? Because we are the first American people, and this was the promise 

that they had made to Native Americans, but yet something has 

gone wrong. 

As you can see, to my right, I have pictures there that show how 

our living condition is, and how people still suffer from having inadequate houses. 

Picture number one is a 70-year-old home that at one time 

housed 12 children, and today it houses 3 adults and 5 children, 

and they are on the waiting list for housing. 

Picture number two is a veteran, a war veteran, in World War 

II, and in the summer of 2006 he passed away, leaving his widow 

and his grandkids living in this home in picture number two. 

17

Picture number three is a middle-aged lady and five children and 

one grandchild living in this house, with no running water or electricity. 

So as you see, as she had stated to me, there is still a lot of work 

to be done and a lot of the commitments that were made need to 

be fulfilled. 

And this is the great worry that we have in San Carlos, and I’m 

sure in all tribal communities. So we ask that you consider the fact 

of what history had begun with and where we are today, and where 

is it going to take us tomorrow, because every livelihood of each 

child is very important, as well as in other tribes. 

We also, as I heard a few minutes ago, on the FEMA trailers, 

the tribe just asks that there be a unique way, a fair way of distributing the FEMA trailers, and we ask that a strong partnership 

be made. 

Last but not least, the war in Iraq. We know for a fact that it’s 

taking a lot of our dollars, and we ask that this be considered, because we are the first Americans, and should always be considered 

the first people. 

I thank you for that, and I thank you for the time you’ve given 

me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nosie can be found on page 82 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Ms. Cheryl Parish. 

STATEMENT OF CHERYL PARISH, VICE CHAIRWOMAN, 

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Ms. PARISH. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking 

Member Biggert, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

I am honored to appear before you today to provide our views 

about the reauthorization of the Native American and Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. 

I am pleased to be able to share our enthusiasm about, and our 

concerns with, the discussion draft of the proposed legislation you 

have provided. 

My name is Cheryl Parish and I am the executive director of the 

Bay Mills Housing Authority in Brimley, Michigan. I am also a 

member of the Bay Mills Indian community. 

Today, I am here as the vice chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). 

NAIHC is the only national Indian organization that represents 

Native American housing interests. The NAIHC is composed of 264 

voting members representing nearly 460 American Indian tribes 

and Alaska Native villages. 

Tribal communities across this great Nation suffer daily from inadequate and unsafe housing. This impacts our education, our 

health, our spirituality, and our pride in our community. We all 

want to lift our heads high but this can be difficult when you gaze 

beyond the reservation boundaries and see how others live. 

NAHASDA has made significant strides to improve housing conditions within our communities. I urge this committee, other committees of jurisdiction, Members of Congress, and this Administration to join us to ensure the timely reauthorization of NAHASDA. 

18

It is critical that we act decisively to protect the nearly $6 billion 

investment that the Federal Government has made toward Indian 

housing over the past decade. 

Although great strides have been made since NAHASDA’s inception, more, and much more, is necessary to make an even more 

powerful impact for native people. 

Clearly, this committee recognizes the importance of the reauthorization of NAHASDA. 

NAIHC’s member tribes and Indian Housing Authorities appreciate the willingness and the support of this committee to focus on 

and to understand what the law means to Indian Country, providing desperately needed tools so we can continue to improve the 

housing conditions that our people face every day. 

We have submitted for the record a complete discussion of all the 

amendments contained in the discussion draft. 

Madam Chairwoman, I respectfully request that this be made an 

official part of the record, and allow me for a moment to focus on 

the three amendments that we find most encouraging. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. PARISH. Thank you. 

Eligibility for Federal Supply Sources. 

This amendment is an example of the committee’s continued support for the congressional findings in NAHASDA. 

Namely, that Federal assistance should be made available to 

tribes and their housing authorities in a manner similar to those 

accorded Indian tribes in Public Law 93–638. 

Tribal Preference in Employment and Contracting. 

This provision is a clear recognition of the inherent sovereignty 

of the Indian tribes to follow their own tribal laws. This is not 

about good politics, this is about good policy. 

Operation and Maintenance Costs. 

This amendment will permit the use of funds provided under 

NAHASDA to be used to operate and maintain NAHASDA-financed 

housing. Currently, only through a paperwork-driven process can 

NAHASDA funds be used for such purposes. 

This amendment is local, and it is tribal, in the best sense of 

these terms. 

Again, we applaud, indeed, we are grateful to this committee and 

this able staff we work with, as we seek ways to improve and to 

further enhance NAHASDA, especially in the areas that provide 

more flexibility to administer our programs based on the time-honored tradition of self-determination. 

We respectfully submit for your consideration, however, a couple 

of concerns with regard to Subtitle B, ‘‘Self-determined Housing Activities for Tribal Communities.’’ 

While we address this issue at length in our written testimony, 

please allow me to summarize. 

