U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–783 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–382 

BREAKING NEW GROUND IN AGRIBUSINESS 

OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 17, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana, 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER ROMERO, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on January 17, 2018 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 23 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 31 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 36 

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Berrey, Hon. John L., Chairman, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma ........................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Cullo, Diane, Advisor to the Secretary; Director, Office of Partnerships and 

Public Engagement, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....................................... 4 

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

Haskie, Lionel, Operations and Maintenance Manager, Navajo Agricultural 

Products Industry ................................................................................................ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Hipp, Janie Simms, Director, Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, 

University of Arkansas School of Law ............................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

APPENDIX

Anderson, Keith B., Vice-Chairman, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 43 

Baker, Hon. Harlan, Chairman, The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s 

Reservation, prepared statement ........................................................................ 125 

Begaye, Hon. Russell, President, Navajo Nation, prepared statement ............... 69 

Cleveland, Wilfrid, President, Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared statement .............. 87 

Ferguson, Camille, Executive Director, American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association, prepared statement .................................................................. 41 

Floyd, Hon. James R., Principal Chief, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 123 

Gasco-Bentley, Hon. Regina, Tribal Chairperson, Waganakising Odawak, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indian, prepared statement ....................... 82 

Goudy, Hon. JoDe, Chairman, Yakama Nation, prepared statement ................. 123 

Iyall, Hon. William P.E., Chairman, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 73 

Jackson, Ryan, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared statement ....... 65 

Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, Chickasaw Nation, prepared statement .......... 114 

Lewis, Cheryl Jackson, Division Director, Nutrition Promotion and Technical 

Assistance Division, prepared statement ........................................................... 121 

Lummi Tribe of Indians (Lummi Nation), prepared statement ........................... 61 

Miles, Hon. Mary Jane, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement ........ 79 

Palmer, Carole M., Food Systems Specialist, COPE, prepared statement ......... 107 

Payment, Hon. Aaron, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 51 

Racine, Ross, Executive Director, Intertribal Agriculture Council, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 44 

Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to Diane Cullo . 130 

Riley, Sr. Joshua, Policy Analyst, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 85 

Siow, Hon. Virgil, Governor, Pueblo of Laguna, prepared statement ................. 51 

Page

IV 

Torres, Hon. Amber, Chairman, Walker River Paiute Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 72 

Trahan, Hon. Ronald Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 75 

United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF), 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 53 

Valencia, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, prepared statement .... 110 

Watchman, Pete, President, Navajo Nation Soil and Water Conservation District, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 127 

Weston, Hon. Troy Scott, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, prepared statement .. 57 

Wildcat, Hon. Joseph, President, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, prepared statement ........................................................................... 90 

Yellowbird Stevens, Hon. Brandon, Vice-Chairman, Oneida Nation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 109 

Zorn, James E., Executive Administrator, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared statement ................................................................. 81 

*ROUNDTABLE—Advancing Native Food Traditions in Indian Country* ..... 133 

(1) 

BREAKING NEW GROUND IN AGRIBUSINESS 

OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. I call this hearing to order. Good afternoon. 

Today, the Committee will hold an oversight hearing on Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country. 

Agribusiness is of particular importance in Indian Country. The 

National Congress of American Indians has noted that approximately 35 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives live in 

rural communities, and nearly 40 percent of tribal jobs are dependent on agriculture. 

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, there are nearly 

59,000 Indian farmers and ranchers in the United States with 

35,000 farms principally owned and operated by Indian farmers. In 

my home State of North Dakota, over 83 percent of farms on the 

Turtle Mountain Reservation are tribally-operated. 

Agribusiness is critical for Indian Country, and it is a growing 

industry. According to the most recent USDA Census of Agriculture, between 2007 and 2012, there was a 9 percent increase in 

American Indian principal farm operators. That is a good sign. This 

increase occurred in Indian Country while we saw a national decrease in principal farmers. 

This Committee has worked to reduce the regulatory burden in 

Indian Country and it is time we do the same for the growing industry of Indian agribusiness. We are here today to discuss just 

that and to examine how tribes and their members can capitalize 

on opportunities in agribusiness. 

We have a diverse group of witnesses who are joining us today 

to review how Congress, the Administration, tribes, and other 

stakeholders may work together to find common ground and help 

Native Americans continue to have success in agribusiness. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. As a 

North Dakotan and a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am 

2 

particularly interested in Indian agribusiness. I look forward to 

hearing your testimonies. 

Before we hear from our witnesses, I want to turn to Senator 

Udall for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Chairman Hoeven. I really 

appreciate working with you on this hearing. 

We are going to have our new member join us later today. I will 

welcome her when Tina arrives. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to Lionel Haskie from 

NAPI. I am looking forward to hearing more about NAPI’s efforts 

to expand access to traditional foods, workforce development for 

Native youth, and innovative stewardship. NAPI is doing tremendous work. 

Once every five years, Congress sets Federal nutrition, agricultural and conservative policies in the Farm Bill reauthorization. 

These policies naturally have significant impacts to Indian Country. 

Tribal lands, natural resources, foods and economic development 

opportunities are all affected by Federal food policy. For many decades now, Indian Country has been summarily excluded from both 

discussions that shape these policies and the policies themselves. 

That is why I am thankful to the Chairman for calling this hearing today. Indian Country’s interest in agribusiness is real and 

growing. There are over 56,000 Native farmers and ranchers operating on 57 million acres of land. In 2012, Native farmers bought more than $3 billion worth of 

products to the market. I hope to hear more from our witnesses 

today about how Congress can better support these efforts to get 

Native agricultural products on the grocery store shelves all across 

America. 

Market value is only one piece of what Native farmers and 

ranchers bring to Indian Country. These hardworking folks help 

their communities address issues related to nutrition, cultural revitalization, climate change mitigation and research innovation. In 

fact, the testimony from our witnesses today underscores this 

point. 

This Committee must take a broad approach to its review of Federal agricultural policy. That is why tomorrow afternoon, Chairman 

Hoeven and I will convene a bipartisan roundtable to discuss the 

many ways Congress and the USDA can support tribal efforts 

around traditional foods, especially in light of the new Farm Bill 

actively being considered by the Committee on Agriculture. 

I have seen the important cultural, health and economic roles 

traditional foods play for tribes of my home State of New Mexico. 

Many of my fellow members on this Committee can probably attest 

to the same in their home States. 

It is important that the record fully reflect this priority. I request 

the transcript from tomorrow’s roundtable be included in the record 

for today’s hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3 

Both today’s hearing and tomorrow’s roundtable represent a solid 

start when it comes to the Farm Bill in Indian Country. I am calling upon everyone on this dais today to share what we learn from 

our colleagues who do not sit on this Committee and to work together to see the legislative changes we can secure for tribes and 

Native farmers in the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization. 

For too long now, Indian Country has been knocking at the door 

of the Farm Bill asking for a seat at the table with States, counties 

and other stakeholders, asking for their due as sovereign governments. We all need to come together to push that door open and 

make room at the table. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for calling 

today’s hearing and working with me on tomorrow’s roundtable. I 

am very encouraged by our joint efforts. I look forward to working 

with you and the leadership of the Ag Committee where you and 

several other Indian Affairs members also sit on the legislative side 

of things. 

I see that our newest member has joined us, Senator Hoeven. I 

want to recognize her. Senator Smith is present. 

I also want to say there is a special connection with Tina because 

she was born and raised in Albuquerque and I believe graduated 

from high school there. I share that with her, obviously, and in a 

sense, adopt her. 

I would also like to begin by giving her a very warm welcome 

today. We are glad to have you join us. I look forward to working 

with you to advance the priorities of the Minnesota tribes and Indian Country as a whole in the Senate. 

I know you want to work and have a very good relationship with 

your tribes. I am willing to work hard with you on that behalf. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Senator Tester, for joining us today. When we talk 

about farming, there is nobody that has his hands in the dirt more 

than Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Seven fingers. 

Senator UDALL. Seven fingers, got it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall. 

Welcome to Senator Smith. Did you have opening comments, 

Senator? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Hoeven. 

Senator Udall, I appreciate very much being on this Committee. 

I want you both to know that serving on this Committee was very 

important to me. It was something I specifically asked to do because I know it is so important and especially important to Minnesota and our 11 sovereign Nation tribes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, welcome, Senator Smith. It is good to 

have you with us. 

Senator Tester. 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, thank you and the 

Vice Chairman for holding what I think is a very important hearing. 

There is incredible opportunity in Indian Country for agriculture. 

I have seen it firsthand but I think today is an opportunity to find 

out what is holding it back and what are the impediments. Is it a 

lack of capital, input costs, not having adequate mentorship or 

communication between Federal agencies, lenders and tribes? We 

need the answers. 

This is so important today because we have a Farm Bill coming 

up. We might be able to address some of those issues in the Farm 

Bill if you can point us in the right direction. We are looking to 

your for guidance from the Native community’s perspective. 

I think if we have a particularly good hearing today, we will be 

able to transfer that information over to the Ag Committee and 

hopefully have some influence on that bill as it is being written. 

Thank you all for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. I agree. I think that 

sentiment is very appropriate. We want any and all good ideas as 

we write this Farm Bill. 

Senator Crapo, any opening statement? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to again welcome our witnesses. 

Today, we will hear from Ms. Diane Cullo, Advisor to the Secretary 

and Director, Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; the Honorable John L. Berrey, Chairman of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma; Ms. Janie Simms Hipp, Director, Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, University of 

Arkansas, School of Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Mr. Lionel 

Haskie, Operations and Maintenance Manager of the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, Farmington, New Mexico. 

Again, welcome to all of you. 

Ms. Cullo, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE CULLO, ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY 

AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PARTNERSHIPS AND PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. CULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Udall and 

members of the Committee. 

My name is Diane Cullo. I am the Director of the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on how USDA is addressing agribusiness opportunities for tribal Nations and citizens. 

Thank you for your leadership and insight to be able to highlight 

the need to support new agricultural and economic enterprises in 

Indian Country. 

Based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture data, we know that the 

average reported age of Native agricultural operators is 58. A study 

the NCAI reported that over one-third of the Native population is 

under the age of 18. There is a rising Native youth cohort that 

5 

USDA is poised to help address so that Native American agriculture continues to thrive. 

I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with many young 

tribal members last month at the Intertribal Ag Council’s annual 

meeting. I look forward to working with this Committee on identifying areas where we can provide more support to help feed our 

population and create a sustainable livelihood for Native youth. 

We also know that by 2020, 39 percent of new openings in the 

agriculture, food and natural resources sector may not be filled by 

graduates with the necessary degrees. That is almost 23,000 jobs 

nationwide. 

One of the ways USDA is addressing this is through a cooperative agreement with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium to develop a career ready curriculum for tribal colleges and 

universities. We continue to seek other opportunities to collaborate 

with Native and non-Native youth-serving organizations. 

One of Secretary Perdue’s highest priorities is customer service. 

Through that, USDA programs are bridging need with opportunity. 

Through our Rural Business Development Grant Program, Rural 

Development awarded over $520,000 in fiscal year 2017 to Native 

projects helping support agribusiness jobs and fortifying those community-based economic markets. 

Those projects include forestry, establishing a greenhouse incubator, providing technical assistance and developing a commercial 

market for local tribally-produced foods. Also, through USDA’s network of boots on the ground in the Farm Service Agency, Native 

farmers and ranchers received over $29 million in financing to support their operations since September 2017. Of that, over $15 million directly supported Native producers becoming owner-operators of farms, expanding current operations, increasing agricultural productivity, and assisting with land tenure. 

USDA is committed to establishing a network of lasting success. 

Agricultural operations take time, capital and energy to ensure the 

production model thrives. USDA welcomes the opportunity to work 

with this Committee to attain our mutual goal of increasing the 

number of Native producers in Indian Country. 

I would be remiss if I did not recognize our tribal partners who 

continue to broaden the footprint of agriculture. Last year, the 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma announced the grand opening of the 

first tribal-owned and operated meat slaughter facility in the Country. 

USDA actively consulted with Quapaw to ensure a full understanding of USDA regulatory requirements and under Chairman 

Berrey’s leadership, the tribal is now serving as a resource for 

other tribes interested in doing the same. 

Other tribes have met with us and expressed interest in pursuing similar ventures in other production areas like seafood. Just 

last week, KivaSun Foods, a Native-owned company, was approved 

to participate in USDA’s salmon products program, specifically for 

salmon destined for the FDPIR program. This is a perfect example 

of a Native-owned enterprise working with a USDA program that 

supports feeding families in Indian Country. 

Within the first month, Secretary Perdue, Deputy Secretary and 

several Under Secretaries met with tribal representatives to disVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
6 

cuss critical issues. We will continue to have these important conversations. 

With the upcoming Farm Bill, we look forward to working with 

Indian Country. I will take this opportunity to announce that Secretary Perdue and USDA will hold a tribal consultation meeting on 

the 2018 Farm Bill in Oklahoma in April. 

I am here to reaffirm USDA’s commitment to partnering with Indian Country. I thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE CULLO, ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY; DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PARTNERSHIPS AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Diane Cullo and I am the Director of the Office of Partnerships & Public Engagement (OPPE) and an Advisor to the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Prior to joining USDA, I served as Executive Director for the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, as well 

as at the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, so the issues regarding 

access and education across Indian Country are close to my heart. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs on how USDA is addressing new agribusiness opportunities for tribal nations 

and citizens. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Udall, thank you for your leadership and for highlighting the need to support new agricultural economic enterprises 

in Indian Country. 

Based on 2012 Census of Agriculture data, we know that the average reported age 

of Native agricultural operators is 58 years old. A study by the National Congress 

of American Indians reports that over a third of the Native population is under the 

age of 18. There is a rising Native youth bubble that USDA is poised to help address, so that Native American agriculture continues to thrive. I had the pleasure 

of interacting with many young tribal members in attendance at the Intertribal Agriculture Council’s annual meeting this past December. Native youth are part of the 

future of American agribusiness. I look forward to working with the Committee on 

identifying areas in which we can provide more support and help to not only feed 

our population, but create a sustainable livelihood for Native youth. 

