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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–235 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–297

DISCUSSION DRAFT LEGISLATION TO AMEND

AND REAUTHORIZE THE NATIVE AMERICAN

HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF–DETERMINATION

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 19, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID A. MULLON JR. Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 19, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 71 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Boyd, Rodger J., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Brien, David, Chairman, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians .............. 24

Prepared statement and supplementary information ................................... 25

Nutter, Teri, Executive Director, Copper River Basin Housing Authority; accompanied by Dan Duame, Executive Director of the Aleutian Housing 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Shuravloff, Marty, Chairman, National American Indian Housing Council ...... 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Walker, Waldo, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; accompanied by Raymond Gonzales, Executive Director, Washoe Tribal Housing 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Yazzie, Aneva J., CEO, Navajo Housing Authority .............................................. 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Housing Authority, prepared statement with attachment ...................................................................... 82

Indian Housing Advocacy Coalition, prepared statement with attachment ....... 132

Pyle, Gregory E., Chief, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement ..... 75

Sossamon, Russell, President, Southern Plains Indian Housing Association, 

prepared statement with attachment ................................................................. 91

(1)

DISCUSSION DRAFT LEGISLATION TO

AMEND AND REAUTHORIZE THE NATIVE

AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND 

SELF–DETERMINATION ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:48 a.m. in room 

485, Senate Russell Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. We next will move to the hearing that we have 

scheduled for today on Indian housing. I will describe that hearing 

and ask if my colleagues have any opening statements as well. 

The hearing is a discussion on draft legislation to amend and reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. We will receive testimony on a draft bill. The reauthorization of what is known as NAHASDA, the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, is very important. 

We want to hear from tribal leaders, tribal housing directors, and 

the Administration. 

We are all aware of the grave need for housing in Indian Country. During our March hearing on Indian housing, we heard alarming statistics. Ninety-thousand Indian families are homeless or 

under-housed. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing 

is considered inadequate. Over 1⁄3 of Indian homes are overcrowded. More than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed 

to provide adequate housing in Indian Country. 

Equally disturbing is the fact that funding for Indian housing 

has decreased over the last several years because it has not kept 

up with inflation and the rising cost of building materials. 

Our purpose in this discussion draft bill is to strengthen 

NAHASDA by providing tribes with increased flexibility with the 

goal of producing more homes in Indian Country. 

This discussion draft bill is based on suggestions offered at our 

March hearing, and our consultations with individual Indian tribes, 

the National American Indian Housing Council and the Administration. 

You will notice that the amendments are incremental changes to 

current law. We realize that ‘‘one size does not fit all’’ in Indian 

2

housing. Housing needs in the Great Plains differ greatly from 

those in the Southwest. This is why we retained the basic structure 

of the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, because through this 

block grant program, tribes and tribal housing entities are able to 

use the funds to serve their unique needs. 

We thank you for traveling here today and look forward to hearing your suggestions on the discussion draft. 

I remind our witnesses that your full statements will be made a 

part of the record, and we ask that you summarize your written 

statements. As always, the hearing record will remain open for two 

weeks for others who wish to submit written statements. 

I recognize the Vice Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that you are holding this 

hearing this morning regarding the reauthorization of the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, 

which is known throughout Indian and Alaska Native communities 

as NAHASDA. 

It has been more than a decade since Congress enacted 

NAHASDA. Modeled after the highly successful Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, which ushered in 

tribal self-sufficiency as the new direction for federal policy, the 

NAHASDA has also succeeded where so many other government 

programs have failed. In these past ten years, Indian and Alaska 

Native communities have built or rehabilitated approximately 

60,000 units of housing, not counting the accompanying infrastructure and utilities development. 

However, there is still more to be done and some alarming statistics still remain. While Indian and Alaska Native communities 

have successfully chipped away at the chronic housing problem 

throughout Indian Country, there is still a need for an estimated 

200,000 homes in Indian and Alaska Native communities. Multiple 

studies have shown that over 40 percent of all Indian housing is 

inadequate and that 21 percent of homes in tribal areas are overcrowded, compared with 3 percent nationally. Costs to repair or replace tribal housing remains stubbornly high at over $125,000, and 

even higher for tribes in rural areas. 

I am confident that this Committee and this Congress will see 

the re-authorization of NAHASDA as an opportunity to further improve the management and efficiency of this effective program. I 

look forward to hearing the testimony today and working with the 

Chairman to pass an improved NAHASDA that will be an even 

more effective tool for tribal leaders in their battle to reduce poverty and homelessness in their communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I once again want to thank you 

for holding this important hearing. 

3

I want to thank the panelists that are going to testify today, and 

thank you for coming to Washington, D.C. to testify. 

This is a critically important issue. When we talk about 

prioritization in Indian County, health care, of course, is probably 

the first priority, and housing in my perspective is one of the close 

seconds, because in many areas it is not only unavailable, it is inadequate, and in some cases it is being lived in, but by all other 

standards it is unlivable. 

So we need to address these issues. I hope this hearing is able 

to shed light and give us the kind of direction that we can look forward to some good policies that will help solve these housing problems in Indian Country. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rodger J. Boyd is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native 

American Programs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. Mr. Boyd, thank you for being with us. 

As I indicated, your full statement will be made part of the 

record, so we would ask that you summarize. 

OK, all right. Why don’t you proceed? 

Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for inviting me to provide comments on the reauthorization 

of HUD’s Indian Housing and Loan Guarantee Programs. 

My name is Rodger Boyd and I am HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs. My office is within the Office 

of Public and Indian Housing, PIH. PIH is responsible for the management, operations and oversight of HUD’s Native American and 

Native Hawaiian programs. 

These programs are available to 562 federally recognized Indian 

tribes, five State-recognized Indian tribes, and Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We serve these entities directly or 

through their tribally designated housing entities by providing 

grants and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing 

and community development. Our partners are diverse. They are 

located on Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages, and on 

Hawaiian home lands. 

It is my pleasure to appear before you again. I would like to express my appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the 

housing conditions of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native 

Hawaiian peoples. From HUD’s perspective much progress has 

been made. This momentum needs to be sustained as we continue 

to work together to create a better living environment for Native 

American communities. 

One way to sustain this momentum is through the reauthorization of all HUD’s Native American and Native Hawaiian housing 

and loan guarantee programs. The department supports reauthorization and is examining a number of statutory amendments to 

NAHASDA that may be offered during the reauthorization process. 

4

Here is a brief overview of some of the amendments HUD is considering: number one, to amend Section 201(b)(2) of NAHASDA to 

allow essential over-income families to occupy rental housing and 

obtain tenant-based rental assistance. Currently, certain over-income non-Indian families may be declared essential to a tribal community. These families may participate in home ownership and 

model activities but not in the rental program. Rental is a more appropriate activity for people who may not stay on the reservation 

for an extended period of time. 

The B part of that is to amend Section 201(b)(3) so that essential 

Indian families can be housed regardless of income. Through an 

oversight, current law allows only non-Indian families to be declared ‘‘essential.’’

Two, amend Section 205 to delete the requirement for useful life 

and binding commitments for home ownership units, and make the 

provision applicable only in the case of rental and lease-purchase 

housing that is owned or operated by a grant recipient. Current restrictions have sometimes prevented the children or spouse of deceased home buyers from inheriting the deceased’s interest in the 

property. 

Third, to amend Section 302, the Indian housing block grant allocation formula, to stop counting units for FCAS purposes in the 

years 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 Indian housing 

block grant regulations. 

Also, to 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 and there is no reason to begin such a process when 

a grantee mistakenly reports an over-count or under-count of the 

number of units in management. 

The next proposal is to amend Section 202 for housing services 

to clarify that grantees may use their Indian Housing Block Grant 

funds for maintenance and operations of units developed with Indian Housing Block Grant funds. Currently, grantees may do so, 

but this is considered a model activity and requires specific HUD 

approval. The amendment would reduce paperwork for grant recipients and HUD staff. 

Amend Section 102 of NAHASDA to simplify and streamline the 

Indian housing plan submission required by deleting the 5-year 

plan requirement, streamlining the 1-year plan to eliminate duplicative information, and establish Indian housing plan due dates 

based on the grantee’s program year. 

Also amend Section 404 of NAHASDA to delete the requirement 

for a grantee to describe how it would change its programs as a result of its experiences. Most grantees do not think it is of value to 

report on this information. 

Amend the Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Program, Section 

184A, to allow refinancing and to remove the requirement that the 

annual Native Hawaiian housing plan must include cross references to any loan guarantee activity. Both amendments will conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
5

form the Section 184A program to the Indian Housing Section 184 

Loan Guarantee program. 

The grantee would still be free to provide any loan guarantee information in their Native Hawaiian Housing Plan if they so desire. 

Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the Committee staff members, as well as those on the House side, and with the National 

American Indian Housing Council, with regard to legislative 

amendments as they are developed. We would be pleased to continue doing so. 

I would also like to thank you for recently reauthorizing Section 

184, the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which was 

signed into law by the President on June 18 of this year. The dramatic increase in the use of the Section 184 program is a success 

story for all tribes, TDHEs, and especially for the thousands of Native American families that are now homeowners as a direct result 

of this program. 

We do believe that these are exciting times and we look forward 

to continuing our efforts with this Committee and with Indian 

Country to provide better affordable housing and housing opportunities for home ownership. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODGER J. BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT


719rod1.eps
7


719rod2.eps
8


719rod3.eps
9


719rod4.eps
10


719rod5.eps
11


719rod6.eps
12


719rod7.eps
13


719rod8.eps
14


719rod9.eps
15


719rod10.eps
16


719rod11.eps
17


719rod12.eps
18

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boyd, you mentioned in your testimony provisions in the discussion draft which HUD supports. Are there provisions that you 

do not support? Is your testimony that the Administration would 

support the discussion draft that is now before us? 


719rod13.eps
19

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, to date we have not really had an opportunity to fully brief and work with Assistant Secretary Cabrera 

on the entirety of this bill. We will have that opportunity when he 

returns to the office next week. At that time, as we begin to brief 

him and work with him, we would like to have a continued discussion with this Committee and the staff as we further develop our 

positions on the entirety of the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you have a chance to review the discussion 

draft. Are there things in the discussion draft that you expect we 

will be hearing from you that you oppose at this point? 

Mr. BOYD. I really don’t know at this point. I would rather have 

the opportunity to discuss this with the Assistant Secretary and 

then report back to the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be all right than in Senate language we 

say that you have expressed no opposition? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. As soon as you have had a chance to 

do the more thorough review, we want to work to move this legislation and we want your thoughts and ideas about it. 

You mentioned support for allowing over-income essential families to receive tenant-based rental assistance in rental housing. 

Give me your assessment of how that will assist tribes and what 

is the current need for those services? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, right now the regulation allows for essential 

families to be able to participate in NAHASDA program. These are 

for the most part non–Indian families: doctors, policemen, nurses, 

what have you. What our amendment proposes to do is to eliminate 

or do away with the non–Indian component of that and just open 

that up so that both non-Indian and Indian professionals that are 

essential to the community can participate in the NAHASDA programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyd, as you look at the housing needs on 

the reservations, I think the testimony we are going to hear later 

today talks about the NAHASDA program and the success of it. 

The fact is that its existence is beneficial to the tribes and so on. 

But virtually all of the testimony describes again how dramatically 

underfunded it is. They talk about there being virtually no increase 

in funding on these issues. I have a list in front of me that goes 

back to Fiscal Year 2002, $648 million. It is now down, with not 

only no increase, but a slight decrease. And then you consider inflation, and so you have washed away a fair amount of the value. 

Would you agree that in addition to the authorization, in order 

to begin to address the problems that exist out there and to begin 

to solve some of those problems there has to be an increase in funding? 

Mr. BOYD. What we have been trying to do over the last several 

years, and certainly for myself over the last several years since I 

have taken this position, is to work with tribal organizations, regional housing authorities, tribal leaders throughout the Country, 

to develop strategies for leveraging the funds that we do have 

available, and funds that Congress has provided to us. 

I think we have been fairly successful in taking those funds that 

we have to leverage those funds to get more interest, State housing 

finance agencies, as an example, from the Federal Home Loan 

20

Bank, using low-income housing tax credits. Especially through the 

Title VI program, and certainly through our 184 program, we have 

been able to leverage a lot of our resources. I think there has been 

some very good success stories throughout Indian Country in that 

leveraging, noting that we have to deal with the funds that we 

have available. 