We have four areas of concern: The permitted activities identified 

in Subtitle B, Section 233(a) currently already exist within 

NAHASDA; this section does not seem to permit any common area 

construction or communal usage that is so important in our tribal 

communities; this section does not permit the use of any funds for 

infrastructure; and the fixed-income family section may be more restrictive than current statute and regulation require. We would 

19

like to recommend that this requirement to verify incomes every 3 

years for fixed-income families be stricken from Section 2. 

In conclusion, the proposed legislation is an important step forward and a marked improvement over current legislation. It will 

ensure that the reauthorization of NAHASDA will result in improved housing conditions for all Native Americans. 

I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in pursuing the 

reauthorization of NAHASDA, its commitment to Indian self-determination and self-sufficiency, and its continued support for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian people. 

I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Parish can be found on page 91 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ms. Sami Jo Difuntorum. 

STATEMENT OF SAMI JO DIFUNTORUM, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, KARUK TRIBE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. DIFUNTORUM. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Waters, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Sami Jo Difuntorum, and I am the executive director 

of the Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, and an enrolled member of 

the Shasta Tribe, also from California. 

On behalf of the Karuk Tribe and the Karuk Tribe Housing Authority (KTHA), I’d like to thank the chairwoman and members of 

the subcommittee for holding this hearing. 

I’m honored to testify at today’s hearing in support of reauthorization of NAHASDA and in support of proposed amendments to 

the draft bill that will make it even stronger. 

The Karuk Tribe is made up of several communities located 

along the Klamath River in two extremely rural portions of 

Siskiyou and Humboldt Counties in northwestern California, with 

approximately 3,600 enrolled tribal members. Our trust and reservation land is approximately 600 acres. 

We serve one of the most remote, poverty-stricken areas of California. This region was estimated to be 85 percent timber-dependent and its economy has not recovered from the closure of local 

mills. In 2006, 90 percent of the students enrolled in the local 

school qualified for the free lunch program. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that unemployment is at 

89 percent for our tribe in our Indian area, and the unemployment 

rate for the tribe by census data is 83 percent. The waiting list for 

homes has over 350 applicants, most of whom have no other viable 

housing options. 

Since the passage of NAHASDA, the KTHA has developed a 

broad range of housing services using the flexibility in this Act to 

meet the needs of our service population. 

Through the employment of a loan officer, we provide four or five 

low-interest loans per year, equalling approximately 15 percent of 

our IHBG, Indian Housing Block Grant. We have a rental voucher 

program for college students and elders who live off reservation. 

One of our communities, called the Forks of Salmon, has no electricity. We’re currently incorporating innovative design features, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 037550 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\37550.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
20

cluding solar components, in constructing projects for this community. 

Reauthorization of the NAHASDA provides an excellent opportunity to strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and efficiency. 

The 350 families on our waiting list must live for many, many 

years in overcrowded and often substandard housing before a unit 

becomes available. 

The most recent discussion draft of the NAHASDA reauthorization bill includes many amendments that we support as a means 

to provide greater flexibility and to promote tribal self-governance 

and self-sufficiency. 

The goal of much of the bill is to strengthen tribal self-determination. I’d like to comment on two specific provisions. Procurement: Exempt purchases of less than $5,000 from the 

competitive procurement requirements of the Act. HUD currently 

requires that we demonstrate compliance with the competitive bid 

requirements for every purchase, no matter how small. The application of competitive purchasing requirements to these ‘‘de minimis’’ purchases often costs as much or more than the purchase 

itself. 

During an onsite monitoring review by HUD, the regulations at 

24 CFR 8536 were interpreted to mean that a TDHE must obtain 

three price quotes for all purchases, even a box of pencils. KTHA 

has three communities spanning 130 miles. The amount of supplies 

purchased for maintenance and operations alone is significant. 

And we’ve been fortunate. We’ve been able to employ a full-time 

person just to do purchasing, but a lot of the small tribes, particularly in California, are not able to do that, because of the amount 

of money they receive, so we very strongly support this provision 

of the discussion draft. 

Training and technical assistance. Tribes and Indian Housing 

Authorities also have a need for training and technical assistance. 

Earmark reform meant funding for the National American Indian 

Housing Council Training and Technical Assistance was eliminated. The NAIHC receives no additional funding to support training and technical assistance. 

Section 703 of NAHASDA specifically authorizes appropriations 

for a national organization representing Native American housing 

interests for providing training and technical assistance to Indian 

housing authorities and Tribally designated housing entities. 

That’s not an earmark, that is an authorization. 

We strongly support the amendment authorizing training and 

technical assistance by a national organization through 2012. 

We hope NAHASDA further evolves to accommodate the everchanging needs of Indian Country. 

I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in pursuing reauthorization of NAHASDA and its support for American Indian, 

Alaska, and Native Hawaiian people. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Difuntorum can be found on 

page 53 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Aneva J. Yazzie. 