We also know that by 2020, 39 percent of new openings in the agriculture, food, 

and natural resources sector may not be filled by graduates with those degrees. 

That is nearly 23,000 jobs nation-wide not only in farming, but also in STEM and 

bio-materials production, communication, government, and education. One of the 

ways USDA is actively addressing this is through a cooperative agreement with the 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium. We are supporting the Consortium’s efforts to develop career-ready curriculum for tribal colleges and universities. 

This partnership is still early, and USDA is continuing to explore other opportunities for collaboration with Native- and non-Native youth serving organizations, such 

as internship opportunities and targeted resources. 

One of Secretary Perdue’s highest priorities is to enhance USDA’s customer service, and I am pleased to report that USDA programs are helping bridge need with 

opportunity. Through its Rural Business Development Grant program, Rural Development awarded over $520,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to Native projects, helping 

support jobs in agribusiness and fortifying those economic markets in their communities. Those projects included forestry, establishing a greenhouse incubator, providing technical assistance for tribal producers, and developing a commercial market 

for local, tribally produced foods. 

Furthermore, through USDA’s network of boots on the ground in the Farm Service Agency, Native farmers and ranchers received over $29 million in financing to 

support their own operations since September 2017. Of that total, more than half— 

which is over $15 million—directly supported Native producers becoming owner-operators of farms, expanding current operations, increasing agricultural productivity, 

and assisting with land tenure. Equally worth noting, the Farm Service Agency lent 

more than $250,000 to youth aged 10–20 to finance income-producing, agriculturerelated projects, up to $5,000 each. These Native youth now have the opportunity 

to see exactly what they can do with their own hands. 

7 

USDA is committed to establishing a network of lasting success. Agricultural operations are ultimately business endeavors and, as such, they take time, capital, 

and energy to ensure their production model thrives. USDA welcomes the opportunity to work with this Committee to attain our mutual goal of increasing the number of current and future Native producers in Indian Country. 

We are also appreciative of our tribal partners who continue to broaden the footprint of agriculture across Indian Country. Last year, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma announced the grand opening of the first tribal-owned and -operated meat 

slaughter facility in the country. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service actively consulted with Quapaw to ensure a full understanding of USDA regulatory 

requirements, informing the Tribe’s decision to operate as a federally-inspected facility. Under Chairman Berrey’s leadership, the Tribe is taking it a step further, serving as a resource for other tribes interested in establishing their own facility. 

Other tribes have met with us and expressed interest in pursuing similar ventures in other areas of production, such as seafood. As of last week—January 11th— 

KivaSun Foods, in partnership with Odyssey Foods, a seafood processing and distribution company based in Seattle, Washington, was approved to participate in the 

Agricultural Marketing Service Salmon Products Program, specifically for salmon 

fillets destined for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. There is 

currently a solicitation out for 12 loads—which comes out to 432,000 pounds—of 

salmon fillets. KivaSun is a Native-owned food company that reintroduced traditional foods to tribal communities in the form of bison and wild pacific salmon. This 

is a shining example of a Native-owned enterprise working with a USDA program 

that supports feeding families in Indian Country. 

Additionally, USDA’s ongoing partnership with the Intertribal Agriculture Council 

(TAC) is expanding agricultural market access for tribal producers through two 

courses, amongst others. First, USDA has a cooperative agreement with TAC to provide technical assistance on land-management practices and to help interested producers navigate through the diverse array of USDA programs and services available 

to meet their needs. Second, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service has regularly 

awarded TAC under the Market Access Program, or MAP. In FY 2018, the IAC received $737,270 in MAP funds to promote products and secure export sales of American Indian and Alaska Native agriculture and food products. Under IAC’s American 

Indian Foods program, USDA saw combined on-sites sales of $8.2 million (and estimated 12month sales of $12 million) at trade shows around the world in FY 2016. 

On Secretary Perdue’s first day in office in April 2017, President Trump called 

on USDA to lead a concerted effort identifying issues important to rural and agricultural prosperity. This led directly to the Report to the President from the Task 

Force on Rural Prosperity. We will continue seeking to identify these barriers and 

support their resolution. A copy of the report is posted online at www.usda.gov/ 

ruralprosperity. 

Within Deputy Secretary Censky’s first 10 days in office, he met with Tribal Leaders at NCAI to consult on the Secretary’s intended reorganization of USDA, and just 

last month, one of our Acting Under Secretaries consulted with Tribal Leaders to 

identify how we can come together in improving the USDA food package. One of the 

important points of discussion was how USDA can work with tribal agribusinesses 

to include their food in the package that feeds so many Native families. The 

KivaSun foods example I previously mentioned is one small step in that direction. 

With an upcoming Farm Bill on the horizon, we look forward to working collectively with Indian Country. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that 

Secretary Perdue and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will hold a Tribal Consultation on the 2018 Farm Bill in Oklahoma in April. 

In the short month following Secretary Perdue’s appointment to USDA, he fulfilled his promise to meet with tribes. When he visited Oglala Lakota College to 

hear from Tribal Leaders and Tribal College Presidents on how we can leverage our 

resources, he walked away from that meeting affirming that USDA is here to partner with Indian Country, and I echo that sentiment. I would like to thank the Committee for your time and look forward to any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now we will turn to Chairman Berrey. 

8 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW 

TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BERREY. Good afternoon, Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to 

you all today. 

I want to acknowledge that you have two Razorback alumni sitting before you so if we break into a calling of the hogs, please forgive me. I also want to recognize Senator Lankford who has been 

very good to the Quapaw Tribe. We are sorry that he is not here 

today. 

I want to tell you a little bit about who we are. We are the OGah-Pah people, the indigenous tribe of Arkansas. We are a Sioux 

Tribe and speak a Siouan language. Back in the day, there was a 

buffalo herd on the Grand Prairie in southwest Arkansas which we 

chased. We also grew crops along the Mississippi and the Arkansas 

River, so we have a very long history of agriculture within our 

DNA, our cultural background and history. We are very proud of 

that. 

Fortunately, we are right on Interstate 44 which has about 10 

million cars going past our reservation in Oklahoma. We have a 

very successful casino resort. The tribe has pointed me in the direction of taking that money and investing it in agriculture. 

Agriculture is our history, it is our future and we are dedicated 

to that in many ways. We are a 638 tribe. We do self governance. 

We do everything that the Bureau was doing for ourselves except 

for IIM account management. We leave that up to the Office of the 

Special Trustee. 

We have courts, law enforcement, four full service fire stations 

and all of our work is community broad and spread. We are an 

Oklahoma tribe so we are a little more integrated than you would 

find tribes in the Northern Plains and other parts of the Country. 

It works well for us to be very much a part of the community. We 

have mutual aid agreements, cross deputization agreements and 

work daily with the local community trying to feed people, trying 

to protect people and trying to make life better in our community. 

We think there are ways you can help us to grow. Our promise 

to other tribes has been, come see what we do, let us show you how 

we got to where we are, and let us provide you any help or assistance we can provide to spread this to the other Native Nations. 

We have been approached by 20 tribes that have come to visit 

our facility. It is a state-of-the-art facility. It is USDA inspected. 

We have a tribal member going through a USDA grading school so 

we will have a tribal member who is a USDA grader that will work 

in our facility. 

It is a jobs program but more than anything, it is bringing hope 

and opportunity to young people in my tribe and our community 

that is outside of the gaming industry. We see that gaming is not 

the end all but it helps us with what our future will be. We see 

that in agriculture. 

We are dedicated to that. We are looking at land in Arkansas, 

our homeland, to purchase more land for agriculture. We grow our 

own feed for our feeding program for our animals. We feed other 

animals with feed we grow. 

9 

We have actually taken land at a Superfund site and converted 

it to agricultural land. We test the plant life to make sure it is not 

uptaking any heavy metals. We have been very successful working 

with Administrator Scott Pruett and Senator Inhofe in turning 

what was at one time the worst Superfund site in the United 

States to now a site that is transforming into an agricultural opportunity. 

We do not want to bring people back to live on that Superfund 

site, but we want to make it productive land. We see it as capping 

and fencing, capping and institutional controls as a reduction of the 

size of our land base but we see if we can convert that land to viable agricultural land. That is where we want to go. 

A phase that I think would help us from you would be to look 

at the way environmental law works for tribes to be treated as a 

State under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. I have had 

a conversation with Secretary Perdue about that. We would like to 

pursue that conversation. 

Even at our plant, if we had a Quapaw stamp right next to a 

USDA stamp, that would be movement in the right direction. We 

think it is incumbent upon us as Native people who care for the 

land we live on culturally to be very much a part of turning that 

land into helping people feed themselves. 

Under Title VI, for instance, we supply bison for free to our Title 

VI program which feeds over 600 people a day and most are nontribal members, so they can concentrate on other parts of the plate 

than protein. 

It saves their budget tremendously because we donate bison to 

the program. We have 400 Meels on Wheels a day and about 200 

sit-down meals a day. It is interesting that the elderly people now 

prefer bison over beef. They are converted now because of the 

health benefits of the bison itself. 

It is a good program and we would like to share those other programs with other tribes. We have made comments that we will submit for the Farm Bill and look forward to Secretary Perdue coming 

to see our USDA-inspected beef and bison facility on trust land. 

We want to continue to help your Committee in any way we can 

to help promote and ensure that Native Americans can be very 

much a part of doing good things and feeding people for this Country. 

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW TRIBE OF

OKLAHOMA

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and members of the 

Committee. My name is John Berrey and I am the Chairman of the Quapaw Tribe 

of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah). 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about agriculture 

and my Tribe’s activities in these fields. This hearing is very timely and particularly 

important given the reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year. 

Background on the Quapaw Tribe 

The Quapaw Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe with a mature, sophisticated government providing a full menu of programs and services to its tribal members as well as to surrounding communities. 

10 

The Tribe has also demonstrated the kind of strategic vision and business savvy 

that has generated employment and incomes for tribal members and others, and has 

put the Tribe on a path to real economic self-sufficiency undreamed of in years past. 

In addition to a world-class gaming facility and accompanying resort, the Tribe has 

launched a USDA-certified, tribally-owned bison and cattle operation to grow, process and market Quapaw products both domestically and, shortly, in the international markets. 

A Brief History of the Downstream People 

Historically, the Tribe was located in the American southeast, and our name —‘‘OGah-Pah’’—(anglicized as ‘‘Quapaw’’) means the ‘‘people who went downstream’’ or 

the ‘‘Downstream People.’’ The Tribe’s homeland for many centuries was near the 

confluence of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers in present-day State of Arkansas. 

Not satisfied with its earlier removal and other actions vis a vis the Quapaw people, the United States removed the Quapaw, this time to a location along the 

present-day Oklahoma-Kansas border, where the Quapaw have resided ever since. 

Under the Treaty of May 13, 1833, the United States set aside a reservation for the 

Tribe, consisting of 150 sections of land west of the Missouri state line, largely located within present-day Oklahoma, but with some twelve sections of land in 

present-day Kansas, which became known as the ‘‘Quapaw Strip.’’ 

Following removal, the Tribe faced new hardships and mistreatment. The Quapaw 

resettled themselves, only to have the federal government discover a ‘‘survey error’’ 

and force many of them to move again. This time, many Quapaws left the reservation, some settling in Kansas and others in present-day central Oklahoma, while 

others fled to Texas. At the outset of the American Civil War, the United States 

withdrew the federal troops protecting the tribe, and the reservation—located in a 

crossroads—became a lawless place. 

At the end of the Civil War, the reservation was devastated, and the Quapaws 

were also unfairly accused of siding with the Confederate States of America. Under 

the Treaty of February 23, 1867, the Tribe sold to the United States most of the 

tribal land within the Quapaw Strip. Under the same treaty, the Tribe also sold approximately 18,500 acres in the western part of the reservation to the United States 

for use by another tribe. 

As a result of these forced relocations and treaties with the federal government, 

the Tribe’s present-day reservation consists of approximately 92 square miles. 

The Quapaw Tribe’s Long Road to Self-Determination 

Indian tribes are not only culturally and ethnically unique, they are functioning 

governments. Through the first half of the 20th century, the Tribe’s leadership attempted to avoid increasing federal involvement. In 1956, the federal government 

forced the Tribe to re-organize as a condition to payment of its claim representing 

the loss of its land in Arkansas. Since then, the Tribe has been governed pursuant 

to the ‘‘Resolution Delegating Authority to the Quapaw Tribal Business Committee 

to Speak and Act in Behalf of the Quapaw Tribe of Indians,’’ its primary organic 

document. 

Beginning in the late 1960s, federal Indian policy changed and began to encourage and support Indian self-determination and self-governance. In view of its lack 

of resources and capital, however, the Tribe’s return to self-governance after more 

than 150 years of federal domination was a long and slow path. 

A decade ago, in addition to focusing on generating revenues to fund tribally-provided services to its members, the Tribe’s leadership began a legal initiative to regain control of its governmental functions. Under federal law, tribes that meet certain basic criteria have the right to withdraw from federal management the control 

of their basic governmental functions, including law enforcement, courts, probate, 

realty, trust services, and others. 

I very much believe that the vast array of programs and services offered by the 

USDA can and should be made available for tribal management through the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub.L.93–638) or similar legal authority. I can assure you that my Tribe would take every advantage of such an opportunity. 

The larger structural barrier Indian tribes have in getting meaningful access to 

the USDA programs is the fact that the agency has settled on a state-centric method of operation. Despite good efforts by some in the past, this has led to the agency’s 

unfamiliarity with and reluctance to engage with Indian tribes on par with the 

states. On this score, I have met personally with Secretary Perdue and we have discussed ways to foster better federal-tribal collaboration. 