The CHAIRMAN. But my question was, at a time when we have 

90,000 either homeless or ill-housed and we have about 40 percent 

of the on-reservation housing is considered inadequate. We have 

had testimony here, one tribal chair said his two daughters have 

a used trailer house that was moved from Michigan to South Dakota, with no indoor toilet. They have a wood stove in their living 

room vented out with a pipe through the living room window. 

These are Third World conditions. 

I look at the decreasing funding request. The Administration re- quest is $627 million in this budget request. Seven years ago, it 

was $648 million. Then we are told that if we go above the President’s budget request that he will veto legislation. 

So you see the fix we are in. Would you not agree that no matter 

that you do a good job, and I will submit that we appreciate the 

work you are doing with tribes, but would you not agree that the 

witnesses that will follow you that describe the need to adequately 

fund the structuring of NAHASDA is also a critical need. 

Mr. BOYD. Certainly, we do recognize that need, and certainly I 

think we would gladly receive any kind of assistance we could get. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

When we talk about the funding component and the need to increase the funding, but in addition to the funding, I am also hearing from many of my tribal housing authorities that they are seeking some additional flexibility within the housing program itself. 

Section 208 of this draft bill allows the grant recipients to use 

up to 15 percent of its NAHASDA funds to accomplish the goal of 

getting more housing out there, more affordable housing. It gives 

them a little bit more flexibility. What is HUD’s position on this? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, we have taken note of that. We are not quite 

sure yet. Again, going back to my earlier statement with regard to 

talking with Assistant Secretary Cabrera, we would like a little bit 

more time to formulate a more firm position on that section. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have a couple of other questions that are 

very specific as to sections of the bill. So what I will do is I will 

present those to you for written response. But we would look forward to closer scrutiny, a greater analysis, and constructive help 

with some of these sections. If there is going to be opposition of if 

you feel that we can enhance it in some way, we would certainly 

appreciate hearing that. 

The bill also authorizes tribal reserve accounts, which allow the 

tribal housing entities to set aside a limited amount of their funding, which can be helpful in bridging the funding gaps or anything 

unforeseen that may arise. What is HUD’s view, then, on these reserve accounts? 

Mr. BOYD. What we have noted is that in some cases we know 

that the tribes can already do that. I think what we are going to 

do internally is to reach back out to find out from tribes why they 

21

really—we don’t quite understand why this is really needed at this 

point. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The bigger question would be if there are 

these unforeseen circumstances that come about, what is it that we 

can do to perhaps mitigate them or anticipate them so that it is 

not this surprise, if you will, at the time when you need the funding most. 

Mr. BOYD. Well, in our review of our current statute and regulations, this is already permissible. In other words, tribes can already 

do this. So we are trying to figure out why this is really needed. 

We would be glad to discuss this more with the Committee and 

staff and try to work through this until Mr. Cabrera gets back into 

the office next week. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The other issue that I would like to bring 

up with you this morning is the push, rightfully so, to hire tribal 

members to complete the housing construction projects, keeping the 

money within the boundaries of their communities. Tribes are saying that HUD is interpreting Indian preference as not incorporating tribal preference. Can you tell me what HUD’s interpretation is of the tribal preference laws? 

Mr. BOYD. Right now, we agree with the Indian Self-Determination Act. We recognize that if tribes can set up their own Indian 

preference, then we defer to them. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you would work to encourage that so 

that local members of the tribes are involved with the construction 

projects, so that it is the win-win. You get the housing and you get 

employment at the same time. 

Mr. BOYD. We note that a lot of tribes already have their own 

Indian preference, their own tribal preference laws. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. There is a tribal preference provision in the 

draft bill. I don’t know if you are prepared to give me a comment 

in terms of your support of that. It is something I would like to 

know, specifically what HUD’s position on that draft provision is. 

Mr. BOYD. OK. Can I let you know that after we talk to the Assistant Secretary? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I appreciate your testimony. 

I, too, want to reiterate the fact that your perspective on the discussion draft is critically important. For us to move forward in a 

timely manner, it is important to know what your position is. 

I just have a couple of real quick questions. The over-income 

statement, is there a level that determines over-income, a dollar 

amount? 

Mr. BOYD. I believe it is 80 percent of median. 

Senator TESTER. Eighty percent of median income for that State? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. Well, it is across the Country. 

Senator TESTER. Across the Country? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, across the Country for that region. 

22

Senator TESTER. OK. OK, 80 percent of median income. OK. So 

the question would become, I mean, you are talking about folks 

who are essential to a community. 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. I think it is a good recruitment tool. I guess the 

question is, when I visualize the housing needs in Indian Country, 

and with the dollar amount going down, it is kind of a two-edged 

sword. I want to make sure that you have good doctors, policemen, 

teachers, all those kind of things, but on the other side of the coin 

you have people who are living in Third World conditions that need 

to be addressed, and I don’t want money to be taken away from 

those kind of needs and put into folks who have more resources to 

develop their own housing. 

What is your perspective on that? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, this really allows the tribe to make the decision. 

I think it would be good under self-determination, to demonstrate 

further self-determination. This really allows the tribe to make 

that decision on their own. It is not mandatory, but it does open 

the door. I know that we have had some situations where a professional Native American family that is essential to the community 

had to leave or work outside the community. We just thought that 

this would be a way to provide the tribe with more options. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, I think it is good. Overall when I look at 

it, I think it is good. I just think that combined with the decreases 

in funding that are especially painful when you take into account 

inflation, there is a concern that. That is all. I think it is a step 

in the right direction. 

The affordability period or useful life—what exactly are we talking about? I mean, are we talking about a period of time? I didn’t 

track it very well. 

Mr. BOYD. The key that we are trying to accomplish here with 

regard to useful life, it is usually 20 years. 

Senator TESTER. Twenty? 

Mr. BOYD. Twenty. But also what we want to do is be able to 

allow with our recommendations, so that children can inherit these 

properties from their families. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. I don’t mean that to be critical. 

I just was curious. I just didn’t know. 

The last question I have dovetails on what the Chairman was asking about, about the $627 million, and you said that you were 

being very successful in leveraging funds. Could you give me any 

kind of idea of how many private dollar funds are being leveraged 

with these monies? 

Section 184 is Federal dollars. Right? And there are probably 

some other Federal dollars. I am talking about, are you able to leverage outside money, outside of the Federal Government? 

Mr. BOYD. I can give you a couple of examples, Senator. Certainly, I think one of them would be the Passamaquoddy Tribe in 

New England that through their Title VI program leveraged about 

$1.5 million. 

Senator TESTER. And how many bucks were put in to do that? 

Is it a one to one match? 

Mr. BOYD. No. They bought in on a total project. It was a housing development project. The total amount of the project was $8 

23

million, so they were able to leverage the Title VI program and 

that contribution, with total cost of the housing project was $8 million. Some of it was low-income housing tax credits. Some of it may 

come from State housing finance agencies. 

Another tribe used our Title VI for bridge financing. They also 

then brought in additional funds. As I mentioned earlier, a number 

of tribes really are beginning to look at Title VI, especially Title VI, 

and of course 184, and look at other opportunities for leveraging, 

including from the State housing finance agencies. 

As a matter of fact, we were just in Alaska recently and had 

some really good meetings with the State housing finance agency. 

They are doing a very good job in reaching out to the Alaska Native community, as well as some of the other States in the Lower 

48. 

Senator TESTER. I applaud those efforts to leverage. Make no 

mistake about it. I think it is good. I know we could get into truly 

the weeds on this thing. I would really be interested in knowing 

what kind of percentages you are talking about overall, of the $627 

million, what is that leveraged up to? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t have the total number right now, but I would 

be glad to provide that to you. 

Senator TESTER. That would be good. I am just curious. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. BOYD. You are welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyd, thank you very much for being here. 

Let me ask again that as soon as you are able to do a full review 

of this discussion draft, we would ask you to do that. We do want 

to move ahead with the reauthorization. We want your consultation 

and your advice as we proceed. 

So I appreciate your being here today, and look forward to further visits on the discussion draft. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

The second panel today will be the Honorable David ‘‘Doc’’ Brien, 

Chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in 

Belcourt, North Dakota; the Honorable Waldo Walker, Chairman of 

the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, from Gardnerville, Nevada. He would be accompanied by Mr. Raymond Gonzales, Executive Director of that tribe. 

Ms. Aneva Yazzie, CEO of Navajo Nation Housing Authority at 

Window Rock, Arizona; Ms. Teri Nutter, Executive Director, Copper River Basin Regional Housing Authority in Glennallen, Alaska. 

Teri Nutter is from Alaska, accompanied by Mr. Dan Duame, Executive Director of that housing authority; and Mr. Marty Shuravloff, 

the Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council 

here in Washington, D.C. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today. We will appreciate your testimony as a contribution to development of a reauthorization of this important housing legislation. 

We will begin with the Honorable David ‘‘Doc’’ Brien, Chairman 

of the Turtle Mountain Band of the Chippewa Indian Tribe in 

Belcourt, North Dakota. As I have told other witnesses, the entire 

statements submitted by all of you will be made a part of the permanent record, and you may summarize. 

24

Chairman Brien, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BRIEN, CHAIRMAN, TURTLE MOUNTAIN 

BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

Mr. BRIEN. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and distinguished 

Members of the Committee, Senator, Vice Chair Murkowski, Senator Tester. My name is David Brien. I am the Chairman of the 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota. We 

are a woodlands and prairie buffalo hunting people, and many of 

our members are children of the Great Lakes fur trade. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on Indian housing needs and 

the reauthorization of NAHASDA. It is a great honor. As you listen 

to our testimony today, please remember and keep in mind the 

children and the elders. 

I would like to start by thanking Senator Dorgan of North Dakota for his leadership on Indian housing. Our reservation in North 

Dakota is home to approximately 14,000 resident members; 30,000 

tribal members nationwide. We strongly support the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. This Act has been very important in allowing the 

tribe considerable self-determination in providing housing for its 

low-income members. 

Tribal members living in their homelands throughout the Country suffer every day from the most serious unmet housing needs in 

the Nation, third-world conditions. NAHASDA has been employed 

effectively to deliver Federal funds that may be leveraged with 

other funding financing. However, the continuing failure to appropriate sufficient funding for NAHASDA has proven to be a real 

roadblock in solving the often deplorable housing conditions we 

face on our reservations and in Indian Country. 

Since the beginning of NAHASDA 10 years ago, there has been 

virtually no significant increase in the funding level, and this must 

be corrected. Our tribe and many others strongly support increased 

funding in appropriations for NAHASDA. The funding level should 

be at least $1 billion. That is supported by research conducted by 

national organizations and the tribes themselves. 

The Committee’s proposal to reauthorize NAHASDA contains 

some important and thoughtful changes that will help make 

NAHASDA a more effective program. In the time available, I would 

like to highlight a few of these issues, endorsements and recommendations. 

Number one, some of the new proposed provisions appear to possibly expand the Indian housing block grant beyond serving low-income tribal members. We recommend and request that these proposals be revised to ensure that only low-income tribal members 

are primarily served by NAHASDA. 

Number two, we applaud that the bill directs the bill directs the 

Comptroller General to conduct a study of new alternative data 

sources for the Indian housing block grant formula over the next 

2 years. This study, done in consultation with the tribes, will help 

correct the failures of past negotiated rulemaking and HUD-mandated allocation rules that direct the use of race-based census data. 

It is important that we find a way to allocate Indian housing 

block grant funds based on tribal membership population. 

25

NAHASDA is not and should not become a race-based program. 

The use of race-based and individual self-identification data such 

as the U.S. Census conflicts with NAHASDA’s statutory requirements and is not an appropriate way to allocate tribal housing 

funds. 

Three, we strongly endorse the inclusion of the new self- determination activities demonstration program that would give tribes 

greater flexibility to administer a portion of their Indian housing 

block grant. In order for this program to be effective, we recommend that the stated percentage limit of grant funds be extended to approximately 20 percent. 

Four, and finally, we hope that nest year Congress will be able 

to address changes to the 30 percent rule on tenant and home 

buyer payments. Tribes need more flexibility to develop their own, 

our own, standards and methods for payment in order to ensure 

that our low-income tribal members are only required to pay a fair 

and affordable amount for their homes. 

I want to thank the Committee for its interest in pursuing the 

reauthorization of NAHASDA. With your permission, I would like 

to submit supplemental written testimony in the next week to outline our comprehensive recommendations on these issues. 

We are a little people in proud Indian Country. Help us. Remember our children, the little ones, and remember our elders. 