21

STATEMENT OF ANEVA J. YAZZIE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. YAZZIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this tremendous opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Housing 

and Community Opportunity. 

I applaud you, Chairman Frank, Ranking Members Bachus and 

Biggert, and all the members of this committee for your attention 

to housing issues, particularly the issues affecting Indian Country. 

I would also like to say ‘‘ya ‘at ‘teeh’’ to Congressman Pearce, 

whose district includes a significant portion of the Navajo Nation. 

I am from the Bitter Water, born from the Bitter Water Clan. I’m 

from the Black Street Wood People Clan. My paternal grandparents are the Meadow People Clan and my maternal grandparents are from the Near the Water Clan. So that’s who I am as 

a Navajo woman. 

At the committee’s request, I will summarize my written testimony, but I’m happy to answer any questions. 

The Navajo Housing Authority has made great strides in improving the lives of tribal members, and in the last decade has done 

even better thanks to the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act, which we know as NAHASDA. 

While appropriations is not in the jurisdiction of this committee, 

as I am testifying before Members of Congress, I would be remiss 

if I did not comment on appropriations. 

NAHASDA is a good law, but the funding for NAHASDA is too 

low for the real promise of the law to be realized. 

We hope you, Madam Chairwoman, will use your influence as a 

leader in Congress on housing issues to convince your colleagues to 

provide the necessary funding to support the thousands of families 

who have nowhere else to turn for housing assistance. 

As I said, NAHASDA is a good law, but it is not a perfect law. 

Your discussion draft makes several important improvements. 

The centerpiece of the discussion draft, the Self-determined 

Housing Activities Program, is a bold proposal that recognizes the 

original intent of NAHASDA as described in the findings and purposes of the law. Your proposal is a move toward true self-determination. We are excited by the prospect and look forward to implementing this provision for Navajo. 

However, we hope the committee will consider broadening the 

language to allow the support of activities that require some expenditure of funds on infrastructure. In Indian Country in general, 

and Navajo in particular, housing cannot be built without infrastructure. Existing water and waste water facilities are hopelessly 

overburdened, and in many areas of our land do not exist at all. 

In Indian Country, the lack of infrastructure is an affordable housing problem. 

Other provisions in the bill, including the eligibility of the essential Indian families in housing and the inclusion of police officers 

will go far to strengthen our communities. While these provisions 

may at first seem technical, they will have a real impact in Indian 

Country. 

Likewise, the ‘‘de minimis’’ exemption from procurement rules 

when a NAHASDA recipient is spending less than $5,000, will alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:49 Sep 13, 2007 Jkt 037550 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\37550.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
22

leviate administrative burdens and allow us to focus on addressing 

real problems rather than focus on paperwork exercises. 

The savings one might find through a competitive bid process 

were such small amounts it was far outweighed by the amount of 

time and effort that must be put in to solicit and review the bids. 

One part of NAHASDA that continues to frustrate tribes and policymakers is Title VI. While I worked with the program before coming to Navajo, few tribes have successfully accessed the program. 

I believe this program remains underutilized for two basic reasons. 

First, there has been a lack of effective education about the program. We are pleased to see that the draft bill addresses that by 

including a requirement that HUD provide training on the use of 

Title VI guarantees, and we fully support that provision. 

Second, the activities allowed under the current Title VI program 

are so limited that the eligible activities cannot generate enough 

income to cover debt service on the guaranteed loan. 

Title VI is based on a very successful Section 108 program which 

allows recipients of CDBG to borrow or issue bonded debt for up 

to 5 times our annual formula allocation to support the functions 

otherwise allowed under CDBG. 

Tribal governments are prohibited from utilizing the Section 108 

program because tribes compete for one national set-aside. Without 

a formula allocation, you cannot use Section 108 guarantees. 

Amending Title VI to include the eligible activities allowed under 

Section 108 would allow tribes to access the benefits of the program 

non-Indian communities have used for years. 

This would have the effect of increasing investment in economic 

development and infrastructure where it is desperately needed, 

without increasing Federal appropriations. 

We would like to work with the committee to see if this proposal, 

even in the form of a demonstration, could be included in this bill. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and the 

committee, for this opportunity, and applaud you for your efforts so 

far. 

I recognize that there is much work to be done before this legislation becomes law, but I look forward to continuing this important 

work to see that these amendments become law and NAHASDA is 

reauthorized. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yazzie can be found on page 102 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Ms. Jacqueline Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE L. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for allowing the National 

Congress of American Indians to testify here today. The National 

Congress of American Indians is the largest and oldest national 

Native American organization advocating for the rights of tribes 

and tribal governments to achieve self-determination, here in 

Washington, D.C. 

23

I personally am an Alaska Native, Tlingit from Alaska, and 

former president of the National American Indian Housing Council 

and Deputy Assistant Secretary for HUD for the Native American 

Programs during the implementation of NAHASDA, so it gives me 

extreme pleasure to sit amongst my peer group here today and to 

thank them for the fine work that they have done, and to thank 

you at the committee for the fine work that you have done, in moving forward this reauthorization of NAHASDA, which I think revolutionized the way that Native American housing funds are provided to Indian communities and to be able to provide the flexibility that tribes need to design and to develop and manage housing programs to meet their own unique needs. 