11 

The Quapaw Tribe Today 

The Tribe has succeeded in developing its Downstream Casino Resort, which is 

one of many initiatives in the last decade to develop a revenue stream to fund tribal 

governmental services. With the resort and other enterprises, the Tribe has begun 

funding governmental functions that are providing an unprecedented level of services to its members. The Tribe operates or provides: 

• Law enforcement services; 

• A Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, which was one of the vital 

first-responders after the 2011 Joplin tornado; 

• Tribal courts; 

• A water utility; 

• A tribal library; 

• A tribal cultural center and museum; 

• Modern day care centers, which serve tribal and surrounding families; 

• A tribal wellness center; and 

• The Quapaw Counseling Services, which offers free and for-profit substance 

abuse programs and other forms of treatment. 

The Tribe also owns and operates commercial enterprises, including 

• Downstream Casino Resort. including the Downstream Q Store; 

• Eagle Creek Golf Club; 

• Quapaw Services Authority, a construction business; 

• Saracen Solutions, LLC, a tribally chartered company developing federal contracting opportunities. 

The Tribe, which provided less than 50 jobs in 2002, has become one of the largest 

employers in the Tri-State area, with the result that it is offering jobs to many tribal members as well as to members of the surrounding community. With its revenues, the Tribe funds not only basic governmental services, but also provides health 

insurance to all of its some 4,500 enrolled members, and which includes life insurance and death benefits. This, and other services and benefits, have markedly begun 

improving the quality of the lives of tribal members. 

The Quapaw Tribe’s Agricultural Activities 

The Tribe is very active in the fields of agriculture and agribusiness. We operate 

a substantial nutrition program for our tribal members, focused on traditional foods 

and healthy lifestyles. 

The Quapaw Tribe’s Beef and Bison Processing Plant 

In September 2017, the Tribe opened its $5 million, 25,000 square-feet Quapaw 

Processing Plant—the nation’s first USDA-inspected processing plant owned and operated by an Indian tribe. 

The meat processing facility is part of the Tribe’s agricultural programs aimed at 

community and economic development for the tribe and the surrounding communities. The new plant, equipment, and feed lot were funded through a combination 

of federal grants and tribal contributions. 

Because the Tribe is located in an agriculture-heavy region, the Tribe is intent 

on building an agriculture-based economy to support local businesses and feed local 

people. 

The Quapaw now have over 5,000 acres of cattle grazing land, by next year 2,000 

acres of row crops. 

The processing plant is both an outlet for our own bison and beef products, but 

also an opportunity to take other peoples’ product and process it. The plant includes 

processing equipment, smokers, a test kitchen, packaging rooms, coolers that hold 

200 head, a quality control office, as well as a USDA inspector’s office and a training 

area. Currently employing nine, once at full capacity it will employ up to 30 people. 

Once the Tribe developed herds of top quality, genetic-registered Black Angus cattle and bison, it was only logical to build the plant to process meat from tribal herds 

and others. The Tribe uses most of the meat in its restaurants and but also sells 

beef and bison products through the tribe’s Quapaw Cattle Company and at a store 

located in the town of Quapaw. 

The plant serves these objectives, but also collaborates with the University of Arkansas, Oklahoma State University, Missouri State University and Northeastern 

Oklahoma University as a training facility for their agricultural departments. 

12 

The Tribe continues to work closely with Ms. Janie Hipp, the University of Arkansas’s director of Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative. She has been an advocate for Indian agriculture for many years and helped with the processing plant and 

other projects. 

Conclusion 

Improving tribal access to USDA programs is a noble and worthy goal of this committee. But what is upon us is even more significant: the reauthorization of the 

Farm Bill this year presents a rare opportunity to restructure the federal-tribal relationship when it comes to USDA programs and services. 

In an appendix to this prepared statement, I have included a number of capital 

and credit-related proposals for the committee’s consideration. At this point I would 

be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

APPENDIX—NO COST PROPOSALS RELATED TO CREDIT AND CAPITAL

Included in the June 2017 report entitled ‘‘Regaining Our Future: An Assessment 

of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill,’’ prepared by Janie Hipp and Colby Duren of the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, are many thoughtful and business-minded proposals for legislative and policy changes to aid Indian tribes take better advantage of agribusiness opportunities. 

These include the following: 

Structuring Loans to Suit the Business. For example, currently the FSA will lend 

100 percent the cost of bred livestock. It will then subordinate its lien position to 

a local commercial lender for annual production costs, increasing the amount of debt 

secured by the same amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If the 

first year of operating expenses could be included in the original loan, and amortized over the life of the secured asset, producers would end the year with cash in 

the bank, allowing producers to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input 

materials, replacement stock, or expansion opportunities. Such an approach would 

incentivize operating from available resources, instead of what could be borrowed 

on an annual basis. 

Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices. When commodity price cycles run 

contrary to the mandated FSA Planning Prices, despite a producer’s inclination to 

plan conservatively, producers are often faced with choice of accepting a plan based 

on those planning prices or shutting down their operation. In cases that FSA planning prices are more than 20 percent higher than the actual prices, a producer 

should be able to restructure their debt in a way that will not count towards lifetime 

limits on loan servicing. 

Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rates. By updating the Socially Disadvantaged 

Rate (SDR) interest rate for FSA loans from a static number (currently 5 percent) 

to be indexed to the prevailing rate and set a commensurate proportion of that rate, 

50 percent of the standard rate. The current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest rate was in the double digits. 

FSA Food Loan Authority. Under current program guidelines, there is some latitude for producers whose production will take a period to fully ramp up. Initial payments can be made at an 18-month mark rather than within the first year. This 

same methodology should be employed for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next step in the value chain. 

Remove the FSA Program Graduation Requirement. Due to the general lack of 

credit availability on and near Indian reservations, it is difficult to access viable 

credit rates for even experienced producers operating farms and ranches on trust 

lands. Removing the statutory requirement for producers on Indian reservations to 

have graduated from FSA programs would allow agriculture operations to be more 

stable and assist other producers who farm and ranch in areas where credit access 

is tenuous at best. 

Remove the FSA Requirement for Private Credit Denials. The lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders this requirement onerous and unduly burdensome, and it can be overcome by exempting tribal producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining three denial letters from private credit sources in order to 

participate in an FSA loan program. 

Create a Commonly-used Definition of ‘‘Land Owned by Indian Tribes.’’ Currently, 

there is no common definition of ‘‘land owned by Indian Tribes’’ across all USDA 

programs, creating inconsistent program access even within programs run by a single agency. 

GAO Study and Report on Credit and Access to Capital. In 2001 the U.S. Treasury’s CDFI Fund issued its ‘‘Native American Lending Study’’ which identified a lot 

of barriers to credit access and capital accumulation. The GAO, or similarly 

13 

equipped entity, should revisit and update the 2001 study and report into the nature of credit in Indian Country, specifically examining compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian reservations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Berrey. 

Ms. HIPP. 

STATEMENT OF JANIE SIMMS HIPP, DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS 

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. HIPP. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman 

Udall. It is a pleasure to be here with all of the members today. 

I am here today in my personal capacity and I have comments 

I hope will be made a part of the record. My opinions and insights 

today are going to be based on 30-plus years in the area of agriculture and food law and Indian law. 

I may hold the medal for having been in this space the longest 

but also my thoughts today are going to be informed also by my 

time in the Bush Administration as a national program leader at 

NIFA at USDA but also in the Obama Administration as a senior 

advisor to Secretary Vilsack for tribal relations for the department 

and the director of the Office of Tribal Relations. 

We work, at our Initiative, across all tribes across the Country 

on all matters related to tribal governments, economic development 

related to food and agriculture and, beginning farmers. Thank you, 

Diane, for mentioning beginning farmers. They are very important 

in our hearts. We also work on strategic planning on anything that 

a tribe, tribal leader or tribal food business picks up the phone and 

calls us to ask. 

I cannot imagine anything I do not having the Intertribal Agriculture Council there with me at our elbow as a partner. It is very 

important that organization continue to be supported by USDA and 

we recognize this is a partnership of all of us, not just our initiative 

or the Intertribal Ag Council, the tribal leadership themselves and 

most importantly, the Native farmers and ranchers who are out 

there on the land every day actually getting it done. 

I wanted to also point to a few other things in my written testimony. You may know by now that there is a Native Farm Bill Coalition that has been stood up. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community in Minnesota is very active and involved in helping 

that get stood up. Over 30 tribes have passed resolutions to be a 

part of that coalition to have a voice, as both of you said earlier. 

I am not going to go over the data. Diane has already done that. 

It is important though to note that scaling up is happening everywhere. It is happening with the Alaska Tribes, all over the southwest and all over the Great Plains. 

It is not just small producers anymore. It really is tribes stepping 

up and being that significant player we have always known we 

were and now fully are and can be. I think we are just beginning 

to realize the importance of agribusiness in Indian Country. 

I will tell you this from my time at USDA. USDA’s authorities 

are the most powerful way that tribal governments, tribal citizens 

and Native farmers and ranchers can achieve success. The powers 

and authorities of USDA are critical to this conversation. 

14 

We cannot do this just with the powers and authorities of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is not possible. We have to have access 

that is easier to accomplish with USDA itself. In the past, I think 

USDA could have done a better job. 

I think we are poised right now to have a full partnership with 

USDA and can realize such success that I think our ancestors 

would be stunned. I will tell you also that there are a lot of things 

I could bring up but I will leave it to the questions from the Committee to tease out some of those specific issues. 

I want to share with you that treatment as a State is extremely 

important to this conversation. Chairman Berrey mentioned it. It 

has not yet happened at USDA and it must happen. It must happen not just so the powers of the conservation title, the credit title 

and the commodities title, and all those other titles happen but it 

also needs to happen for the nutrition title. 

We have to be able to feed our people. We cannot do that if we 

work through another governmental entity. As Chairman Berrey 

shared with you, tribal governments are best suited to actually be 

able to deliver on the nutritional needs, food access and food security needs of our people. 

In closing, I would give a shout out to all of the Native youth 

who I know are tuning in today because we could not do any of this 

without them. We need their leadership. We are going to be pushing them forward to step into these spaces. 

I can tell you right now from our work with Native youth, they 

are ready, willing and smart as a tack. They can get this accomplished but we need your help to actually bring life to the amendments, powers and authorities that are going to be the key that 

unlocks the door. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hipp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANIE SIMMS HIPP, DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS FOOD AND

AGRICULTURE INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW

Introduction 

Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is 

Janie Simms Hipp, and I am a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation and Director of the 

Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of Arkansas School of 

Law. I am appearing today solely in my personal capacity. My university affiliation 

is provided for identification purposes only; the views expressed are my own and not 

those of the institution where I am employed. 

I would like to thank the Committee for asking me to testify today on the very 

important topics of agriculture, agribusiness, and the Farm Bill. Agribusiness is and 

has always been important to Indian Country, but we must recalibrate these critical 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs so that we can capitalize on current successes in Indian Country agriculture and agribusiness and ensure these successes continue into the future and are scaled up in new Tribal communities 

throughout Indian Country. Guiding my work at the Initiative on a daily basis is 

the need to feed the people who live in our most rural and remote places, create 

jobs, and stabilize economies for Native people who we all know have deep connections to the land on which they live, to farming and ranching, and to the foods they 

produce every day. In addition, Tribal governments and Tribal communities have always been and are continuing to rise in importance as the providers of essential 

governmental services in countless rural, remote, and isolated communities throughout the United States. 

I am here to provide practical insights based on my almost 35 years of working 

as an agriculture lawyer in Indian Country, a lawyer and policy advisor in the 

broader food and agriculture sector, as a former national program leader at the 

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and as a Senior Advisor to SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
15 

1The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2012 Census of 

Agriculture. 

retary Tom Vilsack and former Director of the Office of Tribal Relations at USDA. 

In my career as an ag lawyer, I have found that, as most of us here know, food 

and agriculture is a bipartisan issue. Today, I want to talk about creating job opportunities and contributing to greater food security for people all across Indian Country. 

Thanks to data collected by the USDA and the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) for the Census of Agriculture every five years, we have a glimpse 

of what we know exists today. Their work in researching, gathering, and compiling 

data in Indian Country agriculture has been improving every year, but they will 

readily tell you that they inherited a census process that was fundamentally flawed. 

They have diligently focused on improving Indian Country ag data. In the 2012 Census of Agriculture, NASS counted over 56,000 American Indian and Alaska Native 

Farmers and Ranchers, working on more than 57 million acres of land, with a market value of products producing reaching over $3.3 billion—including $1.4 billion in 

crops and $1.8 billion in livestock and poultry. 1 If you talk to experts in this area, 

like Ross Racine and Zach Ducheneaux at the Intertribal Agriculture Council, you 

will know that the data is undercounted by half, as is also acknowledged by NASS 

itself. What the data also reveals is that Indian Country operations are twice the 

size of non-Native operations but with half the income and involvement in federal 

farm security programs. 

These numbers tell us that with the proper focus that whole arena of food and 

agriculture could be a huge economic driver for Tribes, the entirety of Indian Country, and the rural communities in which their communities are found. It could equal 

the revenue generated by gaming at some point and provide opportunities for Tribes 

that will never benefit from gaming because of their location and isolation. Further, 

if properly calibrated and approached with a practical plan with realistic deadlines 

and unique approaches, it is possible to lower the number of people who participate 

in federal food assistance programs as they would be feeding themselves and food 

secure and self-sufficient, through jobs in communities that are land-based, resource 

rich, and meeting opportunities in a food sector that is hungry for connecting with 

the producers of their food. The whole world is feeling disconnected from their farmers and their food. Indian Country, as much any one, has a unique role to tell stories around the food it produces and has produced for millennia and has a unique 

ability to help feed people in our communities as well as around the world. 