[The prepared statement and supplementary information of Mr. 

Brien follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID BRIEN, CHAIRMAN, TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and distinguished Members of the Committee. 

My name is David Brien and I am the Chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa Indians. Thank you for inviting me to testify on Indian housing needs and 

the re-authorization of NAHASDA. 

I would like to start by thanking Chairman Dorgan for his leadership on Indian 

housing issues. 

Our reservation in northern North Dakota is home to 14,500 members. We strongly support the re-authorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act (NAHASDA). This Act has been very important in allowing the 

tribe considerable self-determination in providing housing for its low-income members. 

Tribal members living in their homelands throughout this country suffer everyday 

from the most serious unmet housing needs in the Nation. NAHASDA has been employed effectively to deliver Federal funds that may be leveraged with other funding 

and financing. However, the continuing failure to appropriate sufficient funding for 

NAHASDA has proved to be a real roadblock in solving the often deplorable housing 

conditions we face on our reservations. Since the beginning of NAHASDA 10 years 

ago, there has been virtually no significant increase in the funding level and this 

must be corrected. Our Tribe and many others strongly support increased funding 

in appropriations for NAHASDA. The funding level should be at least $1 billion as 

supported by research conducted by national organizations and the tribes themselves. 

The Committee’s proposal to re-authorize NAHASDA contains some important 

and thoughtful changes that will help make NAHASDA a more effective program. 

In the time available today, I would like to highlight just a few of these issues, endorsements, and recommendations:

1. Some of the new proposed provisions appear to possibly expand the Indian 

Housing Block Grant program beyond serving just low-income tribal members. 

We recommend and request that these proposals be revised to ensure that only 

low-income tribal members are primarily served by NAHASDA.

2. We applaud that the bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study 

of new alternative data sources for the Indian Housing Block Grant formula 

26

over the next 2 years. This study, done in consultation with tribes, will help 

correct the failures of past negotiated rulemaking and HUD-mandated allocation rules that direct the use of race-based Census data. It is important that 

we find a way to allocate Indian Housing Block Grant funds based on tribal 

membership populations. NAHASDA is not, and should not become, a racedbased program. Use of race-based, and individual self-identification data, such 

as the U.S. Census, conflicts with NAHASDA’s statutory requirements and is 

not an appropriate way to allocate tribal housing funds.

3. We strongly endorse the inclusion of the new Self-Determined Activities Demonstration program that would give tribes greater flexibility to administer a 

portion of their Indian Housing Block Grant. In order for this program to be 

effective, we recommend that the stated percentage limit of grant funds be extended to 20 percent.

4. We hope that next year, Congress will be able to address changes to the 30-

percent rule on tenant and homebuyer payments. Tribes need more flexibility 

to develop their own standards and methods for payment in order to ensure 

that low-income tribal members are only required to pay a fair and affordable 

amount for their homes.

I want to again thank the Committee for its interest in pursuing the reauthorization of NAHASDA, and with your permission, I would like to submit supplemental 

written testimony in the next week to outline our comprehensive recommendations 

on these issues. 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Our reservation in northern North Dakota is home to 14,500 members. We strongly support the re-authorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act (NAHASDA). This Act has been very important in allowing the 

tribe considerable self-determination in providing housing for its low-income members. 

Tribal members living in their homelands throughout this country suffer everyday 

from the most serious unmet housing needs in the Nation. NAHASDA has been employed effectively to deliver Federal funds that may be leveraged with other funding 

and financing. However, the continuing failure to appropriate sufficient funding for 

NAHASDA has proved to be a real roadblock in solving the often deplorable housing 

conditions we face on our reservations. Since the beginning of NAHASDA 10 years 

ago, there has been virtually no significant increase in the funding level and this 

must be corrected. Our Tribe and many others strongly support increased funding 

in appropriations for NAHASDA. The funding level should be at least $1 billion as 

supported by research conducted by national organizations and the tribes themselves. 

1. Some of the new proposed provisions appear to possibly expand the Indian 

Housing Block Grant program beyond serving just low-income tribal members. We 

recommend and request that these proposals be revised to ensure that only low-income tribal members are primarily served by NAHASDA. Specifically, we request 

that the Committee re-examine it proposed amendment to Section 205 of 

NAHASDA, which, as currently proposed, would exempt housing from not only the 

useful life restrictions, but also the initial affordability requirements currently contained in Section 205(a)(2) (25 USC 4135 (a)(2)). 

2. We applaud that the bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study 

of new alternative data sources for the Indian Housing Block Grant formula over 

the next 2 years. This study, done in consultation with tribes, will help correct the 

failures of past negotiated rulemaking and HUD-mandated allocation rules that direct the use of race-based Census data. It is important that we find a way to allocate Indian Housing Block Grant funds based on tribal membership populations. 

NAHASDA is not, and should not become, a raced-based program. Use of racebased, and individual self-identification data, such as the U.S. Census, conflicts with 

NAHASDA’s statutory requirements and is not an appropriate way to allocate tribal 

housing funds. The question presented really concerns the following issues:

1) Which individuals within a recipient’s formula area can be counted as American Indians and Alaska Natives for purposes of determining each recipient’s 

appropriate share of Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (‘‘NAHASDA’’) funding, and

27

1 Cf. 24 C.F.R. Sections 1000.110(e)(1) and 1000.130 (2006). 

2) What data set or sets should be used to identify the number of these eligible 

American Indian and Alaska Natives within each recipient’s formula area.

In general, NAHASDA recipients can only serve enrolled tribal members, and certain Alaska Natives, with their NAHASDA funds. i NAHASDA is a statute unique 

from other general public housing statutes by virtue of its provision of resources 

purely for members of Indian tribes. Any data set, whether prepared by the Census 

Bureau or otherwise, that fails to identify and count actual tribal members within 

a recipient’s formula area should not be used in determining the allocation of 

NAHASDA grant funds. ii This position promotes tribal self-determination because 

it recognizes tribes’ unique political status and relationship with the Federal Government. It affirms tribes’ right to set and implement their own standards for tribal 

membership, and enhances tribal self-determination by endorsing, rather than ignoring, tribally identified membership lists as the basis for provision of NAHASDA 

funds. 

The decennial census data is an inadequate data set for HUD to use in determining the number of tribal members within NAHASDA formula areas because the 

census fails to distinguish recognized tribal members who are entitled to receive 

NAHASDA funds from self-identifying non-tribal members who are not entitled to 

receive these funds. The census specifically disregards the unique political status of 

recognized tribes and its use in the formula process is fundamentally flawed. Continuing to use the decennial census undermines tribal self-determination because 

the census (1) removes enrollment status from the list of criteria for identifying 

American Indian and Alaska Natives and implements the OMB definition of AIAN 

which includes Canadian and Central and South American indigenous populations 

within the scope of the definition of American Indian and Alaska Native, iii (2) falsely characterizes a person’s membership in a tribe as a racial classification rather 

than a representation of their political status as a member of a sovereign nation, iv

and (3) collects and compiles population figures that directly conflict with triballydetermined enrollment lists. v Furthermore, the census arbitrarily inflates some recipients’ formula numbers and increases their NAHASDA funding by counting populations that cannot be served. If HUD continues to allocate NAHASDA funds to recipients for ineligible non-tribal members, many NAHASDA recipients will continue 

to lose an ever-growing portion of their rightful share of the limited NAHASDA 

funding. 

Census questions are simply not designed to capture or verify the tribal enrollment data that is necessary to facilitate the fair and targeted grant allocations required by NAHASDA. In order to produce the information necessary to establish an 

accurate count of tribal members within recipients’ formula areas, alternate data 

sets that are designed and implemented by tribes in accordance with their individual membership standards can and must be developed. These tribally generated 

data sets will serve to both respect tribal self-determination and ensure that 

NAHASDA funds are fairly divided amongst all tribes and their tribal members. 

3. We strongly endorse the inclusion of the new Self-Determined Activities Demonstration program that would give tribes greater flexibility to administer a portion 

of their Indian Housing Block Grant. In order for this program to be effective, we 

recommend that the stated percentage limit of grant funds be extended to 20 percent. 

3. We hope that next year, Congress will be able to address changes to the 30-

percent rule on tenant and homebuyer payments. Tribes need more flexibility to develop their own standards and methods for payment in order to ensure that lowincome tribal members are only required to pay a fair and affordable amount for 

their homes. 

While the central purpose of the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act (NAHASDA) is to enhance the ability of tribes to serve the housing needs of their members, imposition of the requirement that tribes can charge 

rent no higher than 30-percent of a tenant’s income (the ‘‘30-percent rule’’) undermines that purpose, and puts tribes in a uniquely disadvantageous position. 

NAHASDA’s 30 Percent Rule, which has as its source the so-called ‘‘Brooke Amendment’’ in the public housing field, affects Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities differently and more harshly than does the Brooke Amendment itself 

for public housing authorities. 1 This is because, unlike public housing authorities, 

(1) tribes are sovereign nations with the ability and power of self-governance, and 

(2) tribes and TDHEs do not receive Federal subsidies which compensate PHAs for 

losses they incur by being forced to rent their units at below-market rates. Thus, 

while it appears that the original intent of including the 30-percent rule in 

28

2 It is important to note that the total amount of funds appropriated for NAHASDA in each 

of the last 10 years has never been increased and is often less than the original FY 1997 appropriation which began the program. This funding has not even kept pace with inflation, so it is 

no wonder that tribes must spend an ever larger portion of their grants on subsidizing existing 

units. 

NAHASDA was to subject Indian and public housing to the same requirements, imposition of the 30-percent rule has, in fact, resulted in Indian tribes being treated 

differently, and unfairly so, from their public housing counterparts. 

NAHASDA found that ‘‘the Congress, through treaties, statutes, and the general 

course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumed a trust responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and for working with tribes and their members to improve their housing conditions and socioeconomic status so that they are 

able to take greater responsibility for their own economic condition.’’ Unfortunately, 

Congress disregarded that responsibility by limiting the amount of income that 

tribes could receive from their housing projects, forcing these tribes to use housing 

development funds to cover the resultant deficit. As a result, and unlike public 

housing, the 30-percent rule under NAHASDA became a classic case of an unfunded 

mandate. 

Unfortunately, when Congress enacted NAHASDA, it imposed the first part of the 

Brooke Amendment (the 30-percent rule), but omitted the second, equally important 

part—an operating subsidy to compensate for the impact of the rule. 

Under NAHASDA, a single block grant 2 is provided to tribes to cover all of their 

housing needs, both operation of existing units and development of new homes. By 

forcing tribes to spend a large portion of their funds administering the 30-percent 

rule and subsidizing existing units, the 3O-percent rule serves to directly reduce the 

amount of new Indian housing that can be built. Tribes, in other words, are forced 

to eat their seed corn. 

The 30 Percent Rule also imposes other operational burdens which require tribes 

to spend increasingly larger amounts of their grant moneys on administrative tasks, 

rather than using those funds to provide housing assistance. The rule, for example, 

mandates tribes to periodically ‘‘recertify’’ tenant incomes. If tribes had the option 

to alternatively use fair market rents as a ceiling, tribes would be able to develop 

alternative rent and payment formulas which would not require the re-certification 

of incomes. This would save tribes funds which could be applied to more productive 

activities such as constructing more units, improving routine maintenance or adequately funding counseling programs. A recent survey shows that TDHEs with 1937 

Housing Act units would save on average 62 percent of their housing occupancy 

staff costs if they could elect to use fair market rents as a cap and replace the current recertification with either a flat rent schedule or some other payment formula 

that was less difficult to apply. 

For these reasons, the Turtle Mountain Tribe supports discussion and exploration 

of an amendment to NAHASDA to change the 30-percent rule requirements. 

I want to again thank the Committee for its interest in pursuing the reauthorization of NAHASDA, and for allowing me to submit this supplemental written testimony. 

ENDNOTES 

i Under NAHASDA, the term ‘‘Indian’’ means ‘‘any person who is a member of an 

Indian tribe.’’ NAHASDA, 25 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq, at § 9. An ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined as a ‘‘tribe that is a federally recognized tribe or State recognized tribe.’’ 