There were several things that were important when we developed NAHASDA initially. 

One was to be able to have the flexibility which the program has, 

but also to be able to maximize the limited Federal dollars and to 

leverage them, and I appreciate and support some of the recommendations that are put into the draft legislation to be able to 

help continue to move that forward, particularly the enhancements 

to allow for the low-income tax credit program, being able to allow 

for those revenues received to be able to be reused by the tribes 

and the TDHEs, and to create further incentives for tribes to utilize those leveraging programs. 

I also appreciate the recognition to be able to have access to the 

General Services Administration program to procure property and 

services, as many tribes do, and I applaud the effort. 

I do have a recommendation, however, that I would like us to 

take a look at that language. 

The way it currently is drafted, it could be interpreted to be a 

mandatory program rather than a program at the tribal discretion, 

and I think by using language that is used in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, that language would 

help give the flexibility that tribes need to decide when they choose 

to utilize that program. 

And of course, I support all the preferences for employment and 

contracting. 

Given the record of what you’ve heard already today about the 

high unemployment, and many of the income levels within our 

communities, anything that we can do to help deal with getting our 

own members to work, giving them jobs, is very important and consistent with the vision of tribes. 

I also believe very strongly in the changes and the technical corrections that are very necessary to the definition of essential families, as well as the eligibility of law enforcement officers for residency in our communities. 

Many of you know that we’re faced with all kinds of issues. Currently, a great meth epidemic in Indian Country is one of those, 

and we really do need to have cooperative agreements and relationships with the law enforcement officers to be able to address this. 

And I know many of the housing authorities and housing communities have been very proactive in education about anti-meth efforts and eradication. 

I do want to talk about the reserve funds, and I know, Madam 

Chairwoman, you brought that up earlier, the 20 percent cap on 

24

the reserve funds, and I have a different perspective than Assistant 

Secretary, Orlando Cabrera, whom I deeply respect and truly 

thank for his efforts and his work and his willingness to come out 

to Indian Country, and to be educated. 

But I think that the 20 percent reserve cap is—the reserve funds 

were there for administrative purposes to be able to be like a business, to be able to have a reserve when you needed to be able to 

come against one, and to also be able to deal with the leveraging 

issues that Assistant Secretary Cabrera brought up. 

But with the way that the funding for NAHASDA is allocated, 

it is based upon a formula, and some tribes get a very, very limited 

amount. 

In fact, some tribes who get the base amount, the minimal amount is only $25,0000, and therefore, a 20 percent cap is very, 

very little, and those tribes need to save those monies up for multiple years, even if they were going to leverage the housing dollars. 

And so if you look in my written testimony, I give an example 

of an Alaskan Native village, but whose housing cost is about 

$450,000, just to construct a home for one tribal member, and 

being capped at $5,000 a year takes many years before they will 

actually be able to leverage the dollars. 

So I propose taking a look at or having some conversations with 

tribes and consultation with tribes, but perhaps coming up to a 

sliding scale on the cap so that the smaller tribes aren’t penalized 

by a cap that may be an effective cap for the larger tribes. 

I also wanted to commend the efforts in the legislation to deal 

with some of the administrative burdens that were unnecessary, 

such as the $5,000 exemption for procurement, as well as the release of the mandatory recertification process. 

A number of those kinds of efforts in the legislation, I believe, 

will help to make the housing authorities have the flexibility and 

the tribes to have the flexibility to be able to address those things 

of their own accord and with their own policies. 

But I do want to spend just a moment here of my time, before 

it is gone, to— 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson can be found on page 

62 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Your time is up. I’m sorry. You passed 

your time. 

We’re going to move on to Mr. Chino. 

STATEMENT OF MARK R. CHINO, PRESIDENT, MESCALERO 

APACHE TRIBE, AND CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MESCALERO APACHE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. CHINO. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Biggert. 

My name is Mark R. Chino, and I am the president of the Mescalero Apache Tribe. I’m also the chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Mescalero Apache Housing Authority. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify about the reauthorization of 

NAHASDA and the housing needs of American Indian people. Few 

programs provide such a rich return on investment as does 

NAHASDA. Every dollar invested by Congress in Indian housing 

yields great benefits. 

25

The system that Congress set up in 1996 has made a real difference in the lives of many Indian people, yet the program remains significantly underfunded. Adjusted for inflation, Congress is 

spending less on Indian housing needs than it did in 1996. The program needs more money. 

Indian housing has come a long way in the last 50 years. When 

I was born on the Mescalero Apache Reservation, many of our tribal members were still living in wickiups and other traditional types 

of housing. 