There are a number of opportunities in the Farm Bill and at USDA where programs or authorities can be strengthened or expanded to support Native farmers 

and ranchers. A full list can be found in the Regaining Our Future: An Assessment 

of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill report, 

a report drafted with the support of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 

and in partnership with the Intertribal Agriculture Council, National Congress of 

American Indians, and the Intertribal Timber Council. That report is attached to 

my testimony along with one-page summaries of the opportunities discussed within 

the report. 

I would like to focus my testimony on several key provisions and themes which 

could have the greatest impact to support and grow agriculture and agribusiness in 

Indian Country if implemented in the 2018 Farm Bill reauthorization. 

Treatment as a State for Tribal Governments and Recognition of Tribal Departments of Agriculture 

One of the largest steps that can be taken in the 2018 Farm Bill is for Congress 

to permanently recognize the role Tribal governments and Tribal Departments of 

Agriculture have in furthering agriculture on par with State governments and State 

Departments of Agriculture. Tribal Departments charged with administration of agriculture and food systems must have the authority to interface with all agencies 

within USDA and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA and with other 

offices of the federal government. This would include full treatment as a state for 

Tribal governments thus recognizing their Tribal laws, authority, and jurisdiction. 

The simple act of including ‘‘Tribal governments’’ in the existing intergovernmental approaches through which many of the USDA programs are delivered will 

not only create parity and acknowledge Tribal government’s sovereignty and importance, but will work to help expand the reach of programs, create jobs, and build 

more food businesses in Indian Country. Many Tribes are taking steps to create 

‘‘Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture’’ within their tribal governments. 

These departmental offices at the Tribal level must be incorporated into the existing 

intergovernmental relationships honored for decades by USDA. Most USDA proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
16 

grams have not begun to be seriously utilized by Tribes because, for the most part, 

we are invisible in those relevant Farm Bill sections authorizing the programs. But 

we need to and can act now to change that. Tribal governments are in the process 

of adopting complete food and agriculture laws and regulations, just as their state 

and local counterparts have adopted. As an agriculture lawyer, I can share with the 

committee that this is an important step which must be taken as agriculture and 

food (and health law for that matter) hinges on state and local regulatory interface. 

If those pieces are missing at the Tribal government level, then things are disjointed 

and confusing, not just for Tribal communities but for those residing close by or 

those with whom Tribal governments already interact for purposes of buying food, 

engaging in joint agriculture enterprises, or planning for food safety, animal health, 

plant health, and related functions of government. 

Treatment as a State and supporting Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture 

are important ways to place ourselves squarely in an intergovernmental position 

vis- . . . -vis the USDA. It is equally important as these steps realize the existing 

trust and treaty obligations, which are still relevant today, and which are necessary 

to stabilize Tribal communities and accelerate the ability of Tribes to meet their economic, food, infrastructure, and health needs. We need to cut out the inefficiencies, 

but not the trust and treaty relationship. 

Tribal Government Management of All Nutrition and Food Assistance 

Programs 

Simply put, Tribal governments need to directly manage all federal nutrition and 

food assistance programs, especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Tribal governments know where the hungry people are in their communities, they know the resources they have to feed those people, they know the 

venues to feed people in, and they know their challenges of their disabled, elders, 

and single parents. Tribes know whether they have grocery stores, convenience 

stores, or any food retail outlets. Tribes also know who needs food in emergencies 

and disasters, both within their own Tribal communities and the broader rural communities as well. 

Tribal citizens have high usage rates of all federal feeding and nutrition programs. In some rural and remote reservation communities, 25 percent of all community citizens are taking part in the feeding programs, and in other communities 

those numbers can climb as high as 60 to 80 percent. These participation rates remain high because of the relative unemployment rates of individuals in the communities that are directly caused by the lack of meaningful employment opportunities, 

poor transportation options to not only jobs but to food sources or food retail, the 

age and population characteristics of the individuals in the communities, and the 

prevalence of chronic health problems, among other issues. Because the rate of obesity, diabetes, chronic heart diseases, cancer, and rated health problems is so high 

in so many communities in Indian Country, participation rates in the feeding programs when coupled with the prevalence of persistent poverty create a fragile system of food security and food access across Indian Country. Yet, most of these feeding program participants live on the lands that could feed them yet those lands are 

used to grow foods that must either be made into some other food item or are destined for far away markets. Calibrating this equation to address food security while 

not ignoring the market is critical; it can’t be done overnight but it can be done in 

much more efficient and effective ways that ensure people can feed themselves and 

also engage in a meaningful career. 

A consistent, comprehensive, and Tribal government-led approach that is tailored 

to the needs of Indian Country is paramount. Linking or ‘‘coupling’’ the feeding programs to the food production 4 that occurs on Tribal lands will do two things simultaneously. First, it will ensure that over time (conceivably less than two decades) 

the use of feeding programs in Indian Country will precipitously decline and in 

some regions, could disappear altogether. Second, it will ensure that food produced 

on Indian lands are focused on three simultaneous goals: (1) retaining enough food 

products that Tribal citizens will be fed by food produced locally or regionally; (2) 

ensuring that fresher foods are available to Tribal citizens needing access to feeding 

programs; and (3) ensuring the stabilization of food businesses because the foods are 

being used to feed people who lack food access and, at the same time, offering a 

consistent, albeit federal, market and anchor contract that gives food producers the 

economic stability to confidently access additional markets off tribal lands. 

However, key and vexing issues remain that are critical to the future of the feeding programs and how those programs are delivered to or serve Indian Country citizens and these must be addressed in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

In a report authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, USDA reviewed the feasibility of 

Tribal administration of federal food assistance programs. Nearly all Tribes particiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
17 

pating and more than 90 percent of all respondents expressed interest in administering federal nutrition assistance programs as an expression of sovereignty and 

to provide direct service to Tribal citizens in need of assistance. These respondents 

felt the ability to provide flexibility in the management of nutritional quality of the 

food provided and culturally appropriate programming and service delivery were 

also critical. 

While there are many additional infrastructure needs identified to achieve these 

interrelated goals, the report states that USDA, and its Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), does not have the requisite ‘‘638- like authority’’ that explicitly provides Congressional support for executing contracts between federal agencies and Tribes to coordinate the management of specific federal programs. This can be achieved by introducing legislative language modeled after the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93–638, as amended, or by providing treatment as a state for Tribes to manage these programs within the context of the Farm 

Bill. 

Further, we must continue the model of Tribal consultation that has existed since 

2014 between the FNS at USDA and Tribal elected officials regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Our team has assisted this consultation work since its inception. What we have found, in what has been the only 

standing consultation activity between USDA and elected Tribal leadership, is that 

we can work together to address many of the systemic issues with these programs. 

This working consultation group has systematically tackled many long-standing 

problems in the FDPIR program. We have seen that such successes are also possible 

for every single title and agency within USDA structure. Let’s get people in the 

room talking to each other about how to make these programs better, because there 

are opportunities all across the titles of the Farm Bill and all across USDA agencies 

to do so and those opportunities have not been systematically pursued except in isolated ways. We know the importance of consultation because we have seen it. It has 

solved longstanding problems in the FDPIR but also shown USDA the power of actually getting Tribal governments in the room to problem-solve in a deeper and 

more meaningful way. 

However, Tribal governments must directly manage all the nutrition and feeding 

programs, because they are best able to ensure that food security needs in their reservation, rural, and very remote communities are met and they are more capable 

of directly linking agribusiness food production to the long-term vision of getting 

people off feeding program participation and into the local job market, which in 

many multitude of locations around Indian Country can and should have as its centerpiece a strong and viable agribusiness approach. For Tribal governments, you 

have to marry the food security needs of the people with food job opportunities at 

the Tribal level so that you can better calibrate food security and economic diversification in Indian Country. 

Improve Credit Access in Indian Country and Support Authority for Farm 

Service Agency and the Farm Credit System 

Due to the capital-intense nature of farming and ranching and agribusiness in 

general, the many titles have long been important parts of the Farm Bill: credit, 

commodity, conservation, crop insurance. Farming, ranching, and agribusiness are 

high-risk enterprises. Good times for agriculture can very quickly be followed by bad 

times. Agribusiness activities are linked to production systems that are risky and 

which have unique regulatory requirements and challenges. Having access to a lending entity willing to understand these financial realities is critical. During turbulent 

times, Indian Country is always hit as hard or harder than most other areas of the 

country because of the remote and isolated nature of our farms, ranches, and agribusinesses and the reality that in most reservation communities a ‘‘credit desert’’ 

exists alongside food deserts. 

First, our important partners in lending in rural areas, like those in the Farm 

Credit System (FCS), must have no questions concerning their authority to lend to 

Indian Country agribusinesses and Tribal governments. Making sure that Tribal 

governments, tribal producers, and groups of producers, who often organize their 

business engagement in ways not required of non-Tribal entities and governments 

(because of unique issues associated with federal Indian law) are clearing entities 

to borrow under FCS laws and regulations is important. Due to the nature of landholding and land ownership in Indian Country, which is a matter controlled by federal law, some clarification of this requirement is in order to help provide certainty 

for the FCS in lending in Indian Country. 

Additionally, the improvements the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made in the 

extension of credit to farmers and ranchers in Indian Country in the post-Keepseagle 

era must continue, but separate programs that allow for unique training and techVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
18 

nical assistance concerning financial issues and loan servicing for tribal producers 

must be included in future Farm Bills. Access to credit through FSA and Rural Development must not be hampered by outdated program rules that do not match our 

credit needs. Further, we must make sure that the program officers at RD and FSA 

have deep awareness of the way in which Tribal governments, Tribal agribusinesses, and Tribal producers do business, and ensure they are not constrained 

by an additional regulatory burden, and are not shut out of lending opportunities 

available to all other types of producers. 

Many smaller producers who are not yet ready for FSA or FCS lending relationships utilize the services of smaller retail banking entities at the local level, community development financial institutions (or CDFIs), credit unions, or other means of 

acquiring needed capital. Native CDFIs must be included in all FSA and Rural Development lending authorities in order to leverage access to credit for Indian Country producers and Tribal governments. Ensuring that Native-owned banks can easily interface with FSA, RD, and FCS lending institutions on agribusiness and agriculture infrastructure business opportunities is also important. 

Improving Interdepartmental Coordination with USDA and the 

Department of the Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs 

In this Farm Bill and through the work of this Committee, we must improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of how Tribal governments and Tribal producers are 

served by improving the coordination between USDA and the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs/Office of the Special Trustee or its successors. This 

will ensure that meaningful assistance is provided by those who have deep familiarity with Tribal governments, Tribal law, Native communities, and the challenges 

unique to us. We cannot expect people who have no knowledge of agriculture to 

manage agriculture; we also cannot expect people who have no knowledge of Indian 

law to manage Tribal programs. Everyone at both Departments need to forge new 

interdepartmental relationships and rely on each other to serve Tribal governments, 

Tribal communities, and individuals in better ways. 

This can be achieved by authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior 

to develop a technical committee made up of Tribal government representatives 

from each of the BIA regions to formulate a set of initiatives and programs that can 

be carried out under existing laws as well as a set of programs that may be needed 

under future conservation program authorities to improve the conditions of Tribal 

lands and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the United States. Other topic 

areas could be included. This needs to be a working committee, not a committee that 

comes together to meet for an hour every quarter and say they did something. When 

I was at USDA we had an informal gathering of individuals who were senior enough 

to identify needed improvements and execute on those identified needs. Our work 

led to a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill that did away with duplicate appraisals— 

something that had been in existence for far too long that was more time-consuming 

and more expensive for Tribal producers than anyone else in the U.S. But that ‘‘fix’’ 

is just one of many. 

Establishing this type of committee will be able to work through the many systemic issues that have faced Native farmers and ranchers, such as issues with appraisals and mortgage documentation and approvals, conservation plans and easements, coordination of Agriculture Resources Management Plans under the American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act of 1993 with NRCS, U.S. Forest 

Service, or other agencies’ plans for access to conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and many others. 

Ensure the Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Farm Bill Titles 

Support Indian Country and Native Producers 

The Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Titles of the Farm Bill all 

work together to provide not only farm security for producers, they also support the 

health of our lands that will continue to provide food for the world and our communities. The programs in these titles must be improved to take into consideration the 

unique jurisdictional and agribusiness/product needs of Tribal governments and 

Tribal producers. 

First and foremost, many Tribal governments and Tribal farming, ranching, and 

food businesses are already engaged in producing covered commodity crops of wheat, 

corn, soybeans, and are deeply engaged in livestock operations impacted by the 

Commodity Title. We must ensure equitable access to these programs for Tribal producers, including making sure that federal or Tribally chartered corporations, especially those created under Tribal law or Section 17/Section 3, are acknowledged as 

eligible for Title I disaster assistance programs. Further, the definition of ‘‘livestock’’ 

must be amended to include commonly raised livestock like ‘‘reindeer,’’ ‘‘caribou,’’ 

19 

‘‘elk,’’ ‘‘horses,’’ or other animals raised or harvested in Tribal communities. All of 

these animals must be recognized as livestock and eligible for full protection and 

program participation Department-wide. Additionally, due to the lack of fair and 

reasonable access to credit, and redlining by lenders, Native producers do not have 

the ability to use their land as collateral to secure financing. 

Since the Conservation Title programs are often the gateway to participate in 

other USDA programs, it is vital that Tribal governments and producers are provided with parity through all of the program authorities and funding. All sections 

of the Conservation Title must recognize that Tribal governments, Tribal producers, 

and Tribal entities or organizations created for conservation and natural resource 

protection purposes have full access to every program. Wherever there is a reference 

to ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producer, the terms ‘‘tribal’’ should be 

inserted into that section to ensure that any inadvertent failure to list Tribal governments, Tribal producers, or Tribal organizations does not preclude them from 

participating or relegate them to a lesser importance or priority within the relevant 

section. This also includes making sure any reference to ‘‘state law’’ in the Conservation Title says ‘‘state law or tribal law’’ to acknowledge the conservation laws and 

codes our Tribal governments pass and enforce each day with regard to the lands 

over which they have jurisdiction. 