NAHASDA, § 12(A). The term ‘‘Federally Recognized Tribe’’ is further defined as 

‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians, 

including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in 

or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States 

to Indians because of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.’’ NAHASDA, § 12(B). The term ‘‘State 

Recognized Tribe is defined as ‘‘any tribe, band, nation pueblo, village, or community (I) that has been recognized as an Indian tribe by any State; and (II) for which 

an Indian Housing Authority has, before the effective date under section 705, entered into a contract with the Secretary pursuant to the United States Housing Act 

of 1937 for such housing for Indian families and has received funding pursuant to 

such contract within the 5-year period ending upon such effective date.’’ NAHASDA, 

§ 12(C).

iiWhile we do not support the use of either ‘‘single-race’’ or ‘‘multi-race’’ census 

data for the purpose of counting tribal members and allocating NAHASDA funds to 

recipients, we would note that a study conducted by the Indian and Native AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
29

ican Employment and Training Coalition demonstrated that ‘‘a very significant portion of those identifying as Indians [on the 2000 Census] who also said they belonged to another race were persons who had identified as non-Indians in the 1990 

Census. The counts for the Indian ‘‘alone’’ population seem more consistent with the 

1990 data than do counts which include the ‘‘multi-racial’’ component of the Indian 

population.’’ The study further explained that ‘‘Census Bureau research indicates 

that a substantial majority of persons identifying as ‘‘multi-racial’’ Indians choose 

a non-Indian racial category when asked to list just one race’’ and ‘‘that only 1 percent of the Indian ‘‘multi-racial’’ population lived in Federal reservation or trust 

land areas.’’ ‘‘Counting Indians in the 2000 Census; Impact of the Multiple Race Response Option,’’ Indian and Native American Employment and Training Coalition 

(January 16, 2004). Therefore, with respect to the two flawed census data sets, ‘‘single-race’’ census data and ‘‘multi-race’’ census data, the use of ‘‘multi-race’’ census 

data clearly results in the greatest departure from NAHASDA’s requirement that 

only eligible tribal members be served. iiiSee ‘‘Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race 

and Ethnicity,’’ Office of Management and Budget, 62 Federal Register 210, pp. 

58781–58790 (October 30, 1997); and ‘‘2000 Census of Populations and Housing, 

Summary Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics, Selected Appendixes: 2000, 

Appendix B: Definitions of Subject Characteristics,’’ pp. B–38–39, U.S. Census Bureau (June 2003), at http:/www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-2-a-B.pdf.

Since its decision to expand the definition of ‘American Indian and Alaska Native’ 

in 1997 over the objections of several tribal governments, OMB has failed to correct 

its error by excluding indigenous peoples from Canada, Central and South America 

from that definition and the resulting census tabulation of AIAN, despite the fact 

that the Census Bureau received and forwarded to OMB official recommendations 

from the Census Bureau’s AIAN Advisory Committee recommending this change. 

See ‘‘Recommendations of the Census Advisory Committee on the American Indian 

and Alaska Native (AIAN) Populations Made as a Result of the Meeting on November 8–9, 2004,’’ AIAN Advisory Committee, at http://www.census.gov/cac/www/

pdf/aian-resp-nov-2004.pdf; and ‘‘Recommendations of the Census Advisory Committee on the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Populations Made as a 

Result of the Meeting on May 5–7, 2004,’’ AIAN Advisory Committee, at http://

www.census.gov/cac/www/pdf/may04-recommend-aian.pdf. As a result, non-tribal 

members from North, Central and South America will continue to be counted as 

AIAN in the 2010 Decennial Census and factored into some recipients’ NAHASDA 

allocations to the detriment of many others until approximately 2023 (when the 

2020 Decennial Census data will likely be finally compiled and implemented) or 

longer if the census ‘‘race’’ questions and AIAN definition are left substantively unchanged for the 2020 Decennial Census. ivWe would further point out the fact that Census Bureau has refused to even 

explore the option of adding a separate census question that recognizes ‘American 

Indian’ as a distinct political status separate from the purely racial categories identified by the census, despite the fact that it received this specific recommendation 

from the AIAN Advisory Committee. See ‘‘Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee on the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Populations Made as 

a Result of the Meeting on October 1–3, 2003,’’ AIAN Advisory Committee. vThe explanation provided for the Census Bureau’s recent endorsement and effective selection of a form of the 2010 Census race questions that does not specifically 

address whether or not an individual self-identifying as ‘AIAN’ is an enrolled member of a tribe illustrates the relative lack of significance it places on obtaining enrollment information vital to administering tribal programs and the near impossibility of getting the Bureau to change its decision at this stage. See ‘‘Content Determination for the 2010 Decennial Census Program’’ (Distributed for the November 

30, 2006 Special Joint Meeting of the U.S. Census Bureau Advisory Committees), 

U.S. Census Bureau, at http://www.census.gov/cac/www/pdf/content-determination.pdf.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Brien, thank you very, very much. I 

appreciate that. 

I might just mention that we had a spiritual leader on your reservation who recently passed away. I recall that when his wife 

passed away some while ago, the circumstances of his life and the 

terribly inadequate housing, this wonderful elder was living in unbelievably dilapidated housing, which was not terribly unusual on 

the reservation. It demonstrated for me once again how much effort 

30

needs to be made to try to improve the housing stock on the reservation. 

Francis Crow was a remarkable man, and all of us will miss him. 

Mr. BRIEN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear from the Honorable Waldo Walker, 

who is Chairman of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. 

You are from Gardnerville, Nevada. Mr. Walker, welcome. Thank 

you very much. 

STATEMENT OF WALDO WALKER, CHAIRMAN, WASHOE TRIBE 

OF NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND 

GONZALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHOE TRIBAL

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. 

Good morning. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to 

testify before you today. It is an honor for me to be here today in 

front of this Committee which has done tremendous things for Indian Country and the Indian people as a whole. 

As Chairman of the Washoe Tribe, it is a great honor to come 

before you. It is encouraging to see the deep interest this Committee has demonstrated in the reauthorization of the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 

NAHASDA. 

It is an evolving bill, as you see by the previous testimony. It affects little tribes and giant tribes. We are all in the same fight together. The reauthorization of the NAHASDA Act is crucial to the 

tribes and the Native American people throughout the Nation. 

There are a few points that I think we really need to look at, and 

as Committee members, I think need to be pointed out. 

In Title II, Section 203(g), we strongly support the de minimis procurement, which is the exemption minimum of $5,000. Currently, HUD requires price quotes on every item purchased. This 

will allow us not to be bound up by the petty paperwork that we 

always get caught in. We have to fill out tons and tons of paperwork for a minimal cost of small amount purchase prices. 

Title VII, Section 701, technical training assistance. We want to 

encourage onsite technical assistance through smaller tribes at the 

local level. It would definitely help us save costs on travel and 

bring the focus down to the levels of each tribe’s specifics. 

Also, Section 301 of the allocation formula. We would like as the 

Nevada Housing Association, believe that the sovereign right 

should be the tribe’s and that they should be able to choose their 

data sets and negotiate with other tribes regarding the formula. 

The costs associated with the survey would also be best utilized by 

adding it back into the NAHASDA block grant funding. 

The minimal funding. It is a request to this Committee to seriously consider minimal funding for small tribes. I know that the 

formula is sometimes difficult. It doesn’t give a lot of funding to the 

smaller tribes, and that is one of the things that I believe really 

is a big challenge to NAHASDA. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee members for the opportunity to testify before you today, and 

for spending the time and energy to reauthorize the NAHASDA 

Act. The passage of this crucial bill will only continue to benefit InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
31

dian Country, supporting the past efforts to alleviate the severe 

shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for Indian people 

throughout the Nation, and continue to support the innovation and 

services and programs as allowed under this bill. 

And finally, I want to take the opportunity to ask for your support on amendments and issues that affect the small tribes 

throughout Nevada and California. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALDO WALKER, CHAIRMAN, WASHOE TRIBE OF NEVADA

AND CALIFORNIA; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND GONZALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WASHOE TRIBAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

Introduction 

Good morning and thank you for affording me the opportunity to testify before 

you today. Chairman Dorgan and Committee Members it is an honor to be before 

this Committee today who’s work has done tremendous things for Indian Country 

and Indian people. My name is Waldo Walker and I am the Chairman of the 

Washoe Tribe. It is encouraging to see the deep interest this committee has demonstrated to the reauthorization of Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996 (‘‘NAHASDA’’). 

NAHASDA has brought flexibility to Tribes to create programs specific to their 

local needs and motivate innovative ways to provide housing services to their people. As a Tribal Leader it is encouraging to witness the attention and hard work 

of the committee members to reauthorize a bill that benefits the lives of so many 

Native Americans throughout the country. I applaud your efforts. 

NAHASDA is an evolving bill that requires continued improvement to provide a 

refined tool for Indian Tribes to use to provide decent, safe, sanitary, and quality 

homes for their people. 

Census Data 

Over the last several years Tribes have been debating and maneuvering politically 

over the Multi-Race vs. Single Race. Regardless of the debate, the forum for this 

discussion and the place for a solution to be agreed upon is the Negotiating Rule 

Making Committee. Data collection or creations of data sets are a Tribal Leadership 

issue and have been negotiated by Tribal Leaders during the 1997 Negotiated Rule 

Making process and again in 2004. The original Negotiated Rule Making Committee 

has provided a safeguard by establishing in 24 CFR 1000.306, ‘‘How can the IHBG 

formula be modified’’, the measurable and verifiable data that affects the formula 

to be addressed every 5 years. If there is recognized need for a change then that 

change shall not be legislated, but shall be negotiated by the Tribes through the Negotiated Rule Making process. This process is in place for Tribes to have government to government negotiations to reach an agreement that would be in the best 

interest of all Tribes. 

The stance of the Washoe Tribe and the Nevada and California Indian Housing 

Association is that it is the sovereign right of the Tribes to choose their data sets. 

This includes census data from multi-race or single race. In addition, if a Tribe 

chooses to challenge the census by utilizing data collected from their own data collection system then they can submit the data to U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) under the census challenge. In addition we oppose the 

creation and implementation of a universal data survey system. This system has a 

number of faults and would create an enormous burden on limited staff and resources for small Tribes to execute. The large cost estimated to implement the universal data survey system would be best utilized to increase NAHASDA appropriations. 

The choice to utilize census data was exactly that, a choice, a choice agreed upon 

by Tribes through the negotiating rulemaking process to utilize a data collection 

system that was currently available. The choice wasn’t to base a program on race, 

but the choice was to utilize a data set that was currently available without having 

to spend valuable resources and time to create another data system to collect population data. National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) actually took time 

to form a subcommittee to address this issue to no avail. The conclusion to the exercise is that it is the Tribe’s choice to choose a data system or tool they determine 

best represents their Tribe. This is done through the Negotiating Rule Making procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
32

ess. This matter should not be legislated for any reason, but left to the Tribe’s to 

negotiate in good faith to solve the issue surrounding the data collection system utilized for funding distribution. 

Minimal Funding 

On behalf of the 135 small Tribes in Nevada and California it is my duty to continue to advocate for an adequate minimum funding level under NAHASDA. This 

would provide every Tribe with sufficient funds to provide meaningful housing assistance to its low income members and to comply with the administrative requirements of NAHASDA. Within the states of Nevada and California the total development cost (TDC) rates to build a single family home have doubled over the last several years. Specifically for the Washoe Tribe the current total development cost is 

$257,943 per home. However, the NAHASDA block grant has not increased nor has 

kept up with inflation further inhibiting small tribes to provide decent, sanitary 

homes for their tribal members. 

Appropriations 

As testimony is being given today it is my duty to mention the need for increased 

appropriations. While this committee does not determine the appropriation levels for 

the NAHASDA Block Grant it is vital for the record to reflect the dire need to increase appropriations. Since the 2000 Census the American Indian population doubled, but funding for the NAHASDA Block Grant did not reflect such a drastic increase in American Indian population. Increasing the appropriations will provide 

the opportunity for Tribes to take full advantage of the intent of NAHASDA for capacity building, creating innovative ways to leverage funds and the establishment 

of new programs to alleviate the waiting lists each Tribe has and the increase in 

American Indians throughout the Nation as demonstrated in the 2000 Census. Currently the majority of funding goes toward supporting the current 37 housing act 

stock and provides a minimal assistance for innovative programs, services and most 

important new housing. 

In addition, we hope that the Senate will consider reestablishing funding the National American Indian Housing Council. NAIHC has been instrumental in providing free technical assistance to Tribes and Housing Authorities. Prior to the cut 

in funding technical assistance was being provided at a local level, which was a 

huge benefit for small Tribes who have limited funds to run their program let alone 

send staff to trainings. The current environment requires travel to attend needed 

trainings which puts a drain on their limited resources. It is our hope that the Senate would recognize the need for continued training to Tribes and Housing Professionals for them to provide excellent services and local oversight of programs. 