The long tenure of my late father, Wendell Chino, saw many 

modern houses built on the reservation, and a general improvement in the housing situation. 

The housing needs of our people are still great, however. We 

have a waiting list of almost 400 families for homes. Many homes 

built for 3 or 4 people house 10 or more extended family members. 

Even with these great needs, Mescalero is still a ‘‘fortunate’’ tribe. 

On the Navajo Nation, for example, tens of thousands of people 

do not have running water or electricity. In fact, statistics show 

that almost 14 percent of Indian housing nationwide does not have 

adequate plumbing. This is staggering. This is a situation that only 

can be remedied by the dedication of significant financial resources. 

I’m not here today to speak about funding levels. I am here to 

urge you to reauthorize NAHASDA. 

Apart from dedicating more financial resources to meet Indian 

housing needs, reauthorizing NAHASDA is the single most important thing that Congress can do for Indian housing this session. 

Time has shown that this legislation does work. 

The discussion draft contains several amendments, many of 

which are positive. 

I am very pleased to see the inclusion of not only a generalized 

Indian preference in contracting, but a more specific tribal preference as well. This will hopefully lead to economic development 

throughout Indian Country. 

Several large, tribally owned contractors have benefitted from 

the Indian preference language of the 1996 statute. Hopefully, this 

tribal preference will more directly benefit small, locally owned 

businesses. 

The broadening of the ‘‘essential families’’ exception is also a 

positive change. 

Being able to offer housing services to more non-low-income families who are needed on the reservation should help attract more 

talented people to Indian Country. 

Lack of housing options really does deter people like doctors and 

teachers from coming to Indian Country, and this amendment 

should make it easier to attract these types of people. 

In the same vein, allowing all law enforcement officers to be considered ‘‘eligible families’’ will hopefully make it easier to recruit 

much-needed police officers. 

Procurement should also be made easier through the ‘‘de minimis’’ exemption. 

Under the proposed legislation, procurement of items worth less 

than $5,000 will not require the often time-consuming task of competitive bidding. This will free administrative talents to accomplish 

more worthwhile things. 

26

There are several things that are not included in the draft, which 

I believe are important. 

NAHASDA needs to be amended to allow tribes to better utilize 

NAHASDA dollars for community infrastructure. Houses can’t exist 

in isolation from roads, sewers, utilities, and other types of community support structures. 

As a retired BIA law enforcement officer, I can tell you that a 

community needs an adequate public safety program or public safety system to thrive. 

NAHASDA should focus more broadly on the community and not 

confine itself to bricks and mortar for houses. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. Reauthorization 

of NAHASDA is the first step toward ensuring the Federal Government fulfills its responsibility to the housing needs of Indian people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chino can be found on page 50 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I’ll recognize myself for 5 minutes, for questioning. 

I understand there is some controversy over the formula that 

HUD uses to distribute NAHASDA funds. The bill does not address 

this distribution issue. 

It appears that HUD is not going to propose an amendment that 

would change the current approach. I would like to ask any of you 

who would like to take this question on to explain the controversy 

and whether there is a consensus solution among the tribes about 

how to address it. 

Is this an appropriate time to talk about that? 

Ms. Johnson, you didn’t finish talking, so help us with this. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You’re right. There is an issue of lack of consensus 

around the data that’s used for the formula distribution. 

When we first developed NAHASDA, and had the first formula 

meetings, we determined the principles behind what was the need 

components before we ran the numbers, and so we all—we were 

able to receive consensus in Indian Country of the need components that would be identified for the distribution of the monies 

amongst tribes. 

It becomes more challenging now, because everybody knows exactly what certain data sets mean. 

I think the challenge for Indian Country really is that we don’t 

have a way of truly assessing need, and one of the things that I 

think would be good for the committee to encourage is HUD and 

the tribes to sit down in consultation to determine a way, on a regular basis, to be able to update information and data about need 

and develop some methodologies that we can consistently not only 

help us for advocating our program, but help us in the appropriations process. 

I know that there are some proposals out there to talk about how 

we can come together on that, as far as ideas of tribes developing 

their own data sets around certain areas, but I do believe that this 

is an issue that needs further consultation with tribes and HUD, 

and I believe the tribes are willing to put forward options to consider. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

27

Would anyone else like to address that? Do you have any other 

ideas or proposals about how to deal with this little controversy 

around the formula? 

If not, I’ll just move right on. 

A number of you have objected to a requirement that funds provided under the self-determined housing activities for the tribal 

community program are solely for housing activities rather than infrastructure. That was just mentioned in the last testimony, commercial or economic development. 

Given the tremendous need for pure affordable housing on Indian 

lands, I wondered if somebody might explain to me why this limitation is unreasonable, especially in a program where the word housing is really the centerpiece of the statute. 

Now, I’m asking that even though I just heard the testimony 

that was given that explained the need for community and infrastructure. 

Would anyone like to expand some more on that? 