Crop insurance is an important tool of risk management and the products in place 

now must be examined to ensure they are suitable for Tribal food production systems. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) must conduct a study to ascertain the 

efficacy and applicability of the current crop insurance products as they relate to 

Indian Country agriculture production. If that study reveals that either the specific 

crop insurance products or the general guidance documents of RMA do not adequately consider unique tribal production issues, a separate administrative guidance 

or notice should be issued by RMA to solve these concerns, and unique crop insurance products and crop insurance administration systems should be pursued. Regardless, the goal should be to make sure that crop insurance products are utilized 

more fully in Indian Country and that there are no inadvertent barriers to such 

usage. USDA must engage Native-owned insurance companies and Native CDFIs 

and other entities to encourage the offering of crop insurance products in Indian 

Country. The current crop insurance research, product development, and policy 

sales areas are not developed for, and do not adequately reach, Tribal producers. 

That isn’t to say that Tribes don’t purchase and maintain crop insurance; they do. 

But improvements can be achieved. 

Apply the Substantially Underserved Trust Area designation to all Rural 

Development and USDA Funding Authorities 

The Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) designation authorized by the 

2008 Farm Bill helps USDA’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) offer low interest rates, 

waive non-duplication, matching, and credit support requirements; extend loan repayment terms; and provide the highest funding priority for SUTA projects. Currently, SUTA is only applied to a small segment of infrastructure programs, but 

more explicit instruction must be provided to allow the Secretary to exercise this 

discretion more broadly. 

This change will help ensure more equitable access to Rural Development (RD) 

programs and authorities in these substantially underserved areas, and can be used 

to provide much-needed support to Tribal citizens living in rural communities. The 

change would, among other things, allow the waiver of matching requirements for 

projects funded through RD, which can be a significant barrier to applicant participation in RD business and infrastructure projects where remoteness and related 

lack of tax base is a problem. In the determination of eligibility and repayment ability, local school district social demographics should be utilized instead of countywide data. A broader application of SUTA will recognize the unique and essential 

Tribal infrastructure needs and will help build rural America, as many tribal governments are the backbone of the rural infrastructure now and those trends appear 

to be unrelenting. 

Equal Access to Research, Education, and Extension Funding for Tribal 

Colleges and Universities and the Federally Recognized Tribes 

Extension Program 

All entities working within research, extension, and education in Indian Country, 

including Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) and the Federally Recognized 

Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) must have the same access to research, education, and extension funding as all other entities. Further, FRTEP must maintain 

its unique program authorities and be protected from over-subscription by those who 

have access to other program funding like the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant inVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
20 

stitutions and TCUs. FRTEP was created by Congress to address the needs of those 

Tribes not served by Tribal colleges. The extension funding for TCUs is very low 

and the FRTEP funding is very low. Entities serving Indian Country must be entitled to the same level of eligibility and access to NIFA funding as any other entity. 

Agriculture research, education, and extension programs are critical to our food, 

health, and selfsufficiency. According to the latest USDA Agriculture Census, there 

are only 2 million farmers or ranchers in the United States. Agriculture research 

is important because it monitors and explores old and new knowledge regarding 

plant and animal health, explores the impact of science to solve food problems, tackles societal issues related to health, and ensures our food supplies are sound and 

resilient. The reasons for the initial establishment of the land grant research institutions, the original extension services, and research stations are as relevant today 

as they were many decades ago. These resources are extremely critical to Indian 

Country. 

Accessing research, building our own research systems within Tribal Colleges and 

Universities, and supporting educational institutions and faculty within Tribal communities is essential to stabilizing agriculture production and communities. Focusing on the importance of traditional knowledge and exploring its use in modern communities is best done at Tribal-owned and managed institutions. Extending knowledge and research outcomes into communities and onto tribal farms, ranches and 

food businesses is critical to their growth and stabilization. 

Educating the next generation of producers, scientists, technical specialists, business managers, engineers, lawyers, and related professionals who advise and support the agriculture and food sectors is vital and making sure that Native youth aspire to those career paths is important to the survival of Tribal communities and 

to creating viable occupations that support food and agriculture sectors in Indian 

Country. We are in an intergenerational shift in agriculture, and Indian Country 

is no different. Our farmers are older and our young people are hungry for a meaningful career. They would prefer—the young people we see—they want to stay home 

on their land doing something they know and excel at, and have a decent rural 

economy within which they can be the next generation of leaders. 

We must address these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. FRTEP 

cannot be opened up in such a way that it becomes available to institutions with 

thirty thousand students and billion-dollar endowment funds. TCUs have a very 

paltry and totally inadequate formula fund for extension services, research. Even 

with low funding levels, TCUs do a lot incredibly well and need to be respected and 

looked at as equals, and fully eligible for all of the funding authorities within the 

Research Title of the Farm Bill and research programs at USDA. 

We need more research stations housed within Tribal governments in conjunction 

with TCUs. Why do we not already have that? The Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) just put 30 new weather stations on reservations, and that’s wonderful. What do we do with that? What’s the next step? What is on the horizon? 

What do we need to know to have full capacity and knowledge rolling out of those 

weather stations that will benefit all of American agriculture? 

Think about the depth of new knowledge we will have just by having those weather stations positioned in Indian Country, where they’ve never been before. NRCS, 

Farm Service Agency, and Risk Management Agency programs can be calibrated in 

a better way because better information will be available. The future of agribusiness 

depends on access to markets and information and technology. We need a deeper 

knowledge of the carrying capacity of the land, the sustainable use of the land, what 

the best time to actually access a market is, and what can we do to better utilize 

the water we have access to so we don’t waste a single drop. All of that is data driven and data dependent. TCUs have a huge role to play in that, but so do our FRTEP 

agents. They cannot continue to do it if they are cut off from the funding authorities 

that are available to everyone else. 

I have been at a large flagship land grant university, except when I was at USDA, 

since the early 1990’s. I have at my fingertips a breadth of knowledge and capacity 

that, if I was at a smaller institution, I may not have. But how do we actually make 

sure the relationships between larger and smaller institutions in the land grant system are equitable, balanced, and that people have full access to actual resources 

they need to make those great strides we will continue to need. 

We need data. A farmer has better productivity if they have good records and data 

access. Back in the day you could ask a farmer or rancher anything but all that 

data was carried around in their head. Now, we can use mobile technology in new 

ways with a new generation of farmers and ranchers, but we must make sure Tribes 

have access to that technology as well. E-connectivity and rural broadband is incredibly important for all rural America and for Tribes—that was among the first recommendations made to support prosperity for all rural America by the USDA InterVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
21 

agency Task Force of Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. Their report to the President, which was released last week, noted that econnectivity is ‘‘a tool that enables 

increased productivity for farms, factories, forests, mining, and small businesses.’’ 

TCUs and FRTEP agents must be a part of the technological revolution in farming 

and ranching and agribusiness growth and be afforded access to improved research, 

education, extension funding. 

Interdepartmental Coordination to Support Tribal Trade 

A special interdepartmental coordination group should be seated to include USDA, 

Department of Commerce, Department of State, and other applicable agencies to ensure that tribal food production is made a part of the U.S. trade missions and efforts 

to promote US agricultural trade. The responsibility for coordination must extend 

beyond USDA Foreign Agriculture Service and other USDA programs to other applicable departments and agencies of the federal government such as BIA and Commerce so that Tribal businesses have access to promotion programs and support 

that will improve their visibility and viability in foreign markets. To that end, IAC’s 

continuation in the important MAP trade program must be supported and required. 

They have over 15 years of experience in providing greater market access and export readiness training to tribal businesses and that must continue. 

Parity in Forestry Service Programs and Authorities 

Many American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes have long-standing and deeply 

spiritual relationships with the forests within which they lived for centuries. Their 

deep engagement with forests of North America was fundamentally changed upon 

European contact when the relationships they had with the land, including forests, 

was severed. The U.S. Forest Service now maintains National Forests that coexist 

within and among the boundaries of current and historic Tribal homelands. Since 

many Tribes either live within the jurisdiction of federal agencies with forest responsibilities or have trust and treaty rights resources located on federal forest 

lands, the intensely specific and expertise-dependent issues around forests require 

a specialized eye towards policy change. 

The 2018 Farm Bill must extend the Good Neighbor Authority to include Tribal 

governments, just as it does to State government as well as to specifically include 

Tribes in the title of the State and Private Forestry Program as well as its authorities. Partnering together, in a cooperative manner, to manage the nation’s forests 

and Tribal forests alongside other governments (state and local) and private landowners is critical if we are to help our forestlands recover from wildfire and become 

healthier. This recognition and parity will also ensure that tribal agribusiness interests reliant on those forest resources can continue to grow to address the unique 

problems in Native communities that no other group of people can, while promoting 

jobs in the forestry sector for Native youth. 

Additional Efforts 

The growth of agribusiness in Indian Country and the further support of tribal 

farmers and ranchers also requires simple changes to current approaches. For instance, in the implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA), 

Native training and technical assistance must embody a unique approach to training growers and food businesses due to the unique jurisdictional and enforcement 

issues that abound in Indian Country. Tribal departments of agriculture are missing 

altogether in the funding being provided to state departments of agriculture; yet 

state and local authorities have no jurisdiction on Tribal lands. This should be addressed by including Tribal departments of agriculture as eligible for FSMA funding. All producers need continued support for understanding these new requirements but the current system of providing assistance and training is not calibrated 

to meet these needs. The simple change of ensuring Tribal governments can have 

access to the existing funding resources can address these looming issues. 

Conclusion 

I would like to again thank the Committee for holding this important hearing on 

ways to continue to grow agriculture and agribusiness in Indian Country and inviting me to share my experience working with Tribal governments and Tribal food 

producers and the federal government. For too long, our voice in the Farm Bill debate has been limited to a few incredible individuals and organizations who have 

carried the water for the past several decades. The next Farm Bill will be among 

the most important in my lifetime, not only for Indian Country’s future but for addressing the needs of the agriculture and food sector, which is changing, and the 

needs of rural communities around the country. Tribal governments must be seen 

as equal governmental partners and additional improvements must be made to ensure access to USDA programs and funding authorities. 

22 

By adjusting, developing and improving the Farm Bill’s programs, we can build 

upon the already great work happening in Tribal communities surrounding food and 

agriculture. We can improve and expand our infrastructure. We can develop our 

Tribal food systems. We can provide the means for our agriculture businesses to 

thrive. We can continue to address and improve the health of our people. We can 

feed our communities in vibrant Native food systems with foods raised and grown 

by Tribal people. But equally important, the country can acknowledge the role 

Tribes have always played in our nation’s food security and we can now become better partners in food security, food production, and the agriculture sector. Improving 

the Farm Bill for Indian Country will help bolster the important work ahead. 

*The Appendix, Charts and Graphs and Regaining Our Future (An Assessment 

of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill) attached to this testimony have been retained in the Committee files.* 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Hipp. 

Mr. HASKIE. 

STATEMENT OF LIONEL HASKIE, OPERATIONS AND 

MAINTENANCE MANAGER, NAVAJO AGRICULTURAL 

PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 

Mr. HASKIE. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall 

and members of the Committee. 

My name is Lionel Haskie. I am a professional engineer and the 

Operations Maintenance Manager at the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, NAPI, an enterprise 100 percent owned by the Navajo Nation. 

NAPI farms approximately 75,000 acres of crops annually with 

the potential to develop an additional 35,000 acres. We employ between 200–500 people, depending on the season. More than 90 percent of our workforce is Navajo. We are the largest employer in the 

Navajo Nation. 

NAPI features state-of-the-art, precision agricultural equipment, 

producing an array of crops including alfalfa, corn, small grains, 

potatoes, beans, and even pumpkins which you can buy here in 

Washington. D.C. 

We are proud to be a leader in American agribusiness. We have 

the talent, vision and capacity to continue our growth in new and 

exciting opportunities domestically and internationally. 

I would like to highlight a few points from our written testimony. 

In 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87–483 to construct an 

110,630 acre, irrigated farm called the Navajo Indian Irrigation 

Project. Unfortunately, after 50 years, this project has not been 

completed. 

We would like Congress to appropriate the full amount to complete NIIP. We request the appropriations cap be lifted for the 

project and that adequate operations, maintenance and replacement funding is appropriated. 

Based on a 2012 economic study, NAPI has lost approximately $4 

billion in revenue due to delay in project completion. The revenue 

could have been used for business development and business expansion. However, waiting on the Federal Government has not 

stopped us from becoming an international agribusiness. NAPI participates in the USDA Agricultural Risk Coverage-County Program 

for corn and wheat. 

The program has benefitted corn and wheat production when 

commodity prices were below the county average and is vital to 

supporting employment stability. We would like to see the Price 

23 

Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage crop insurance programs reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

In 2017, NAPI ventured into new markets to help mitigate the 

commodity price volatility. Notably, we began to produce organic 

crops including organic corn, potatoes, winter squash, cantaloupe 

and melons. 

We plan to continue this build out with new organic vegetable 

crops planned for 2018 as the company gains experience in the expanding organic product industry. There is an inherent risk involved in organic production. The lack of registered organic controls 

can make combating weeds, pests and disease costly and unstable. 

Another challenge to beginning a new organic crop is the significant financial risk for the first three years. This risk would specifically occur for us because crop insurance uses three year averages 

from the region to establish crop coverage. 

Since we are the only entity of our kind in the region, we would 

have to establish our own averages. We would like to work with 

this Committee, the Agriculture Committee and the USDA to address this unique situation for development of new crops. 

Another barrier is the wait time for USDA product inspections 

required to obtain organic certification. NAPI would like to see increased funding for the New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

through the Organic Certification Program so that there is an increase in the number of accredited and certified agents in the office. 