Deficiencies of Existing Formula 

The latest negotiated rule-making process revealed a significant deficiency in 

NAHASDA that affects the funding formula. The Current Assisted Stock component 

of the NAHASDA funding formula includes houses constructed under the 1937 

Housing Act as one factor in allocating funds. However, it does not include houses 

constructed under NAHASDA. This perpetuates an anomalous situation where 

tribes with pre-NAHASDA houses receive funds to maintain those houses, but tribes 

which have constructed houses with funds provided under NAHASDA do not receive 

such critical assistance. It is proposed to put NAHASDA funded houses on the same 

footing as pre-NAHASDA houses with respect to maintenance and to assure that all 

federally developed and assisted housing are adequately maintained. 

NAHASDA Re-Authorization 

Chairman we are here today to discuss the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. Since originally being 

signed into law, the Act has been amended four times. Each amendment has been 

intended to improve the efficiency of the Act in providing quality, affordable housing 

to Indian Country. However, there are further refinements to the Act that are being 

introduced to make it an even more powerful tool for providing the needed support 

to Indian Country housing. Nevada and California Indian Housing Association supports the amendments presented by NAIHC. 

It is important to point specific support for the amendment ‘‘De Minimis Exemption for Procurement of Goods and Services.’’ Procurement for each single item 

under $5,000 is cumbersome and strains staff time particularly with small Tribes 

who have limited staff and funding on hand. Current procurement requirements results in spending time and energy far above the savings cost of small procurement 

purchases. In the states of Nevada and California we have Tribes located in very 

remote areas with several Tribes who have several communities they serve located 

from 20 miles to 100 miles away from each other. Due to the remote and rural areas 

33

the Tribes reside in there are limited or no resources in the communities where 

work is being completed. It works against the school of thought for savings when 

a staff person must travel back to the main community to procure for a small item 

to fix a problem that is 20–100 miles away. When in reality they could travel to 

the closest hardware store solving a problem in a short time as opposed to several 

hours spent on travel, phone and pick up time for the small items to be purchased 

through current procurement standards. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

is strongly encouraged to support this amendment to assist Tribes and Housing Authorities to run a more efficient program. 

The proposed amendment to Sec. 301 Allocation Formula, (2) ‘‘Study’’ (A) and (B)

is opposed by the Washoe Tribe and Nevada and California Indian Housing Association as mentioned above in the section Census Data. This is action that needs to 

take place in the Negotiated Rule Making Committee. It is the Tribes sovereign 

right to choose data sets and negotiate which data sets will be utilized for funding 

distribution or take advantage of the current process through the Census Challenge. 

This is an exercise that needs to be provided through the process of Governmentto-Government negotiations. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again Chairman and Committee members for the opportunity to testify 

before you today and for spending the time and energy to reauthorize the Native 

American Housing and Self-Determination Act. The passage of this crucial bill will 

only continue to benefit Indian County supporting the past efforts to alleviate the 

severe shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for Indian people throughout 

the Nation and continue to support innovation in services and programs as allowed 

under this bill. Finally, I want to take the opportunity to ask for your support of 

amendments and issues that affect the small Tribes throughout Nevada and California.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Walker, thank you very much. 

You are accompanied by Raymond Gonzales. Would you identify 

yourself? Is Mr. Gonzales here? Thank you for joining us, Mr. 

Gonzales. We appreciate that. 

Chairman Brien, I mentioned Francis Crow. Of course, I meant 

Francis Cree. I want to make sure the record is correct. He was 

a wonderful spiritual leader of your tribe. 

We are next going to hear from Ms. Aneva Yazzie the CEO of 

the Navajo Housing Authority, Window Rock, Arizona. You may 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANEVA J. YAZZIE, CEO, NAVAJO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY 

Ms. YAZZIE. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to address you on 

the topic of reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. 

President Joe Shirley was not able to be here with you today, but 

he asked me to extend his greetings and his appreciation for your 

work and your dedication to the cause of tribal sovereignty, and 

your support of native families across the Country. 

While I have provided the Committee with more extensive comments in my written testimony, I would like to provide a summary 

of those comments, and I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

As Chief Executive Officer of the Navajo Housing Authority, I am 

charged with operating the largest tribal housing organization in 

the Country. The Navajo Housing Authority currently manages 

8,000 units of housing, approximately 7,000 in rental units, and 

1,000 in home ownership and lease-to-own units. 

34

The Navajo Housing Authority enjoys a good working relationship with both our local HUD Office of Native American Programs 

and with the National ONAP office. We want to thank both Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Rodger Boyd and Assistant Secretary Orlando 

Cabrera for their support and guidance, especially in the last year. 

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

little for its real promise to be realized. As costs increase without 

an increase in Federal funding, a higher share of NAHASDA funds 

go to support the existing housing stock. This leaves little room for 

the innovation and new opportunities envisioned by the members 

of the Committee and tribal leaders who crafted this program a 

decade ago. 

The most contentious issue facing Indian housing in the last few 

years has been the use of census data to determine funding allocations. This is just not a debate about how funds are allocated. It 

is fundamental to NAHASDA and to all Indian programs. Tribal 

housing must remain for tribal members, and therefore tribal members should be counted when determining funding allocation. 

I applaud you, Chairman Dorgan, for addressing this issue. To 

date, no consensus has been reached on a solution, but the provision in the discussion draft to study what alternative data sources 

exist is a major leap forward. It demonstrates that the Committee 

understands that there is a real problem in the current system and 

moves us toward a solution. Thank you, Chairman, for your courage. 

Amending NAHASDA Title VI to include the eligible activities allowed under the Section 108 program gives tribes access to the 

benefits of a program long used by urban communities. This would 

increase investment in economic development and infrastructure in 

communities that desperate need such investment without increasing Federal appropriations. 

Making this definitional change would also increase the utilization of Title VI, the credit subsidy, which often goes unused and 

is a regular target of rescissions. The specific language in the discussion draft does not appear to meet with what we believe was the 

Committee’s intent in this regard, and we will work with your staff 

to address this. 

The Navajo Nation is encouraged by the inclusion of the self- determined housing activities program. Any effort to increase self-determination is welcome, and we appreciate the move to broaden the 

eligible activities under this proposal. Housing cannot be built 

without infrastructure. Existing water and wastewater facilities 

are hopelessly overburdened and in many areas of our land do not 

exist at all. 

In Indian Country, lack of infrastructure is an affordable housing 

problem. The exclusion of developer fees from consideration as program income and low-income housing tax credit projects is an excellent proposal. Tax credits are a small, but growing portion of 

total housing development in Indian Country, but one that must be 

supported. 

One change in Federal law we would like the Committee to consider would be the elimination of the prohibition from using Indian 

Health Service funds in concert with NAHASDA funds. Tribes 

should determine where to spend scarce resources and if a tribe 

35

would like to use IHS funds for water and wastewater in conjunction with a NAHASDA-funded housing project, that should be the 

tribe’s decision. 

Mr. Chairman, the discussion draft is good legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it. You and your staff have 

done an excellent job and the recommendations I offered are simply 

ways to make a good bill better. I look forward to working with you 

as this bill moves forward, and I am happy to answer any questions you or the members of the Committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yazzie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANEVA J. YAZZIE, CEO, NAVAJO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity 

to address you on the topic of reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. President Joe Shirley was not able to be here 

with you today, but he asked me to extend his greetings and his appreciation for 

your work and your dedication to the cause of Indian sovereignty and your support 

of Native families across the country. 

As Chief Executive Officer of the Navajo Housing Authority, I am charged with 

operating the largest Tribal Housing organization in the country. The Navajo Nation spreads across three states: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. The Nation covers 

nearly 27,000 square miles, making it larger than the State of West Virginia. The 

Navajo Housing Authority manages 8,000 units of housing (approximately 7,000 

rental units and 1,000 home ownership and lease-to-own units) and is the largest 

developer of housing in this vast area. 

Working in concert with other agencies of the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Housing 

Authority has made great strides in improving the lives of tribal members. I am 

lucky to have the support of a tremendous staff, both in our headquarters in Window Rock, and throughout the Navajo Nation. I am also blessed by the support of 

a strong Board and tribal government, including President Shirley and his staff and 

the Navajo Nation Council. 

In the last decade, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) has been a useful tool in our Nation’s work. The hallmarks 

of the law—self-determination and Tribal decision-making—are what make it successful. 

The law is not without its challenges and for the past decade tribes have worked 

with HUD to implement the law in the most effective and efficient manner possible. 

The Navajo Housing Authority enjoys a good working relationship both with our 

local HUD Office of Native American Program and with the National ONAP Office. 

We thank both Deputy Assistant Rodger Boyd and Assistant Secretary Orlando 

Cabrera for their support and guidance, especially in the last year. 

Census Data 

The most contentious issue facing Indian housing in the last few years has been 

the use of Census data to determine funding allocations. NHA has been heavily involved in this discussion because we believe this is not just a debate about how 

funds are allocated; it is fundamental to NAHASDA and to all Indian programs. 

Tribal housing must remain for tribal members and tribal members should be 

counted when determining funding allocations. 

NAHASDA is a tribal program, not an ethnic program. Indian programs are not 

created or supported by this Congress to benefit a race. Indian programs, 

NAHASDA included, exist because of the unique relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. Treaties, statutes and Supreme Court decisions have 

all demonstrated, clarified and supported this notion. Individuals benefit from these 

programs because they are members of a tribe, not because they belong to a particular ethnic group. If we abandon that fundamental principle, we jeopardize the 

very existence of such programs. 

When the original NAHASDA negotiated rule-making committee met to draft regulations, Census data was chosen because it was considered an unbiased source of 

data to quantify the need for housing in tribal service areas. However, the architects 

of the law did not foresee the changes that would occur in the 2000 Census, nor 

did they assume Census data would be used for 10 years. 

36

The original data used was from the 1990 Census, in which individuals chose one 

race. In the collection of data for the 2000 Census, individuals had the option of selecting one or more races by which to identify themselves. This is what is now called 

‘‘multi-race’’ Census data. 

Clearly, Census data is not the correct way to assess housing need for tribal members. NAHASDA is a tribal program, not an ethnic program, and counting those who 

identify themselves as Indian regardless of whether they are tribal members is 

wrong and dangerous. If we are distributing funds to tribal members, we should 

count tribal members. 

We support the use of tribal enrollment data, not Census data, to determine need 

under NAHASDA. Until terms of verifiable enrollment data can be agreed upon by 

Federal Government and tribal representatives, NHA urges a return to the use of 

single-race Census data because, while imperfect, it is the better approximation of 

tribal enrollment numbers. 

I applaud you, Chairman Dorgan, for addressing this issue. To date, no consensus 

has been reached on a solution, but the provision in the discussion draft, to study 

what alternative data sources exist, is a leap forward. It demonstrates that the 

Committee understands that there is a real problem in the current system and 

moves us toward a solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courage. 

Appropriations 

The major failing of NAHASDA has not been caused by the law itself, but by the 

lack of sufficient funding. NAHASDA is a good law, but the funding for NAHASDA 

is too low for its real promise to be realized. As costs increase without an increase 

in Federal funding, a higher share of NAHASDA funds go to support the existing 

housing stock. This leaves little room for the innovation and new opportunities envisioned by the members of this Committee and Tribal leaders who crafted this program a decade ago. 

In addition to funding for the block grant, we would like to ask that the Congress 

reconsider its decision to eliminate funding for the National American Indian Housing Council. Providing for a well-trained group of professionals at the tribal level 

will ensure the success of NAHASDA, which clearly benefits families throughout Indian Country. 

Proposed NAHASDA Amendments 

The proposed amendment broadening the scope of the Title VI Loan Guarantee 

program holds tremendous possibilities for Indian Country. When originally created 

by the drafters of NAHASDA, Title VI was seen as a means to increase large-scale 

development of housing in Indian communities while also introducing the use of financing mechanisms used in non-Indian areas. Title VI has not, however, lived up 

to its original promise and continues to be underutilized. 

Title VI is underutilized for two basic reasons. First, there has been a lack of effective education about the program. We are pleased to see that the draft bill addresses that by including a requirement that HUD provides training on the use of 

Title VI guarantees and we support the provision. Second, the activities allowed 

under the current Title VI program are so limited that most activities, no matter 

how beneficial to local tribal communities, cannot generate enough income to cover 

debt service on the guaranteed loan or make bond payments. 