Mr. CHINO. Certainly, Chairwoman Waters. 

I think it’s very, very important for any Indian community that 

wants to expand and improve its housing for its members to be 

able to use not only NAHASDA funds but any available source of 

funds to set up the infrastructure that’s needed for any type of 

housing, be it manufactured housing or permanent homes. 

Without that infrastructure, without sewers, without electricity, 

it does no good to set either a mobile home or a permanent home 

on a particular site. 

If you can’t provide sewer, electricity, and water to that home, 

then all you have is a structure sitting there and a family occupying it with no way to wash their clothes, and with no way to 

power their telephones, televisions, or radios. 

There has to be infrastructure in order to make housing successful, and so the tribes would need some flexibility to use funds to 

establish infrastructure, because as I said, it does no good to set 

a house down without those utilities in place. 

Chairwoman WATERS. That makes a lot of sense. 

All right. I will recognize Mr. Pearce for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Just on followup, would any of you like to comment about that 

infrastructure question, the flexibility to spend money on infrastructure? Is it a problem for anyone else? 

Ms. PARISH. Sir, that’s a problem that we face in Indian housing 

across the board. 

Unfortunately, we have a limited amount of money. Indian 

health has a limited amount of money. We’re not allowed to commingle our funds. The tribes should be able to decide basically 

where they get the limited funds and where they want to put them. 

That should be a tribal decision. 

But it all boils down to lack of funding. We need water, we need 

sewer, all the way through the reservations, and I would—Congressman Kildee has seen, you know, the conditions in Michigan, 

and he can speak to those areas. Alaska is so much worse. And you 

know your areas, and the astronomic cost. 

28

But it also goes into not being able to put it in community buildings or anything like that. That also is a local, tribal decision. 

If my tribal council says that they need a place where they can 

serve our low-income people, to teach them traditional ways to do 

the beading, to go and have the elders teach the history, that is 

part of creating a community. Not only do we build a house, but 

we are to build a community. 

Mr. PEARCE. The underlying bill declares 15 percent of the $1 

million for local flexibility, but then it appears to limit this infrastructure. 

And would you give a strong recommendation that we include 

that flexibility or just is that a yes— 

Ms. PARISH. All the way across the board. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes across the board? 

Ms. YAZZIE. That would be correct. 

For Navajo, being the largest Indian housing organization in the 

country, the 15 percent of $1 million certainly will assist, more so 

with smaller tribes, I guess, but you weren’t here in the room, I 

realize, Congressman Pearce, when we talked about the Title VI 

provision, which we would be accommodating for Navajo, just given 

our size, with respect to expanding the eligibility activities that are 

afforded under Section 108 of the CDBG program, to address costly 

offsite infrastructure costs, especially for Navajo, given its size and 

the remoteness. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Recently, our office wrote to the National 

American Indian Housing Council to send information about the 

success of NAHASDA in New Mexico. 

The response I received was that—it included some relevant information, but basically said it should be noted that it is difficult 

to estimate any statistical degree of success, and continues on that 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not 

maintain aggregated data of the required Indian housing plans, the 

IHPs, or the annual performance reports, the APRs, to measure the 

relative success of NAHASDA funding. 

Now, my interest is what kind of data is collected from the tribes 

and the designated entities? What kind of data do you turn in, that 

is not tracked? 

Do you not turn in any data? 

Ms. PARISH. We turn in an extreme amount of data. As far as 

I know, HUD has no way to calculate and compute that data. 

Jackie can answer that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The difficulty is, the data that’s submitted is 

based upon the tribe’s plan, and the tribe’s plan is based upon the 

tribe’s goal. 

So the tribe may have a low-income, traditional low-income housing, they may have a low-income home ownership program, but 

they may have a whole bunch of other programs that are in between that. 

And so all this information comes in based upon how did they 

achieve their goals in the programs they determined, but it’s hard 

to aggregate that, given the diversity of the types of programs that 

tribes are taking on. 

That’s why I suggested that data is sorely needed, and it’s very, 

very difficult for us to continue to advocate without the data, and 

29

that we do need to come up with some methods of measuring success in Indian Country but also being able to measure the unmet 

need. 

Mr. PEARCE. Would a straightforward electronic submission and 

then the compilation be okay? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, but I think Indian Country needs to work 

with the Department to determine what are those measures, so 

that we don’t get into jeopardy with any, you know, GIPRA or 

other kinds of goals or measures of success. 

But that’s exactly what we’re looking for, something that’s a regular, that we just electronically do, that’s not an additional administrative burden, but that helps us all achieve our goals. 

Mr. PEARCE. Is it possible— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Sum up your questions at this time. 

Mr. PEARCE. I’ll yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. All right. 

Mr. Cleaver, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Parish? 

Ms. PARISH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Hi. 

Ms. PARISH. Hi. 