We currently participate in several USDA conservation programs 

including EQUIP, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the 

WaterSmart Program. Each program is vital to NAPI and we fully 

support their reauthorization in the 2018 Farm Bill for producers 

on working agricultural land. 

We collaborate with the Navajo Nation farming communities as 

well by providing technical assistance and marketing our goods locally. In addition, we partner with local schools to promote careers 

in agriculture. We would like to see the USDA’s Farmers’ Market 

and Local Food Promotion Program, Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects reauthorized in the 2018 

Farm Bill. 

We are proud to serve our local, national and international customers with high quality products produced on the Navajo Nation. 

We are proud to be an employer of the Navajo Nation. We look forward to continued growth and developing new markets. 

Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to submit this 

statement for the record. I stand ready to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haskie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIONEL HASKIE, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

MANAGER, NAVAJO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and members of the Committee on Indian Affairs for inviting and giving me this opportunity to testify today 

regarding, ‘‘Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country.’’ My name is Lionel Haskie. I am the Operations and Maintenance Manager at 

the Navajo Agriculture Products Industry (NAPI), an enterprise 100 percent owned 

by the Navajo Nation. NAPI serves the Navajo people and our governance board 

members are directly accountable to our elected leaders and are nominated by the 

president of the Navajo Nation and are confirmed by the Resources and Development Committee of the Navajo Legislative Council. 

24 

NAPI has more than 72,000 acres fully developed and producing farm crops, with 

the potential to develop an additional 35,000 acres. We employ between 200 and 500 

individuals, depending upon the season—more than 90 percent of our workforce is 

Navajo. All of these employees are from the Four Corners Area, and NAPI purchases tens of millions of dollars in goods and services both locally and across the 

Nation. At NAPI, we stress the use of state-of-the-art technology and environmentally friendly practices. NAPI agribusiness features state-of-the-art farming 

equipment, including high-tech radio control, and a computerized center-pivot irrigation system that reduces operational costs and efficiently manages water resources. 

We produce an array of crops from alfalfa, corn, small grains, to potatoes, beans, 

and even pumpkins which you can buy here in the Washington DC-area. We are 

proud to be a leader in American agribusiness. 

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) 

In 1962, in the midst of post-war water projects that provided water to neighboring non-Navajo communities, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 87–483 to fulfill the stipulations of the United States—Navajo Nation Treaty of 1868. The law 

provided for the furnishing of water for arable lands in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. To meet the requirements of the law, Congress created the 

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) to support an irrigation system capable of 

delivering 508,000 acre-feet of water annually to support 110,630 acres of Navajo 

farmland. Unfortunately, while Congress passed this law in 1962 to benefit the Navajo people, it remains the only large federal water project from the post-war era that 

was authorized but has yet to be fully completed. 

NAPI was established to operate the NIIP and to manage an industrial agribusiness and has been in operation since April 15, 1970. The idea behind NAPI was 

not only to manage the NIIP but ultimately create economic opportunities for the 

Navajo people to build upon our heritage as leaders in American agriculture. 

NAPI Objectives 

The NAPI’s objectives, as identified in the council resolution, are: 

• To use the Navajo Nation’s agricultural and related resources for profitable 

commercial enterprises; 

• To provide jobs and training for the Navajo people including opportunities in 

management; and 

• To expand markets for the NAPI products within and outside the Navajo 

boundaries. 

Breaking New Ground in Organics 

Since our foundation, NAPI has become an international agribusiness that cultivates multiple crops in multiple markets. In 2017, the NAPI continued ventures 

in new markets, notably, we began to produce value-added organic crops including 

corn, table stock potatoes, winter squash, cantaloupe, and melons. We plan to continue this buildout with new organic vegetable crops planned for 2018 as the company gains experience in the expanding organic industry. 

Approximately three-quarters of NAPI’s overall acreage can be found in production in any given year, the remaining acreage is set aside as part of the NAPI’s commitment to sustainable farming practices. Based on improving agricultural prices, 

expected premiums from organic sales, and good management practices; NAPI’s 

management expects to see a significant improvement in net income in 2017 and 

2018, with a projected net farm income after payroll and expenses of nearly $3 million in 2017. 

NAPI has long-standing relationships with regional customers for a majority of 

our conventionally produced agricultural products. These customers include both 

end-users, such as livestock producers, non-profit organizations, and wholesalers, 

such as grain brokers. Through these relationships, NAPI has access to large and 

small livestock producers, multi-national feed companies, retail food chains, processors, food service companies, international & domestic aid programs, food wholesalers and restaurants. 

Importance of Employment Opportunities 

While the NAPI has enjoyed international success, we stay connected to the local 

community. The NAPI is located on the Navajo Nation located near Farmington, 

New Mexico. We are proud to serve our local community; however, given the lack 

of employment options in the Navajo Nation, some of our team members drive long 

distances for the opportunity to support their families. One NAPI employee starts 

his journey to NAPI every day at 2:00 a.m. to get to work at 7:00 a.m and then 

25 

does the same commute home in the evening. This is a testament to the importance 

of job security and employment for many of our Navajo people. 

Commodity Foods and Crop Insurance 

There are two crop insurance programs for which producers can enroll under covered commodities for the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). NAPI participates in the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Agricultural Risk Coverage-County (ARC–CO) program for the crops corn 

and wheat. The ARC-County provides a base of acres of covered commodities on a 

commodity-by-commodity basis when county crop revenue drops below 86 percent of 

the county benchmark revenue. The program has benefited the corn and wheat programs at NAPI when commodity prices were below the county average. 

In 2012, crop sales peaked in the U.S. due in part to a nationwide drought, and 

have decreased since then, primarily a result of declining commodity prices. These 

external price declines, characteristic of the competitive market for agricultural 

products, have impacted NAPI’s net farm income. Income has declined from a peak 

of more than $13 million in fiscal 2012 to a projected loss of $3 million in fiscal 2016 

primarily due to the unexpected failure of our water delivery system (siphon breach) 

and declining commodity prices. 

Fortunately for bad farming years such as 2016, NAPI purchases insurance for 

our bean, corn, wheat, and potato crop. These USDA programs have proved vital 

to supporting employment continuity over an otherwise volatile short time period. 

NAPI would like to see the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) crop insurance programs reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Barriers to Organics. To help mitigate the commodity price volatility, NAPI’s management is moving to diversify its crop mix by moving into the organic market, 

which has higher margins and growing demand. NAPI has a competitive advantage 

in this market due to its national resources. 

Currently, NAPI does not have a presence in the organic perishable fruit and vegetable market segments. However, NAPI would like to leverage relationships with 

experienced brokers and distributors to take advantage of their established brands 

to ‘‘co-brand’’. NAPI management plans to partner with brokers and distributors on 

a commission basis to market new NAPI organic products. Not only do we want to 

compete in the domestic organic market, but we plan to compete in the international 

market as well. NAPI will continue our growth in the organic market and we hope 

to find new partners for procurement of unprocessed fruits and vegetables. 

Crop Insurance for Organics. While the NAPI expands its organic crops, there is 

an inherent risk involved in organic production. The lack of registered organic controls can make combating weeds, pests, and disease not only costly but also volatile. 

If the producer is producing a product for the first time on the property, in most 

cases, the crop cannot be insured. In the rare event that the new crop can be insured, the coverage rate would be based on historical and not site-specific data. In 

NAPI’s region, that type of data is not available. In this case, values referred to as 

T Yields are used for computation, which are averages taken from other producers 

in the region for comparison and are often not favorable to our conditions. 

NAPI is in an isolated geographical area that is so unique that there are literally 

no other comparable farming operations for insurance companies to base forecasts 

upon. Unfortunately, as a result of standard crop insurance calculations, a new organic crop would be a significant financial risk for at least the first three years, 

after which NAPI would establish its own averages. NAPI would like to work with 

this Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the USDA regulators to address 

this unique situation for the development of new crops. Updating standards for organic crop insurance will assist NAPI in our work to take our organic products and 

business to the next level. 

Organic Certification Services. Another barrier is the extraordinary wait times for 

processing and inspections required for obtaining an organic certification. In one 

case, the process took so long that we had to sell the product as conventionally 

grown because we had not received our official organic certification in time. NAPI 

would like to see increased funding for the New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

through the Organic Certification Program so that there is an increased number of 

accredited certified agents in the office. There should never be any reason for NAPI 

to market our organically grown crops as conventionally grown—we support smartly 

applying funding alleviating the bottleneck at certain accrediting agencies. 

In order to be eligible for the USDA National Organic Certification Cost-Share 

Program, one must be a certified producer and handler and pay annual fees. Once 

certified, an organic producer and handler are eligible to receive reimbursement for 

up to 75 percent of certification costs each year, up to a maximum of $750 per certification scope. NAPI supports this program. 

26 

Barriers to Increased International Trade. The USDA has yet to utilize tribal 

farms for international trade. NAPI suggests that one way the USDA could do this 

is to include tribal representatives that are experts in agriculture on U.S. trade missions. Tribal representatives deserve a seat at this table to help grow our economies. 

NAPI requests the creation of a special tribal-federal-international group to ensure that tribal food production is included in discussions with international governments to further assist tribal food growth and production. 

Infrastructure and Rural Development 

One of the greatest challenges comes from our greatest blessing, the NIIP. The 

NIIP has yet to be completed since it was authorized by Congress and the President 

on June 3, 1962. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is responsible for construction. After construction, the BOR then transfers the project to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) for maintenance. We request the appropriations cap be lifted 

for construction costs and that appropriations construction be increased to finally 

complete the NIIP. NAPI would more successful if all 11 Blocks of the NIIP were 

completed. For example, recently completion of Stage 1 of Block 9 and has resulted 

in successfully growing, harvesting, and selling watermelons. An estimated 75,000 

acres have been developed acres out of the federal responsibility of 110,630 total 

acres. The completion of the NIIP would cost approximately $177,000,000. Based on 

a 2012 study by researchers at the University of Arizona and economists with Compass-Lexecon Consulting, NAPI has lost approximately $4 billion thanks to federal 

inability to complete construction. 

NAPI is being proactive in implementing precision agriculture technologies to help 

manage our water resources to raise yield, lower input costs. Precision agriculture 

technologies manage the underground water levels, which avoids the need to spend 

government funds on surface drainage projects. The scope of these projects takes 

years to implement due to the cost of the commodities such as small grains and 

corn. 

With the development of new ‘‘Row Crops’’ whether they be organic or conventionally grown, there are many steps involved in the production, harvest and packaging 

in preparation for ‘‘Value Added’’ Marketing which provides the best return. The 

NAPI would like to see the USDA Value- Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants and Rural Business Development Grants reauthorized in the 2018 

Farm Bill. 

NAPI will continue to invest in our internal infrastructure as well as facilities. 

NAPI has several value-added agricultural operations that complement our agricultural production. These operations include grain storage facilities, a flour mill, a cattle feedlot, and conventional processing plants for beans and potatoes. There are different facilities for organic products. In most cases, separate processing facilities 

must be used for organic products to eliminate the risk of contamination and comingling with the conventionally grown product. Organic processing facilities are very 

costly installations, but once implemented, can guarantee that the projects can be 

scaled up. 

Conservation 

The NAPI currently participates in several USDA Conservation Programs including Environmental Quality Incentive Programs (EQUIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the WaterSmart Program. The EQUIP provides financial 

assistance to install and maintain conservation practices. The CSP provides financial assistance for meeting stewardship requirements to adopt conservation practices, activities, and structures. The WaterSmart assists to preserve land for agricultural or environmental uses. The CSP, EQIP, and Water Smart grants provide financial and technical assistance based on acres enrolled in various conservation programs. Each one of these programs is vital to NAPI and we fully support their reauthorization. 

The NAPI operated no-burn on fields, improved the irrigation systems, improved 

the cover cropping, and improved the rangeland areas on the farm under its first 

CSP participation. The CSP continues to provide NAPI assistance in adopting conservation activities to protect and to improve water quality, soil health, wildlife 

habitat, and air quality. NAPI would like to see the EQUIP and the Conservation 

Stewardship Program reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill with increased funding for 

producers for conservation on working the agricultural land. NAPI participated in 

the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) but this program was since repealed. 

NAPI also markets goods directly to the local community. NAPI provides a roadside local stand of crops for consumers in the four corners area. NAPI would like 

to see the USDA’s Farmers’ Market and Local Food Promotion Program, Healthy 

27 

Food Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects reauthorized in the 2018 

Farm Bill. 

NAPI is proud to serve our customers, whether they are local, national and international with high-quality products produced on the Navajo Nation. We look forward to continued growth and partnership in 2018 and beyond. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit this statement for the record, and I stand ready 

to assist the Committee in any way I can. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Haskie. 

We will now have five minute rounds of questioning. I would like 

to begin with Ms. Cullo. 

In USDA, you have both the Council for Native American Farmers and the Office of Tribal Relations. How are you bringing forward recommendations to the Secretary to support and enhance agriculture on the reservation and tribally-owned farms? 

Do you have some ideas for the Farm Bill that would particularly 

benefit Native American-owned agriculture? 

Ms. CULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Council for Native American Farmers and Ranchers was extended by Secretary Vilsack even though it was originally supposed 

to expire last year with that extension going through this summer. 

We are actually looking at ways to continue the Council because 

we find it very valuable to be able to guide and work with our Office of Tribal Relations to be able to have these very important conversations. 

We are looking into it and as we continue that process, I would 

be more than happy to report back on the ability to continue the 

Council moving forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had that dialog with Secretary Perdue 

and where are you in the process? 

Ms. CULLO. We are looking at ways financially to make sure that 

as it is within the Office of Tribal Relations, with their limited resources, to be able to continue not only with teleconferences with 

those members but actually finance the ability to have regular inperson meetings so their recommendations can be responded to efficiently, effectively and transparently. There are over 30 right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you working to reduce the regulatory burden 

and help with streamlining that process on the reservation? 