Title VI is based on the very successful Section 108 program, which allows direct 

recipients of Community Development Block Grant dollars to borrow or issue bonded debt for up to five times their annual formula allocation to support the functions 

otherwise allowed under CDBG. Tribal governments are statutorily prohibited from 

utilizing the Section 108 program because tribes compete for one national set-aside, 

known as ICDBG. Without a formula allocation under CDBG, tribes will never be 

able to access this vital program. 

Amending Title VI to include the eligible activities allowed under Section 108 

gives tribes access to the benefits of a program long used by urban communities. 

This would have the effect of increasing investment in economic development and 

infrastructure in communities desperately in need of such investment without increasing Federal appropriations. Making this definitional change would also increase utilization of Title VI, the credit subsidy for which often goes unused and is 

a regular target of rescissions. 

The advantage of this change is that while it increases the investment in infrastructure and economic development, it does not reduce the available funds for 

housing because the block grant’s eligible activities remain unchanged. This would 

allow tribes to use funds from outside sources—banks or bond investors—to support 

desperately needed development in Indian Country. The only way funds meant for 

housing could go to economic development is if the borrowing, which HUD itself 

37

must individually approve, results in a claim against the U.S. Government. In the 

history of the Section 108 program we are unaware of any time in which HUD has 

withheld CDBG grant funds. 

The potential benefit of pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into economic development and infrastructure without an increase in appropriations far outweighs 

the hypothetical possibility that HUD might choose to withhold funds from a few 

tribes because of poor oversight on their part. Effective education and diligent oversight can prevent this. 

The specific language in the discussion draft does not appear to meet what we 

believe was the Committee’s intent in this regard. The language would create a 

demonstration program in which 50 percent of guarantee authority could be used 

for activities allowed under Title I of NAHASDA, as opposed to Title VI. However, 

after reviewing the eligible activities, it appears that these activities are the same. 

We believe that to meet the Committee’s goals the Section 108 eligible activities 

should be referenced, not Title I of NAHASDA. 

The Navajo Nation is encouraged by the inclusion of the Self-Determined Housing 

Activities program. NAHASDA’s findings and purposes establish that self-determination and self-governance are to be the hallmarks of the law:

Federal assistance to meet these responsibilities should be provided in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance by making such assistance available directly to the Indian tribes or tribally designated entities under authorities similar to those accorded Indian 

tribes in [the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act].

Any effort to increase self-determination is welcome and we appreciate the move 

to broaden the eligible activities under this proposal. Housing cannot be built without infrastructure. Existing water and waste water facilities are hopelessly overburdened and in many areas of our land do not exist at all. In some areas of Indian 

Country units of housing sit vacant because they have no electricity or lack water 

and sewer hook ups. In Indian country, lack of infrastructure is an affordable housing problem. 

The exclusion of developer fees from consideration as program income in low-income housing tax credit projects is an excellent proposal. The developer fees from 

tax credit projects are the result of risks taken by a tribe and for developers constitute a form of profit. We should reward tribes who undertake these activities 

themselves. Anything this Committee, or your colleagues at the Finance Committee, 

can do to encourage tribes to use the tax credit program is welcome. Tax credits 

are a small but growing portion of total housing development in Indian Country, but 

one that must be supported. 

Other provisions in the bill, including the eligibility of essential Indian families 

in housing and the inclusion of police officers, will go far to strengthening our communities. Likewise, the de minimis exemption from procurement rules when a 

NAHASDA recipient is spending less than $5,000 will alleviate administrative burdens. The savings one might find through a competitive bid process for such small 

amounts is far outweighed by the amount of time and effort that must be put in 

to solicit and review the bids. Saving $100 on supplies is not worth it if it took 30 

staff hours to accomplish that, time that could be better spent elsewhere and if accounted for would actually be shown to cost more money than the supposed ‘‘savings.’’

The Navajo Nation continues to believe that the tribes themselves should be able 

to set rents for tenants. Local Tribal officials, like all Members of this Committee, 

must answer to their constituents and would not charge excessive rents. However, 

the continued imposition of the 30 percent maximum rent, a variant of the so-called 

‘‘Brooke Amendment’’ from the public housing and Section programs—without even 

an exemption for utility costs—is contrary to the concept of tribal self-governance. 

We understand, however, that we have more work to do as advocates for this position before the Congress will make such a change. We hope the Committee will consider this change in future legislation. 

Some language in the bill would appear to be a response to recent Federal court 

cases concerning the conveyance of low-income housing units and the legality of 

funding them under the ‘‘formula current assisted stock’’ portion of the NAHASDA 

block grant. However, such broad language as is included in the Discussion Draft 

is not consistent with the realities of managing housing in Indian Country. In the 

case of the Navajo Nation, units that are under contract terms for ‘‘Mutual Help’’ 

units should be conveyed to families cannot be conveyed because of the failure of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide Title Status Reports. Without these TSRs, 

units cannot be conveyed. This means Navajo is being criticized and threatened with 

a reduction in Federal funds by one Federal agency because of the failures of anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
38

other Federal agency. To codify a specific time period would eliminate funding for 

units that NHA is still required to operate and maintain. This language should be 

re-written if it is to remain. 

One change in Federal law we would like the Committee to consider would be the 

elimination of the prohibition from using Indian Health Service funds in concert 

with NAHASDA funds. While this would not be an amendment to NAHASDA—this 

prohibition is included in appropriations legislation on an annual basis—there is a 

proposal to make this prohibition permanent through the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Act. The concern that the lack of available funds means we should 

keep these funding streams separate may be well-intended, but it flies in the face 

of Tribal self-determination. Tribes should determine where to spend scarce resources and if a tribe would like to use IHS funds for water and waste-water in conjunction with a NAHASDA-funded housing project that should be the tribe’s decision. 

Conclusion 

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

questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Yazzie, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next, we will hear from Ms. Teri Nutter, the Executive Director 

of the Copper River Basin Regional Housing Authority in 

Glennallen, Alaska. She is accompanied by Mr. Dan Duame, who 

is the Executive Director. Mr. Duame, would you identify yourself? 

Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. 

Ms. Nutter, why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF TERI NUTTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COPPER RIVER BASIN HOUSING AUTHORITY; ACCOMPANIED 

BY DAN DUAME, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ALEUTIAN 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. NUTTER. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NAHASDA reauthorization. 

Let me start by expressing our profound sadness over the recent 

loss of Senator Craig Thomas, who as you well know was a good 

friend of Indian Country, and a distinguished Member of this Committee. Our sadness is tempered by the selection of our own Senator Lisa Murkowski to be Vice Chair of the Committee, and we 

are pleased that she has accepted this important leadership position and that she will serve Alaska and all of Indian Country honorably and well. 

My colleague and I are here today to represent our statewide native housing association, the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities. The association consists of 14 Alaska Native regional 

housing authorities created by State statute to meet the housing 

needs in our respective regions. Collectively, we are the tribally 

designated housing entities for approximately 75 percent of Alaska’s 229 tribes and administer approximately $72 million of the 

$98 million of NAHASDA funding that comes to Alaska. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to express some 

of the unique service delivery challenges and obstacles we face in 

Alaska. Alaska’s vastness almost goes without saying, but really 

39

needs to be experienced to be appreciated. Every year, thousands 

of tourists visit Alaska. 

Tourists often fly out from Anchorage to one of our remote villages. It can be an eye-opening and rich cultural experience, but I 

wonder how many stop to think how did these houses get out here? 

I and my colleagues can tell you: only with great difficulty and very 

careful planning and considerable expense. 

Our high cost of construction is a result of many factors, including the lack of basic statewide road and transportation systems. In 

most of our regions and villages, the only method of getting construction material to the job site is by barge, or where necessary, 

by air freight. 

Barging to many of our villages requires coordinating with shipping out of Seattle and many do not have regularly scheduled services. Barges which are unable to make scheduled landing can cost 

up to $10,000 a day while they may wait out bad weather conditions. Barging to many villages can only be done during the short 

window period between breakup and freeze-up. 

Another critical need and often lacking is the availability of basic 

heavy equipment such as forklifts, backhoes, dozers or even in 

some cases pickup trucks for hauling the basic tools and personnel. 

Many projects have been built with nothing more than four-wheelers. 

Another significant challenge is the rapidly escalating high cost 

of energy. This is having a rippling effect on all aspects of business: 

the cost of construction, the cost of operating and maintaining our 

existing units, and home ownership. Heating fuel and gasoline can 

be as high as $5 to $8 a gallon. 

I am sure by now you are beginning to get the picture that we 

are trying to paint for you. 

We are doing our best to stretch our NAHASDA dollars under 

these difficult circumstances and the Senate draft is a good step in 

assisting us in this effort. We consider many of the proposed 

amendments to be significant improvements which promote both 

efficiency and flexibility. A few examples that we support and find 

very helpful include Section 203, which includes the carryover and 

the $5,000 procurement exemption; the expanded definition of 

‘‘housing-related community development;’’ the inclusion of operation and maintenance of NAHASDA units as affordable housing 

activities; and the strengthening of the intent language of Section 

27 in terms of recognizing the right of tribes and TDHEs to operate 

programs in a manner that is more in line with Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance provisions of Public Law 93–

638. 

Notwithstanding these positive aspects of the draft bill, the reality is given the recent funding trends, we are being asked to do 

more with less. If this trend is not reversed, which we hope this 

Committee will consider, there are further amendments that can 

improve our service delivery. We appreciate the apparent underlying intent of subtitle B, Self-Determined Housing Activities for 

Tribal Communities, but we have serious reservations about its implementation. It does not represent the type of self-determination 

or self- governance service delivery model that has become the 

40

standard in Alaska and which we would like to see expand in a 

more meaningful way in the final bill. 

Monitoring and compliance—we urge you to seriously reconsider 

the inclusion of NAIHC’s proposal in this area. The lack of revisions in this section unfortunately leaves us with a bill that in our 

review remains far too HUD-centric, rather than tribal-centric. 

Finally, we are greatly concerned about the proposed amendment 

in Section 302 which calls for an alternative data set feasibility 

study. We strongly support the continued use of census data in 

Alaska and the resolution of formula allocation issues through continued tribal negotiation. 

In conclusion, on behalf of the Association of Alaska Housing Authorities and many tribal beneficiaries that we have the privilege 

to serve, I sincerely thank the Chairman and members for this 

chance to share our views on this important piece of legislation. We 

look forward to continuing our dialogue and offering our support as 

the bill moves toward successful passage. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nutter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERI NUTTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COPPER RIVER BASIN

HOUSING AUTHORITY; ACCOMPANIED BY DAN DUAME, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

ALEUTIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY


719nut1.eps
41


719nut2.eps
42


719nut3.eps
43


719nut4.eps
44


719nut5.eps
45


719nut6.eps
46


719nut7.eps
47

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Nutter, thank you very much. 

Finally today, we will hear from Mr. Marty Shuravloff, the 

Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council here 

in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Shuravloff, thank you for your leadership and we look forward to hearing your testimony.


719nut8.eps
48

STATEMENT OF MARTY SHURAVLOFF, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify to 

present our views on the discussion draft for the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 

2007. 

Indian Country needs NAHASDA reauthorized because it directly affects our health and welfare. We appreciate your adamant 

support, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, to focus on 

what this law means to native people, providing desperately needed 

tools to our communities so we can continue to improve the housing 

conditions that our people face every day. 

NAHASDA meets these housing needs by increasing tribal decisionmaking to design and run their own programs and by making 

Federal housing assistance available directly to the Indian tribes or 

tribally designated housing entities. Prior to NAHASDA, an estimated 2,000 units a year were built. In NAHASDA’s first year 

alone, over 6,000 units were built. 

We believe it is in the spirit of Indian self-determination that has 

made NAHASDA a success and hope this is emphasized during the 

coming deliberations on its reauthorization. 

On behalf of our membership, we have been working with your 

able and diligent Committee staff on proposed amendments to the 

law to achieve the objectives of the Act and make the law work better for us. We appreciate the clarification of the definition of ‘‘program income’’ so that our projects’ startup costs are not counted 

against us. 

We look forward to the expansion of our ability to establish reserve funds so we can prepare for short construction seasons. We 

appreciate Congress’s recognition of our authority to make and follow our own laws for employment and contract preferences for our 

own tribal members. 