Mr. CLEAVER. In your statement, on Page 4, you say, ‘‘We are 

concerned that there is to be a prohibition on the use of any funds 

proposed for the self-determined housing activities to be used for 

infrastructure.’’ 

Ms. PARISH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Are those funds presently used for—are self-determined housing activities presently used for infrastructure? 

Ms. PARISH. We don’t have the model program in place, so I 

guess the answer to that would be no, because it does not exist. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The current program allows for infrastructure. 

The new proposed program has a limitation on that, 15 percent— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. 

Ms. JOHNSON.—of infrastructure. 

Ms. PARISH. Right. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. And you are interested in that program, 

those dollars being used for infrastructure? 

Ms. PARISH. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. And that has been conveyed to HUD? 

Ms. PARISH. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you have any idea why the prohibition was 

added to at least the draft legislation? 

I know this is a question probably for HUD, but I’m just curious 

as to whether or not there’s a commonly known reason that there 

was some prohibition. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think that there was an effort by folks to strike 

a balance between putting forward a program that has total flexibility so that the tribes and the TDHEs no longer have to go for 

HUD approval every time. 

In the existing legislation, there’s an allowance for model activities, but you have to get HUD’s approval all the time, and that’s 

a long, arduous process. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. 

30

Ms. JOHNSON. And some people have been successful. 

This program says, without HUD’s approval, you can move forward with these related activities, and there is an effort to strike 

a balance between what would be just totally okay to do without 

making sure that somebody doesn’t kind of get into trouble. 

And so we still think there needs to be more work on the language on eligible activities. You’re talking about infrastructure. 

Comprehensive planning is also an important component that’s not 

eligible under that particular language. 

And I think that if we’re trying to really build communities, we 

need to think about those things that are not totally bricks and 

mortar as proposed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I agree. 

Ms. Yazzie. 

Ms. YAZZIE. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I asked the Secretary a question concerning the 

greening of public housing. 

In looking at the houses that were put before us, and I’m sure 

there are probably some more contemporary housing there, but my 

concern, and I hope that a concern will grow with the housing authority, that great effort and time be taken to make sure that, to 

the highest degree possible, that carbon neutral housing be developed. 

And the reason for that is that is where the country is going, and 

so the housing authority would fall further behind if we expend 

dollars in this fiscal year to build housing that the rest of the country, and indeed most of Europe, is trying to get away from. 

So that’s more of a comment than a question. I’m hoping that 

you agree. 

Ms. YAZZIE. I totally agree. 

In fact, that’s one of the initiatives that the Navajo Housing Authority is pursuing and supporting. 

We obviously, we currently have a green product, actually, a 

Flexcrete plant, in which we have, it’s a cement base, ply-ash mix 

building block that we’re offering, and it has lots of energy conservation values. 

Obviously, our clientele is low income families, and so we’re looking at all avenues to reduce utility consumption costs for our families. 

And so that is an initiative that we are actively pursuing, and 

engaging with universities in the State of Arizona, and to the extent that we can lend that to the State of New Mexico, as well as 

the University of Utah, because we are in a tri-state service area, 

that we are partnering with those institutions to research and development in the areas of energy conservation. 

So we have three homes actually, three prototype homes that 

have utilized our product, that have been analyzed over a year’s 

time, and which have showed some significant cost savings in 

terms of energy usage. 

So we welcome the Congress and the committee members to 

come out and see some of the prototypes that have been built thus 

far in each of the three States that we serve. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The time has expired. 

31

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Parish, first of all, give my greetings to Chief Jeff Parker. 

Ms. PARISH. I will. 

Mr. KILDEE. And I think the last time I visited Bay Mills, I remember I met one of your elders, Mr. LeBlanc, who has passed on 

since then, and he gave me great wisdom; and I met a very young 

person, who went on later to go to Michigan State University and 

interned for me, Brian Newland. And if you would tell him I said 

hello, I’d appreciate that very much. 

Ms. PARISH. I will. I will be seeing him this weekend, hopefully. 

Mr. KILDEE. Let me ask you this, Cheryl. 

Would you explain how we can build upon the self-determination 

component of NAHASDA, which is a very important part? 

Ms. PARISH. I believe basically that the tribes and the TDHEs 

need to work within the established laws. The tribes have to be 

able to design and determine what is best for their membership, so 

long as we follow the structures set forth in the legislation and the 

guidelines. 

Along those lines, though, I do believe that HUD has to have a 

little bit more consistency among its regions. 

I might ask to develop a project, being in upper Michigan, and 

they might allow it. Jackie might ask to do the same thing within 

Region 9 in Alaska, and that particular administration or that 

ONAP office might deny it. 

I think they need to set forth a standard answer that is good 

across the country. 

We also need—they play a very important role in the better management of tribal housing programs, and they need to provide leadership in raising capacity building within our Indian housing authorities, rather than focussing on being disciplinarians. 