Ms. CULLO. Most definitely. Right now, the USDA has found almost 150 unnecessary regulatory burdens. We are continuing that 

process to eliminate any hindrances Indian Country has to accessing USDA programs and services. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Berrey, one of the things I have introduced and hope to 

make a part of the Farm Bill is legislation we call Capital for 

Farmers and Ranchers. Basically, it takes the FSA guaranteed loan 

and direct loan and increases the limits on the direct loan from 

$300,000 to $600,000 and the guaranteed loan from $1.39 million 

to $2.5 million. 

What are your thoughts on that and whether that would be helpful in terms of Native Americans accessing capital for agriculture? 

Mr. BERREY. I think it would be helpful, sir, although I think 

what is needed in Indian Country is capacity. I mean that in terms 

of understanding the waiver of sovereign immunity to the limit of 

reliability. For tribes like mine that deal in the gaming industry, 

it becomes part of your everyday business activity. 

28 

I think for tribes looking for financing in the ag market, they 

need some capacity help so maybe giving more funding to the 

Intertribal Ag to help educate tribes in how they approach credit 

and the limited waiver of sovereign immunity would be a good step 

forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Hipp, what about trade? We are working on 

trade agreements obviously and finding ways to expand access to 

markets for our producers. What can the Federal Government do 

to help promote, for example, tribal agricultural products which I 

think have a cache and a niche globally. 

Ms. HIPP. They certainly do, Chairman. Thank you for that question. 

The Intertribal Ag Council has, I believe, an over 15-year relationship with the Foreign Ag Service through the MAP Program, 

the Market Access Program. There is entry into the international 

marketplace but to my knowledge, there has never been a tribal 

food business or a tribal agribusiness. 

Navajo may end up correcting me but to my knowledge, there 

has never been a tribal government leader or a tribal food business 

included on any trade mission. 

Attending the different food fairs and meetings around the globe, 

Intertribal Ag Council has folks on the road all the time that do 

that, but being included in the trade missions is really a different 

level of incorporation of tribes and their presence in the agribusiness industry. We would encourage that to take place as soon 

as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would seem like a natural, I would think, 

and reinforce not only marketing on behalf of Native Americans 

but just to strengthen the overall United States agricultural marketing effort. To me, that seems like something that would have 

real potential. 

Mr. Haskie, she referenced Navajo. Have you been involved in 

any of those trade arrangements or groups? Has anyone at Navajo 

been involved? 

Mr. HASKIE. Thank you, Chairman. 

No. That was one of the items that we listed in our testimony, 

to be included in these tribal food missions, to expand their reach 

in the international markets. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Cullo, it seems to me that would be a natural. Your thoughts? 

Ms. CULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually, the Secretary and Chairman Berrey, in their first meeting, discussed international opportunities for Indian Country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Vice Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, ensuring tribal sovereignty is a key aspect of what 

we do here in this Committee. That is something I take very seriously. 

With respect to agriculture, in the last Congress, I introduced, 

and intend to introduce again this session, legislation that would 

allow tribes and tribal organizations to administer their own nutrition programs. 

However, I understand that some folks in Indian Country are interested in an even broader approach to self government at USDA. 

29 

I am aware of the innovations that providing 638 authority for food 

programs can mean for access to healthier and more culturally appropriate food. 

I am interested in hearing more about the potential benefits of 

authorizing tribes to manage other USDA programs. Ms. Hipp, in 

your opinion, would providing tribes and tribal organizations 638 

authority help them combat food insecurity and improve public 

health across Indian Country? 

Ms. HIPP. Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman, it most definitely would. In 

fact, the Farm Bill before the last had a requirement that USDA 

do a study on the feasibility of having tribes administer all the 

feeding programs. 

The study was accomplished a couple of years ago and the findings were released. The findings were that it was entirely feasible. 

It is going to be a lift obviously to get the regulatory piece in place 

within the tribal governments themselves, but any tribe that does 

638 has already gone through that special process on any number 

of other programs. It is really not an issue. It is an issue of getting 

it started. 

However, as far as the impact on food security, if you could actually marry the food production that is happening in Indian Country 

on tribal lands across the Country and literally regionalize the food 

purchasing for those feeding programs, this would be new. It is not 

being done this way now and it is a fairly embedded process of national purchasing infrastructure. 

If you were to actually deconstruct that and regionalize it, then 

you could actually make the program more cost effective, but it 

would also be able to link the producers themselves with the tribes 

involved in food and create a stable market. 

Obviously, it would not be their highest price point market but 

it would be a stable market nonetheless that would further stimulate more food production. It would also allow those foods to arrive 

fresher and more palatable at their location and the homes of the 

people who actually need the foods. 

That sort of concept has been floating around for some time now. 

Our Initiative has actually done a preliminary study of the financial feasibility of that sort of approach. It is in a draft format and 

we are running our second phase of economic analysis. We are already seeing in our economic processes and studies that there 

would be a cost saving across the board every month. We believe 

this sort of new approach would really place tribal leadership in 

the centerpiece of this conversation and is ripe and ready to be 

launched. 

It has come up quite a bit in the regular tribal consultation 

meetings that the Food and Nutrition Service has been having with 

tribal leadership. Governor Mountain, who is in the room with us 

today, has been leading that process. 

I will tell you those tribal consultation meetings are unique within the department. They augment what the council does but they 

get down into the actual specifics of that particular agency within 

the department. You need that level of specificity. 

They have been able to uncover lots of efficiencies and lots of 

things that could be done better and need to be fixed and reach a 

partnership to fix them. 

30 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Welcome Governor Mountain. 

Briefly, Chairman Berrey, what things would you do differently 

at Quapaw if you were given 638 authority? 

Mr. BERREY. I think we would do more and more of what we are 

doing now, Mr. Vice Chairman, because we are at home; we understand our people. We understand the needs of the local community. 

We would just be able to get more efficiency from the money within 

the Department of Agriculture or get it spent more on the ground 

for the people who need it. We would continue to expand what we 

are doing. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven. 

It is very interesting to me because I am also going to be serving 

on the Agriculture Committee, so this conversation is very apt. 

I think agriculture in Indian Country has the potential to not 

only strengthen local economies but also build health care communities. I think this is exactly what you are talking about Ms. Hipp 

when you described how this might all work together. 

We have such a challenge with extreme poverty and also the loss 

of traditional food ways. I think this is a lot of what contributes 

to the huge health disparities that we often see. I am especially 

worried about diabetes but there are so many ways in which these 

health disparities manifest themselves. 

I am glad you mentioned the innovative work that the Shakopee 

Mdewakanton Sioux Community is doing with their Seeds of Native Health Strategy which I have had a chance to see up close. It 

is really, really great work. It is making real headway towards improving nutrition and supporting indigenous foods. I know we are 

going to be hearing more about this strategy tomorrow at the 

roundtable we are doing. 

I will direct this to you, Ms. Hipp, but anyone should feel free 

to chime in. What more do you think we can do to increase access 

to indigenous foods in Indian Country? From your perspective, how 

do you think this could contribute to healthier communities? 

Ms. HIPP. Thank you for the question. 

It is hard for me to restrain myself. I just don’t want to respond 

in a book. I will tell you that one of the other things the Seeds of 

Native Health effort has undertaken is the pulling together of 

western nutrition scientists and traditional food people within our 

communities and our traditional food scientists. 

Getting them talking together on the research issues and the 

intertwining of really following the betterment of health outcomes, 

they will tell you linking that to as much traditional food as you 

can really strengthens the whole nutrition education conversation 

and strengthens changing peoples’ food consumption habits because 

it brings it closer to home, as Chairman Berrey discussed. 

You actually see the preferences shift because it is a connection 

with culture, tradition and language, but it is also a connection 

with what is readily available. I think that cannot be ignored. 

The other thing I will share with you is that when you talk about 

these issues with regard to USDA and its powers and authorities, 

31 

historically the conversation tends to be isolated into a tiny, little 

piece of the puzzle. We have this amount of money for traditional 

foods and that is all we have. That is just not appropriate anymore. 

The availability of traditional and healthy foods in Indian Country is on the upswing. To relegate the conversation to a small funding stream or just one agency is really not appropriate. For instance, when you are purchasing foods for the feeding programs, 

you actually have to have the Ag Marketing Service, FSA, used to 

be, and FNS in the room. They all have to be there because they 

all play a part. 

Calibrating those interrelationships within the department itself 

to broaden the ability to bring those healthier foods into the plates 

of people is really, really important. Making sure that the interdepartmental problems we have between USDA and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs are fixed is really vital as well to really scale that 

up. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Does anyone else have a quick comment on that? 

Mr. HASKIE. Chairman Hoeven and Senator Smith, at the NAIP 

farm we do have a product line of Native American foods. We understand that there needs to be some upfront educational awareness of the benefits of these Native American foods across the Navajo Nation. 

Education on the benefits of these Native American foods, reintroduction of them into the diets, and identification of the pipeline will get them back into the communities. Currently, our Navajo Nation is a food desert. We have a lot of convenience stores. 

There are not many markets, so fresh foods are very rare. 

I think the conveyance system would have to target convenience 

stores, the schools and governments. If we grow it, we believe they 

will buy it given the fact of the benefits of the traditional foods. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I know my time is up. I just want to say that I am 

so struck by the great assets you are all talking about in Indian 

Country. It is inspiring to think about how we can bring those assets, whether it is around young farmers, diversification, or access 

to capital but how we can bring that thinking to the Farm Bill and 

enhance the thinking over there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Welcome. Thank you for this conversation today. It is so important. 

Today, the Center of Budget Policy and Priority has released a 

report adding to the growing evidence that says increased investment in SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 

can save money in other ways like lowering health care costs. The 

report actually examines research that found, on average, low income adults participating in SNAP have almost 25 percent less in 

medical costs annually than non-participants in the same income 

bracket. 

32 

I am curious. I will open it to all of you. I would like to start 

with Ms. Hipp. Can you talk about the positive economic and 

health correlation between Indian Country participation in food 

and nutrition programs and a healthy lifestyle? Have you seen 

that? 

Ms. HIPP. If you don’t mind, could I defer that to Chairman 

Berrey? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Absolutely. 

Ms. HIPP. Because he literally has on the ground impact. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Fantastic. Chairman Berrey, your 

thoughts on this, the healthy lifestyle and the fact that SNAP has 

actually helped lower health care costs. 

Mr. BERREY. I think it is very evident at Quapaw, ma’am, not 

only with the Quapaw Tribe but within the Quapaw greater community. 

I spoke earlier about our Title VI program. The tribe donates 

bison as the main protein for our Title VI program. We feed about 

600 people a day. About 70 percent of them are non-Indian and 

they receive great health benefits from just that. 

Also, if you look at our production and our processes, we are holistic. All of our surface water is managed so it goes through wetlands to clean it up at our processing facility. Whenever we work 

on recontouring and preparing land for agriculture, we take into 

account runoff and make sure the environment is healthy in the 

process of developing agriculture. 

If tribes and local communities focus on SNAP and other programs and give them a good healthy diet, it is obvious just looking 

at the people that they are healthier, they are feeling better and 

that the cost to the tribe of providing health care to our members 

is going down in terms of diabetic medication and other things of 

that sort. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Can Congress do a better job? What else can we do to facilitate 

not only quality diabetes treatment and intervention programs 

with access to quality health food to combat the growing rate of 

obesity and the rate of diabetes in Indian Country? What else 

should we be doing? 

I know we have discussed a number of things today. Is there 

anything else that we have left on the table? 

Mr. BERREY. I think we need to go back to treatment as a State 

for our tribes to be considered. If we are treated as a State like 

they do in environmental laws, we are treated as a State under the 

Clean Air Act, it gives us a better opportunity and a bigger voice 

to participate in what is happening with the local community 

where the dollars are spent. 

I think it is incumbent for the Department of Agriculture to have 

the opportunity to speak to tribes as Nations and to work together 

through MOUs to be able to provide a better quality food source 

for the local communities. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Ms. Hipp? 

Ms. HIPP. We speak to this in our Regaining our Future report. 

If you actually look at the nutrition education funding, the Food 

Distribution on Indian Reservations Program has less than $1 milVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
33 

lion a year to provide nutrition education funding to 276 tribes 

whose members utilize that program. That does not equal very 

much per person or per tribe to actually deliver that sort of nutrition education information. 

Tribes are not allowed to directly access the SNAP ed funds. If 

they receive them at all, they receive them through a State. To me, 

that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. SNAP ed is a large repository of education funding. 

The best thing that Navajo, as well as Quapaw and others, can 

tell you is that when you actually link the nutrition education conversation with actual foods produced by the tribe or tribes in the 

region, then you have a more powerful conversation with the folks 

who actually need to have their health outcomes turned around. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Sure. That makes sense. 

I notice my time is up. Thank you very much. I appreciate you 

all being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing and for the witnesses. 

I did not get to be here for the entire hearing but I have looked 

at many of your testimonies. I think Ms. Hipp may be the best person to answer this question which concerns the large amount of interest, at least for us in the northwest, in forest policies as related 

to things like good neighbor, which I think you mentioned in your 

testimony. 

I do think, Mr. Haskie, there is a lot of interest in what I would 

call branding of fish product and figuring out how to get it delivered cost effectively to consumers, very specific programs that allow 

tribes to brand their own caught product and figure out how to get 

it into the supply chain without various barriers that exist today. 

On the timber issue, cost relating to timber is something we are 

interested in, trying to figure out how to make sure the opportunities for new building materials are there. What do we need to do 

to better help with the timber side of management and coordination to get that kind of product produced from tribes around the 

Country? Ms. Hipp. 

Ms. HIPP. We continue to receive input from tribal leadership 

around the Country, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska, that good neighbor authority is terribly important. It is 

critical for tribes to be equal partners at the table in the management of forests. 