Our ability to carry over funds will reduce the costs of operation 

and provide much-needed streamlining so we can focus more on 

service delivery. We applaud and thank the Committee for its efforts to enhance and further Indian self-determination in 

NAHASDA. 

Under the proposed subtitle B, we can see how a tribe or tribally 

designated housing entity might set aside a portion of its block 

grant to devote to housing activities with long- term planning and 

decreased HUD reporting and oversight during the upcoming 5-

year period. 

We especially appreciate that the infrastructure is included in eligible activities. Infrastructure goes hand in hand with housing development and its inclusion will enhance tribal flexibility to use 

their funds for all stages of development. 

Our members have urged the council to work with our sister organizations, the National Indian Health Board and the National 

Congress of American Indians, to ensure that tribes have access to 

adequate resources for the development of infrastructure, especially 

water and wastewater facilities. This collaboration has already 

begun. 

49

As an Alaska Native, I am all too aware of the significant effects 

on tribal communities from inadequate and unsafe housing. Dilapidated houses lead to weak performance in school, poor health, and 

contribute to hopelessness that few Americans witness as part of 

their daily lives. We ask you to amend, extend and reauthorize 

NAHASDA to address the daunting housing challenges facing Indian tribes and people. 

I would like to thank the Committee for its interest in pursuing 

the reauthorization of NAHASDA and for its support of American 

Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian people. 

I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuravloff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTY SHURAVLOFF, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN

INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL


719mar1.eps
50


719mar2.eps
51


719mar3.eps
52


719mar4.eps
53


719mar5.eps
54


719mar6.eps
55


719mar7.eps
56


719mar8.eps
57


719mar9.eps 719mar10.eps
58


719mar11.eps
59


719mar12.eps
60


719mar13.eps
61


719mar14.eps
62


719mar15.eps
63


719mar16.eps
64

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

I would like to ask a general question. I think, Mr. Shuravloff, 

you have referred to it in your testimony, and that is the need for 

infrastructure. I have seen this in some of the circumstances with 

respect to North Dakota tribes. You find a structure—moving a 

structure, perhaps. We had structures moved from military installations where the structures were to have been demolished, but instead they were moved to Indian reservations, but there wasn’t the 

infrastructure or the funding for the infrastructure—the foundation, the water, and so on. So the tribes had difficulty using that 

housing stock. Is that a common problem? If so, what can we do 

about that? 


719mar17.eps
65

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Mr. Chairman, the issue we are facing today 

is as we put new housing in with HUD dollars, the health service 

is restricted from coming in and supplying those houses with water 

and sewer infrastructure. That is one of the challenges we are facing today. 

During my testimony, I mentioned we are meeting with the Indian Health Board as well as NCAI to try and address that problem and see if we can come up with some sort of fix on how we 

might be able to start partnering to make better use of our funds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have other tribes had similar problems with respect to infrastructure? 

Ms. YAZZIE. Yes. For Navajo, if I may, Navajo is about the size 

of the State of West Virginia, so right off you are looking at the 

remoteness factor. It truly lends to the cost of infrastructure, just 

being exorbitant. That is the costliest component of development. 

So we are really faced with the extreme lack of funding with respect to even building housing for our tribal members. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Brien, can you describe the housing 

stock on your reservation? You are a reservation that has less land 

base than some others do, with a fairly sizable population. Can you 

describe the current housing stock on your reservation? 

Mr. BRIEN. Yes. Actually, one second—Jim, can I get that document I gave you? The book? I have all the data on one page that 

he has. 

Just to respond to the infrastructure, in a normal housing environment, you are just purchasing the home. In the Indian housing 

environment, you are purchasing the home, but you also have to 

pay for road, water, sewer and electricity at the same time that you 

are buying the home. So it adds a 30 percent or 40 percent increase 

in cost to the home owner. 

So in Indian Country, we are simultaneously paying for a home, 

but also installing infrastructure as well. So that is very difficult 

for a tribal family to gain housing under those circumstances. 

Very quickly, the data for Turtle Mountain is that the population 

growth on our reservation is the major driver of the local housing 

crisis, as our birth rate remains high and members of the tribe return to the reservation in growing numbers. 

There is no currently in Turtle Mountain no habitable rental 

units available on the whole reservation; 20 percent of the housing 

units on our reservation are in need of replacement, and 25 percent 

are in need of major repairs. A minimum of 20 percent of our 

households on the reservation are living in overcrowded conditions 

as tribal members take in relatives and friends who cannot find 

housing. 

The supply of suitable and available land for new homes is limited by lack of infrastructure, and of course the legal complexities 

of allotted lands, tribal trusts, individual trust land. It is very 

tough to get financing on tribal land through regular banks. 

There is a need for, on our reservation, at least 635 additional 

housing units on Turtle Mountain and 165 units in the remainder 

of Rolette County by 2010. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there overcrowding of existing stock? Is it a 

very substantial problem? 

66

Mr. BRIEN. Oh, yes, very much so. Yes. A minimum 20 percent 

of our homes are overcrowded. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Nutter, is overcrowding similarly a problem 

in the Alaska Native American housing stock? 

Ms. NUTTER. Yes, it is, especially in remote villages of Alaska. 

When we have a lack of housing or inadequate housing, we have 

families that are housing with other families, and generations of 

families. 

The CHAIRMAN. When we had a hearing talking about education 

in this Committee, we had someone describe, for example, a young 

girl in grade school who is living in a relatively small home with 

23 people living in the home, and asked the question: What kind 

of opportunity to do homework in a quiet environment exists for 

that young girl? The answer is not much of an environment to do 

homework. 

More importantly, it described as well the dramatic overcrowding 

in a small home, I assume in circumstances where relatives and 

friends come in and are given an opportunity to have some shelter 

because other shelter doesn’t exist. That, I think, describes in a 

pretty dramatic way the serious problem of lack of housing stock. 

I have to go to the Capitol for a leadership meeting on appropriations bills, so I am going to turn to the Vice Chair, Senator Murkowski, who will ask questions, and then Senator Tester will follow 

as well. 

Let me as I have to depart for this meeting thank those of you 

who have come in many case a very long way to sit at the table 

and give us your advice about this legislation. This Committee 

commits to doing everything we can to move a reauthorization bill 

and one that incorporates the best suggestions that you have been 

able to offer as well. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up with you, Ms. Nutter, discussing the 

issue of the quality of housing that we face. You mentioned the 

overcrowding, which we recognize in so many of our small villages, 

as you point out. You have multiple families, generations of families, all residing in the same very small, usually very troubled 

housing. 

We also recognize that there are aspects that we are facing that 

relate to the mold levels in the houses and how that affects the 

health of those that are living within the homes. We do have a provision in this draft legislation that in fact does relate to NAHASDA 

recipients’ ability to use funds for mold remediation purposes, 

which we know will be very important to us in the State. 

We have been working over the past couple of years out of my 

office to make sure that when we are talking about housing issues 

in so many of our villages, that it is not just the housing for the 

residents, but also recognizing that when many of the professionals 

come to town—the schoolteacher, the physician’s assistant—that in 

fact they have no place to live. It is not as if there is any available 

housing for rent or purchase. It simply doesn’t exist. 

So we have been working on an initiative to provide for teacher 

housing in so many of the villages that simply have no accommodaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
67

tion. It is not a situation of finding something nice or even something affordable. It is a question of finding anything at all. 

When I took the Secretary of Education to Alaska a couple of 

years ago, we went to Savoonga and the principal of the school was 

living in the broom closet. The special education teacher was living 

in her classroom. These are the conditions that we face in unfortunately too many of our villages. 

I want to ask you, Ms. Nutter, the draft bill has a provision that 

would allow for essential families, or non-low-income professionals 

such as I have described the teachers, to receive NAHASDA funds. 

Out in your area, do you have a demand for special housing, 

whether it is for teachers, nurses, other non-low-income professionals in the area at Glennallen, and the Copper River area in 

general? 

Ms. NUTTER. Yes, we do. Oftentimes, our health needs, our educational needs in most of our communities are overlooked because 

we do not have adequate housing to house professionals. We have 

a difficult time in bringing professionals out that are qualified, let 

alone our own native tribal members that have the qualifications 

and are qualified that are not low income, to keep them in our community to continue to provide service to our people, because of the 

lack of housing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It is tough to attract people if there is really no place to live at the end of your work day, and that unfortunately is a reality. 

Marty, you had mentioned in your testimony the carryover funding and indicated that it has the potential to reduce costs of operation and provide for some streamlining. I think you said it would 

allow you to focus more on the service delivery. Tell me how you 

achieve these benefits, then, through the ability to provide for the 

carryover funding? 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Well, Senator, I think the biggest or the most 

positive aspect of it is as we deal with this issue today, we have 

the ability to put our reserves aside for approximately 2 years to 

obligate those funds. For most small Indian tribes or TDHEs, the 

amount of money you set aside in 2 years still is never enough to 

build units. So you really have to be thinking four or 5 years out, 

and have the ability to put the reserves together that you need to 

put together, and plan the developments that you need to plan. 

Having the ability to build those reserves is really a key on being 

able to put new units out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So it just enables better planning. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Better planning, and being able to put the 

funds together to actually build units, rather than trying to just 

have enough money to rehab what is out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Walker, both you and Ms. Yazzie discussed the census data issue. You have indicated that you believe 

that the forum for solving the census data issue should be the negotiated rulemaking committee. We know that this census data 

issue has been around for several years now. It seems that the big 

tribes and small tribes really haven’t been able to come to agreement in terms of how to solve this issue. Do you think that it is 

possible for the big tribes and the small tribes to reach consensus 

68

on the census data under the negotiated rulemaking process? And 

then Ms. Yazzie, I would ask you to respond as well. 

Mr. Walker? 

Mr. WALKER. I believe we all can come to a consensus. I think 

that as we move forward to 2010, I believe that a lot of the consultations with the census, with all of the tribes, really has to happen. I think we all can come to a favorable conclusion on how we 

are going to approach that data set. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Yazzie, do you agree? 

Ms. YAZZIE. I also agree. I think taking the avenues in your discussion draft is a way to move forward, and looking at alternate 

data sources will help reach common ground for our small and 

large tribes. But fundamentally, though, tribes do have that right 

to make a determination of their tribally identified enrolled members. So we would like to work with the Committee, as well as 

other tribes, in finding that common ground as we believe that 

there is I believe a solution if we all can find that alternate data 

source. So yes, I believe we can. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I want to thank you all as well for coming 

and testifying this afternoon and traveling the distances that you 

have, and also for being the advocates that you are on the issue 

of housing within your villages, within your tribes, within your 

communities. It is extremely important and we appreciate the contributions. 

We also look forward to your continued and active input as we 

move this draft legislation forward. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

I also want to thank everybody for being here today. I am going 

to start with Doc Brien. In your testimony, you talked a little bit 

about some of the same things I actually asked of Mr. Boyd about 

the low income and potentially if there is expansion to non-low-income folks that could take away from housing that is absolutely 

critical. 

The question I had was, the answer that Mr. Boyd gave was that 

it increased flexibility of the tribes. Do you see it the same way? 

Mr. BRIEN. Yes, increased flexibility of the tribes is very important as a general concept. Of course, I would be very willing to 

work with the Committee to ensure carefully written law that 

avoids confusion and serves all parties in a win-win manner. 

Senator TESTER. It would allow the tribes to prioritize? 

Mr. BRIEN. Yes, yes. 

Senator TESTER. Could you share with us the successes that your 

tribe has had in providing housing under NAHASDA? 

Mr. BRIEN. Well, in 1976 my mom and dad were able to get a 

home ownership home that we moved into. Myself, as a young boy, 

moved with seven boys and mom and dad, so there were nine of 

us. I am the youngest in the family. That is why they call me 

‘‘Doc,’’ as a matter of fact. We moved from a trailer house with no 

running water to a home, a HUD home, home ownership home 

back in 1976. I think, from my perspective, the major wins of 

NAHASDA over the years has been to provide home ownership to 

native people. In a residential housing setting, moving from a trailVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
69

er home to a stick-built regular home is a major, major accomplishment. 

So that happened to me in 1976. Of course, these were the first 

set of, actually the second set of home ownership homes for our reservation. Home ownership is the major accomplishment I have seen 

over the years. The degree to which is should happen I think is not 

to the degree that I would like, of course, but we should continue 

to strive for home ownership. 

Senator TESTER. So how can the discussion draft be refined to at 

least reform NAHASDA? 