Capacity building and teaching mechanisms such as those outlined in your education seminar section of the proposed legislation 

related to the loan guarantee programs will only serve to complement self-determination. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

And Ms. Johnson, you mentioned that you had some concern 

about the GSA provision where you could purchase through GSA. 

Our intention, of course, is to make GSA more accessible to you, 

not mandate that, but I think the language is good there, but we’ll 

take a look at that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Great. 

Mr. KILDEE. I appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I have one question. I have a comment, too, for Mr. Chino. 

I want to say, Mr. Pearce is gone now, we’re in the middle of a 

markup in resources, and he and I are both vice chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, and I know particularly you all are 

32

very active in promoting elk populations as well as black bear, and 

I want to thank you for those efforts, as a sportsman. 

A question I have for Cheryl and Jackie, here’s the question. 

Although each tribe is unique in their housing needs, a constant 

theme throughout the testimony today is the need for increased 

funding in various programs through NAHASDA. 

Unmet housing needs and long waiting lists for housing are two 

tangible ways to recognize this need. 

The National American Indian Housing Council supports the use 

of grant amounts over extended periods allowing tribes or TDHEs 

to carry unexpended funds from one fiscal year to a subsequent fiscal year. 

Given the testimony documenting the unmet housing needs, 

what would necessitate the need to carry over funds? 

Ms. PARISH. In my area, we have a very short building season. 

In a lot of cases of our smaller housing authorities, our grant 

amounts aren’t enough to build anything in a given year. We have 

to save our money. And that would be one of the prime reasons. 

A lack of money, and able to—you mentioned your Title VI. Well, 

your smaller housing authorities, they don’t have the money—I 

don’t dare leverage the small amount of money that I get with Title 

VI. I’d have nothing really left to operate on. 

So, you know, the smaller ones are the ones that also need the 

reserve accounts for that very purpose, because we don’t have 

enough to build in one season or the building season is too short. 

Mr. BOREN. Okay. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I agree with what Cheryl has to say. 

I think that one of the reasons is that, first of all, it’s a good 

tracking device, anyway, for us to be able to see what is there from 

prior years and to be able to use that and carry it forward. 

But lots of times, there are unexpected issues, whether it has 

taken a while to be able to deal with the title issue through the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, or other kinds of things that don’t allow 

for that to move forward. 

I, on the other hand, am also concerned, probably just like you 

are, that we make sure that we get the money out and we use it, 

because unexpended funds makes it more difficult for us to get forward. 

And I think all of us feel that same tension, so we recognize the 

importance of that, once again, striking a balance of having the 

flexibility to be able to develop and to be able to, by having economies of scale around a housing development, deal with the efficiencies that are necessary to put forward more units and still 

being able to deal with getting those funds out and expended so we 

can show Congress that we are a good Federal investment. 

Mr. BOREN. That makes sense. 

Thank you all so much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

And I’d like to thank our panel of witnesses for coming today and 

providing us with such valuable testimony that will help us to 

move this legislation forward, and hopefully to make some of the 

corrections that are recommended. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

33

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses 

and to place their responses in the record. 

This panel is now dismissed. 

Before we adjourn, the written statements of the following organizations will be made part of the record of this hearing: The Association of Alaska Housing Authorities; the Housing Assistance 

Council; and Enterprise Community Partners. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X

June 6, 2007

36


37550.001
37


37550.002
38


37550.003
39


37550.004
40


37550.005
41


37550.006
42


37550.007
43


37550.008
44


37550.009
45


37550.010
46


37550.011
47


37550.012
48


37550.013
49


37550.014
50


37550.015
51


37550.016
52


37550.017
53


37550.018
54


37550.019
55


37550.020
56


37550.021
57


37550.022
58


37550.023
59


37550.024
60


37550.025
61


37550.026
62


37550.027
63


37550.028
64


37550.029
65


37550.030
66


37550.031
67


37550.032
68


37550.033
69


37550.034
70


37550.035
71


37550.036
72


37550.037
73


37550.038
74


37550.039
75


37550.040
76


37550.041
77


37550.042
78


37550.043
79


37550.044
80


37550.045
81


37550.046
82


37550.047
83


37550.048
84


37550.049
85


37550.050
86


37550.051
87


37550.052
88


37550.053
89


37550.054
90


37550.055
91


37550.056
92


37550.057
93


37550.058
94


37550.059
95


37550.060
96


37550.061
97


37550.062
98


37550.063
99


37550.064
100


37550.065
101


37550.066
102


37550.067
103


37550.068
104


37550.069
105


37550.070
106


37550.071
107


37550.072
108


37550.073
109


37550.074
110


37550.075
111


37550.076
112


37550.077
113


37550.078
114


37550.079
115


37550.080
116


37550.081
117


37550.082
118


37550.083
119


37550.084
120


37550.085
121


37550.086
122


37550.087
123


37550.088
124


37550.089
125


37550.090
126


37550.091
127


37550.092
128


37550.093
129


37550.094
130


37550.095
131


37550.096