Mr. BRIEN. Home ownership, I was kind of contemplating what 

is really the solution to housing in Indian Country is the economy 

and jobs, I mean, if you want to move to the root cause of improving any of our conditions in Indian Country. For us on Turtle 

Mountain, I see jobs and a healthy economy will greatly boost 

the——

Senator TESTER. What is your unemployment rate right now? 

Mr. BRIEN. A 67 percent unemployment rate. We have up to 

4,000 people that are unemployed, or 68 percent. 

Senator TESTER. This is good, actually, and I agree with you that 

if we can eliminate the unemployment. 

Mr. BRIEN. Because if you are going to get home ownership, you 

need a job. Right? You know, if you have a job, you can assume 

a loan and buy a home. Well, many of our tribal members lack a 

job and therefore cannot obtain a loan. So that is why we see in 

Indian Country a high rate of rental versus ownership. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Next is a series of questions for Chairman Walker. 

Mr. BRIEN. Mr. Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Yes? 

Mr. BRIEN. I just wanted to relate something regarding overcrowding. 

Senator TESTER. Yes? 

Mr. BRIEN. I missed it. Well, I have six children and there are 

eight of us in our home, and we have a three bedroom home with 

one bathroom. So I myself live overcrowded. I didn’t even think 

about it, but I myself live in an overcrowded setting in my home. 

I think as far as my residence in my home, I am on the upper 

end of comfort. And again, in my family, there are eight of us and 

we have one bathroom with three little girls. So I am waiting out 

in the hallway all the time, saying hurry up, I have to get in there. 

So we are very much overcrowded and I myself experience that 

daily. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman Walker, I want to thank you for highlighting the 

issues faced by small tribes. We have heard from small tribes that 

are unable to build even one house with NAHASDA funds. Could 

you expand on the difficulties that your tribe faces in that regard? 

Mr. WALKER. I kind of caught the end. 

Senator TESTER. First of all, thank you for highlighting the 

issues around small tribes and NAHASDA funding. We have heard 

from small tribes that are unable to even build one house with 

NAHASDA funding. Could you kind of expand on the difficulties 

70

that your tribe faced? You alluded to it in your remarks, being a 

smaller tribe. 

Mr. WALKER. One of the things that really kind of put the damper on us is as we talked about earlier. A lot of the needs to bring 

in housing is the infrastructure portion, and a lot of it is we have 

to bring those services into certain areas, and that costs a lot of 

money, for sure, to actually even start. 

So that is one of our really high costs is just bringing in the 

water-sewer just to build that structure. 

Senator TESTER. How much do you receive yearly under 

NAHASDA? Do you have that figure available? 

Mr. WALKER. It is $1.3 million. 

Senator TESTER. And how many houses were you able to build 

with that last year? 

Mr. WALKER. Over the last 5 years, we built 10 houses. 

Senator TESTER. And it is $1.3 million a year? And over the last 

how many years you built 10 houses? 

Mr. WALKER. Five years. 

Senator TESTER. Five years. And it is because of the infrastructure that those costs were so high? If my math is right, that is 

about $600,000 a house. 

Mr. WALKER. That was the amount of money that was set aside 

for those homes. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. Yazzie, could you expand on some of the positive and innovative initiatives that the Navajo Nation has been able to do under 

NAHASDA? 

Ms. YAZZIE. Certainly. One of the I think major advantages of 

NAHASDA as opposed to how Indian housing was administered by 

the Federal Government under the 1937 Act is it allows that 

leveraging opportunity, bringing in other outside financing to assist 

in stretching those dollars. I think that was one major factor. 

The other thing is what the block grant allocation and mechanism did is it allows local flexibility in developing plans that are 

specific. Tribes have that input, that prerogative and flexibility in 

developing where they want to spend those funds with respect to 

housing services, development, crime prevention and the like. 

Whereas previously that had not existed in Indian housing legislation under the 1937 Act. 

Senator TESTER. Are there proposals in this discussion draft that 

will help promote initiatives that are going on in your country? 

Ms. YAZZIE. Certainly. I think I alluded to that in my oral testimony. Obviously, more detail is in our written testimony. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you very much. 

A couple of things, Teri. You referenced the 2005 Alaska Housing 

Assessment Study, and you also talked about the areas that you 

represent. Was that 2005 Alaska Housing Study the entire assessment for the entire State of Alaska and all the tribes? 

Ms. NUTTER. Yes, it was. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Let me grab it real quick. I guess I won’t 

be able to grab it real quick, so I will have to do it off the top of 

my head. 

71

You had talked about needs. I think it was 25,000 new houses, 

20,000 houses that were in bad shape, but could be repaired. Was 

that statewide or was that just in your area? 

Ms. NUTTER. That was statewide. We would be more than happy 

to share the report with the Committee. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, that is great. The bottom line is that if you 

were going to make an estimate, and I think you said it would take 

$6 billion. Is that what your report said, $6 billion? 

Ms. NUTTER. Roughly. 

Senator TESTER. Is that just for new housing? Or is that for new 

housing, repair and infrastructure? 

Ms. NUTTER. The total cost to repair and replace to alleviate 

overcrowding, so that would include infrastructure. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And that is in Alaska alone? 

Ms. NUTTER. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

That is good enough. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate you 

folks coming the distance and giving us your testimony. 

Before I turn it back, I just want to thank Senator Barrasso for 

being here. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Barrasso, we appreciate you being 

here this morning. Do you want to proceed if you have any comments that you want to make generally, and then of course questions to the witnesses. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Vice Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to be here. We had a briefing, as you know, at the Pentagon this morning, so I apologize for being late and missing some 

of your comments. 

For folks that don’t know me, I am the newest member of the 

Committee. I am from Wyoming, taking the seat of Senator Craig 

Thomas, who we unfortunately lost about a month ago. I am a 

practicing orthopedic surgeon and take care of a number of folks 

from the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

in the State of Wyoming. That is a large portion of our State and 

it is very important to our State. 

As an orthopedic surgeon, I am going to be looking at many 

things from the standpoint of health care and the health of folks 

all around the State. What I see is the average age for women in 

America is now running to about 80 for longevity and for men it 

is in the high 70’s. And I know in Wyoming at least the life span 

of our Native American population is running about 49. 

So I think we can do a much better job there. So I am thinking 

in terms of health care issues, of preventive care, early detection, 

early treatment, nutrition. Certainly, there is substance abuse. 

Near and dear to my heart is that many of the folks I get involved 

with directly following motor vehicle accidents, crashes, and other 

significant trauma relates primarily in a major part to substance 

abuse. I think we need to do a better job there. 

So to me, quality affordable housing is part of the bigger issue 

to me of health and is one component of that health issue. 

72

In trying to study this and looking at this, I believe promoting 

individual home ownership is a worthy goal, something we should 

aim for. As I read through the legislation, I look at the factors used 

in calculating housing fund allocations. One criteria measures the 

amount of housing that is owned by the tribes and by the individuals, and I just want to make sure in Section 301, because on the 

face of it it appears to me that it tips the scale more in favor of 

the tribe owning the home, rather than the individual owning the 

home. My experience is when an individual owns a home, that may 

be more pride of ownership, better care for the facility, better hygiene in there. And then that reverberates into better nutrition, 

better preventive measures, not just home maintenance, but maintenance of our own body and life and lifestyle, and helping us live 

longer, healthier lives. 

So I don’t know who to present the question to, but my question 

really comes down to that issue of your thoughts on Section 301, 

of whether you believe it discourages the tribes from turning over 

the homes for individual ownership and additional individual empowerment. I am certainly in favor of individual members becoming home owners, and then taking the steps from there. 

Senator TESTER. [presiding.] Senator, I would say that that question would be best for Rodger Boyd, and Rodger is still here. If we 

could take the liberty, Rodger, if you would like to answer that? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Mr. BRIEN. I can respond briefly from my observation and being 

a tribal member at Turtle Mountain of North Dakota. Individual 

tribal member home ownership is very closely linked to our economic conditions on each reservation. So I think there would be a 

positive correlation between a strong economy and strong home 

ownership. So most of us, many of our reservations in North Dakota just don’t have a strong economy. So therefore, it tends to 

weight down the increased number of individual home owners. So 

the medicine for the sickness is jobs, so home ownership will dramatically increase in Indian Country. 

Senator BARRASSO. My concern is I want to make sure that the 

legislation isn’t pushing us away from home ownership. That is 

what I am trying to address. 

Mr. BRIEN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. Senator, maybe I could address that. From 

what I am hearing, Section 301 deals with what we call current assisted stock, which was the old 1937 Housing Act stock. Within 

that is the low-rent developments, as well as what was constructed 

which were called Mutual Help units. The Mutual Help were the 

home ownership units. 

Typically, there was a timeframe that the residents that were in 

the units were buying those units directly from the tribe or housing 

authority that built them. So those would remain in the name of 

the tribe or housing authority until they met the agreements of 

that, and it would be transferred over at that time. But then again 

there are low-rent units that will stay in the current assisted stock 

portion of that. 

Senator BARRASSO. So a stronger economy would then help that 

in terms of being able to fulfill the requirements for the total transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:19 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 038235 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\38235.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
73

fer over from the tribe to the individual, with a better economy and 

better opportunities. 

Mr. SHURAVLOFF. The Mutual Help unit will come to an end, actually, when the terms of those agreements are met. The current 

assisted stock that tribes receive will be reduced accordingly every 

year, and then they would have to use funds under new construction to develop more units. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I don’t know if anyone else wants to talk to it. 

Senator TESTER. Rodger, did you want to add anything? 

Mr. BOYD. I think Marty described it pretty accurately. The 

budget is formed two ways. Some of the money does come out of 

[remarks made off microphone] first of all to the FCAS units. Second, then, there are [remarks made off microphone] idea of the 

1937 Housing Act [remarks made off microphone]. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator TESTER. So with that, thank you folks for all coming. I 

appreciate your testimony and appreciate your effort to get here. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(75)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY E. PYLE, CHIEF, CHOCTAW NATION OF

OKLAHOMA


719cho1.eps
76


719cho2.eps
77


719cho3.eps
78


719cho4.eps
79


719cho5.eps
80


719cho6.eps
81


719cho7.eps
82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND CHEYENNE RIVER

HOUSING AUTHORITY


719che1.eps
83


719che2.eps
84


719che3.eps
85


719che4.eps
86


719che5.eps
87


719che6.eps
88


719che7.eps
89

Attachment


719che8.eps 719che9.eps
90


719che10.eps
91

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SOSSAMON, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN PLAINS

INDIAN HOUSING ASSOCIATION


719bil1.eps
92

Attachment


719bil2.eps
93


719bil3.eps
94


719bil4.eps
95


719bil5.eps
96


719bil6.eps
97


719bil7.eps
98


719bil8.eps
99


719bil9.eps
100


719bil10.eps
101


719bil11.eps
102


719bil12.eps
103


719bil13.eps
104


719bil14.eps
105


719bil15.eps
106


719bil16.eps
107


719bil17.eps
108


719bil18.eps
109


719bil19.eps
110


719bil20.eps
111


719bil21.eps
112


719bil22.eps
113


719bil23.eps
114


719bil24.eps
115


719bil25.eps
116


719bil26.eps
117


719bil27.eps
118


719bil28.eps
119


719bil29.eps
120


719bil30.eps
121


719bil31.eps
122


719bil32.eps
123


719bil33.eps
124


719bil34.eps
125


719bil35.eps
126


719bil36.eps
127


719bil37.eps
128


719bil38.eps
129


719bil39.eps
130


719bil40.eps
131


719bil41.eps
132


719co1.eps
133


719co2.eps
134


719co3.eps
135


719coa1.eps
136


719coa2.eps
137


719coa3.eps
138


719coa4.eps
139


719coa5.eps
140


719coa6.eps
141


719coa7.eps
142


719coa8.eps
143


719coa9.eps
144


719coa10.eps
145


719coa11.eps
146


719coa12.eps
147


719coa13.eps
148


719coa14.eps
149


719coa15.eps
150


719coa16.eps
151


719coa17.eps
152


719coa18.eps
153


719coa19.eps
154


719coa20.eps
155


719coa21.eps
156


719coa22.eps
157


719coa23.eps
158


719coa24.eps
159


719coa25.eps
160


719coa26.eps
161


719coa27.eps
162


719coa28.eps
163


719coa29.eps
164


719coa30.eps
165


719coa31.eps
166


719coa32.eps
167


719coa33.eps
168


719coa34.eps
169


719coa35.eps
170


719coa36.eps
171


719coa37.eps
172

Æ


719coa38.eps