If you actually look at the U.S. Forest Service, there is a component called State and private forestlands. It is a big part of the 

agency itself but it does not say State, tribal and private forestland 

which really misses a huge piece of the puzzle, in my opinion. 

I grew up in two forests in southeastern Oklahoma. People assume that all of Oklahoma is flat but it is not. There were small 

lumber mills all over the place. People forget, I think, that forestry 

and forest products are forms of silviculture business-agribusiness. 

It is really as vital to rural communities as any other form of business or economic development. 

34 

Taking a close look at the U.S. Forest Service components of this 

conversation, I think, is very important to bringing tribal parity 

into that conversation, but also making sure that forest-related 

products industries and sustainable forest products are incorporated into the potential eligibilities in the other agencies and 

programs within the department is an important step as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. I think we already are taking steps in our 

State in the school construction program to build schools out of 

cross-laminated timber, so I think everyone thinks it is a win-win 

situation. You give mills the predictability to stay open because 

they are going to be producing product. 

We have this kind of new building which is beginning to take off 

even at the high-rise level. You are right, why can’t we look at our 

backlog in the school construction program, which seems to be this 

big dark hole as it relates to Indian Country, and get some clarity? 

I am sure people would be excited about a program that was 

marrying better timber policy and solving school construction 

issues, particularly with new product. 

Mr. Haskie, do you think Indian Country uses the MAP Program? I don’t think there is any prohibition on their using the 

MAP Program. That is our marketing access program to take U.S. 

products to help reach overseas markets. Do you know if that is 

used at all? 

Mr. HASKIE. I am not aware of NAPI utilizing the MAP Program. 

Senator CANTWELL. I know our seafood industry has used it a lot 

to help develop markets in Asia for our aquaculture products. It 

has been quite successful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I have one question I would put out there for all of you. As we 

write the Farm Bill, there are certain priorities that we are working on. There have been priorities in the past as well, things like 

crop insurance and making sure we have strong crop insurance as 

a risk management tool for our producers; a counter cyclical safety 

net working to strengthen ARC and PLC; ag research; strong funding for ag research; trade; marketing; things like following MAP 

which Senator Cantwell referred to; McGovern-Dole Food for Peace, 

those types of programs; reducing the regulatory burden which we 

talked about a bit here; and access to capital which I brought up. 

There are others. 

From your perspective, I want to ask what ideas do you have, in 

terms of things you think are important for the Farm Bill and that 

we are cognizant of, particularly as it relates to Native American 

agriculture, as we work on the Farm Bill and trying to pass as 

strong a Farm Bill as we can for all of agriculture? Ms. Cullo. 

Ms. CULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The conversations need to continue to take place. At no point 

during this process can we allow this to be a partisan issue. As the 

Secretary said, agriculture is not. Making sure we eliminate barriers to Indian Country accessing USDA programs and services is 

our objective. 

Let us continue to look at, identify and eliminate regulatory burdens. Previously, it was stated that in many cases tribes do have 

to apply for some programs through their States. Let us have that 

35 

conversation. Let us look at the tribal colleges and universities, our 

1994 program, look at truly educating the next generation of USDA 

employees, farmers, ranchers, producers and agribusiness owners. 

Let us make sure that in this Farm Bill, we are working toward 

giving the ability of those tribal colleges and other minority-serving 

institutions the tools, research abilities and capacity they need to 

be able to graduate and give opportunities to those students. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Berrey. 

Mr. BERREY. I would echo Ms. Cullo’s comments as well, Mr. 

Chairman. It is about education and capacity and actually, conversation. That goes back to my earlier statement about recognizing tribes as States. It is more about giving them the opportunity and access. 

When I grew up, we relied much on the extension services to the 

land grant colleges. That seems to be kind of fading away as well. 

We need to have people in the community, not only in the Native 

American space, but throughout the agriculture community who 

are dedicated to educating young people and giving them the capacity to go after the monetary support, the understanding, and the 

education. 

I think the tribes need to be a part of that conversation but we 

need to make sure the extension services upheld groups, like Intertribal Ag, to have the budget base to spread the word to Indian 

tribes about how to get more involved in credit and agriculture. I 

think it is capacity, education and conversation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Hipp. 

Ms. HIPP. I have a couple of items. Food deserts exist but credit 

deserts are equally as important or dramatic in Indian Country. 

Revisiting the credit components of USDA is really critical. 

There have been improvements over the years in how tribes access, individual farmers and ranchers, but also tribal governments 

and tribal businesses, credit programs at RD as well as FSA but 

we need to keep working at that. Those credit deserts have existed 

for a very long time and it is not going to be fixed overnight. 

The other thing I will share with you is I keep remembering how 

it was when I was at USDA. We solved so many problems by interdepartmental coordination and rolling up our sleeves and sitting 

down with the key people at BIA as well as all the various agencies 

of USDA. I do not think that is done near enough. 

A lot of these problems cannot be solved just by USDA talking 

to itself. They have to have the tribal leadership at the table as 

well as the Bureau itself. 

Finally, I will echo Chairman Berrey’s comments regarding education and extension. The formula funds need a little recalibration 

to make sure they are really reaching the tribal leadership and 

tribal communities that are, in many areas, the rural backbone of 

that community and region. 

Those are the three items I have not covered before in my testimony but would take this opportunity to share with you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where do most of Native American producers access capital, in your opinion? Where do they go for capital? 

Ms. HIPP. That is interesting. It depends on how much they 

need. If you are accessing capital for something the size of NAPI 

or the slaughter facility at Quapaw, it is a different conversation 

36 

than if you are an individual farmer looking to expand your operation. 

They go to FSA; for some issues, they go to RD; but they also 

go to Farm Credit. I hope I am not speaking out of turn from our 

Farm Credit friends who are here because they have been very 

supportive and kind of in the weeds with jobs around these issues. 

Making sure their authorities are clear with regard to their capacity to do more lending in Indian Country is also terribly important. 

Local banks can come into play as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haskie, your thoughts. 

Mr. HASKIE. We have different sources for capital funds and requests for funds. For the larger scale of capital funding, we rely on 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Irrigation. That is just the main high 

costing infrastructure repairs that have been deferred for many 

years. NAPI began reinvesting some of their profits to maintaining 

some of those deferred maintenance items even though it is not 

their responsibility. 

As far as the business of processing facilities, we typically finance those because they exceed the available grants in our State 

and area for any type of development. We financed our own flour 

mill and our own pellet mill. 

On the smaller grant funding, we have been able to utilize the 

WaterSmart Grant for which we have successfully been approved 

the last two years to rehabilitate some of our irrigation sprinkler 

systems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Vice Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. I will defer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman 

Udall, I appreciate it. 

In the great State of Montana, ag is our number one industry. 

In fact, it is the hard work of our farmers and ranchers that keeps 

the food on the table not only in Montana and the United States, 

but around the world as we depend heavily on exports. 

I also chair the Senate Western Caucus. I am working to ensure 

that we shape the Farm Bill in a way that it provides robust benefits to the western States, certainly including benefits to Indian 

tribes and Native American farmers and ranchers. 

I have heard from our Intertribal Ag Council based in Billings, 

Montana, regarding their priorities for the 2018 Farm Bill. In fact, 

one of their most pressing requests is to ensure there is parity between tribal, State and local ag producers in reauthorizing and 

changing existing programs, especially with respect to some of the 

important conservation programs. 

Ms. Hipp, I know you discussed this topic in your testimony. I 

know Vice Chairman Udall touched on a related question with respect to some of these important nutrition programs. 

From your perspective, could you share why empowering Indian 

tribes to have more direct input in the implementation and conservation practices on Indian lands is so important? 

37 

Ms. HIPP. There are so many examples I could give you. I am 

going to give you a microcosm approach. 

In some areas of Indian Country, the land base is so large that 

the failure of the Farm Bill’s conservation title to be written with 

those tribal lands in mind has exacerbated the inability for those 

conservation programs, that a lot of other farmers and land owners 

rely on, to actually press into tribal lands. 

NRCS and the conservation title programs are written from the 

standpoint of an individual fee private landowner standpoint. It 

has always been a torturous contortion, if you will, to actually effectively push those programs into Indian Country. 

There are success stories that are out there but it is just extremely difficult to get those programs properly calibrated so that 

the principles of conservation and the presence of those cost share 

programs can deeply be pushed into tribal lands which are in dire 

need of those conservation efforts. 

You don’t have to go very far across Indian Country to see conservation programs are much needed. Many, many tribes kind of 

take the bull by the horns and do it themselves but the reality is, 

those conservation title programs can be really pushed into tribal 

lands a lot better with a tight recalibration of how the actual language is written. It literally goes that deep into the weeds, if you 

will. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. That is something we will pay attention to as we move this Farm Bill through the Ag Committee 

which I serve on. 

Chairman Berrey, I have had the pleasure of meeting with Rose 

Bear Don’t Walk and Abaki Beck who hail from St. Ignatius and 

Missoula, Montana, respectively. Both serve on the National Indian 

Health Board’s Tribal Youth Health Advisory Board which passed 

a resolution encouraging policies that support incorporation of 

healthy and culturally appropriate food for Indian communities. I 

am glad my colleagues and our friends on the witness panel have 

discussed these goals today. 

Chairman Berrey, my staff member told me you like to fish 

around the Innes area. I grew up fishing around there myself, 

probably Madison, I would guess? 

Mr. BERREY. Yes, sir. 

Senator DAINES. And O’Dell Creek. We could probably talk about 

that for a long time. 

Mr. BERREY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Could you also share some details on the success the Quapaw Tribe has had incorporating Native foods in your 

community such as bison and any related health benefits you see? 

Mr. BERREY. I think there are tremendous health benefits. You 

might represent us because we are kind of a Country and western 

State, Oklahoma. 

Healthwise, our bison program worked very well with the Intertribal Bison Cooperative. We have access to a large quantity of 

bison. In that process, we donate the bison to the Title VI Program. 

We also donate it to the local public schools to help youth get a 

source of protein for their daily education. There are a lot of poor 

kids in our community so we give bison and donate it to our Title 

VI Program that feeds elderly and we get health benefits from that. 

38 

We give it to the local schools, the Quapaw and Cardin schools. 

We give it in the form of either beef steaks or ground burger to 

food to feed program at school. 

We see a lot of benefits. We see the health benefit of a better protein, less fat, and better amino acids. It manifests itself in lowering 

the diabetes problem and other health problems that come with 

poor nutrition. 

We also see a benefit to education. It helps young and hungry 

kids pay attention better in class. Whenever we are asked, we freely donate. We are always open to donating protein to any kind of 

school in our area to help young kids who do not have access to 

protein. 

It is not only a health initiative, it is an education initiative because it gives these young kids the ability to focus and not listen 

to their stomachs growling all day and not be able to focus on the 

basics of school. We send them home on the weekends also with 

bison steaks as well to help supplement their diet at home. It not 

only helps with the health of the people that consume it but it 

helps the kids that consume it in school. 

I also want to point out in all of our processes, we take into account our surface water management, to make sure we are not contributing to pollution of the local waterways. All of our surface 

water in all of our facilities goes through a wetland process to ensure the environment is in better shape as we produce these different agricultural products. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Vice Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier this Congress at a hearing on the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, we heard that food insecurity is a real problem 

across Indian Country. Food insecurity leads to many real health 

challenges for Native families and communities. 

Ms. Hipp’s testimony underscored that one way to tackle this 

issue of food deserts and food insecurity is to find ways to match 

up tribal agricultural potential with local market needs on reservations. This approach seems especially promising because it would 

let tribes increase access to traditional foods which are not just 

healthier but in many cases, carry important cultural significance. 

Chairman Berrey and Mr. Haskie, does NAPI or any of Quapaw’s 

agribusiness pursuits include production of traditional foods and if 

so, what percentage of your products would you say fall into that 

category? 

Mr. HASKIE. Vice Chairman Udall, NAPI grows sumac berries 

usually used for various uses within the cultural and also ceremonial uses. It comes in the form of either a pudding or a dried good 

or just the basic berries. The branches on that are also used for 

traditional and cultural purposes. 

The other traditional foods that we offer are based on the blue 

corn and white corn, the Native corns that we have. We intend to 

upgrade our processing facilities because we package these crops on 

our farm. As far as the ratio, it makes up about 3 percent of the 

entire farm. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

39 

Chairman BERREY. 

Mr. BERREY. Percentage-wise, Mr. Vice Chairman, I am not 100 

percent sure but I will tell you some of the things we produce that 

are culturally significant. 

We have a large honey bee operation. Honey is used quite a bit 

mixed with meat in our traditional diet. Like the Navajo, we 

produce a red corn product. We have a very extensive greenhouse 

system that grows heirloom products. They are historically of cultural importance to us and are important to others in our community. 

We grow a lot of heirloom tomatoes, peppers, all kinds of gourds 

and squashes that have been part of the Quapaw story as far back 

as we can remember. It is very much a part of what we do on a 

daily basis. 

I have spoken often about our bison program. We have the only 

USDA inspected bison cure facility in Indian Country. It is becoming unbelievable how many bison we are now processing not only 

for our tribe but other tribes to help them with promoting bison in 

their diets. 

Senator UDALL. Bison, as we all know, is a traditional food that 

is also very healthy, with very lean meat. 

Mr. BERREY. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Haskie, I know that access to healthy foods 

can be a challenge on the Navajo Reservation and that many families rely on Federal food programs. Is NAPI currently able to sell 

any of your traditional food crops to these programs? 

Mr. HASKIE. No, we do not. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Berrey and Mr. Haskie, what could 

the Federal Government be doing to support tribal efforts to grow 

traditional foods and expand local tribal food markets? 

Mr. BERREY. I think we have discussed it all today. It is access 

to capital and giving us better regulatory authority over what products we produce. We want a healthy product for the consumer 

whether they are Native or non-Native. We think we can do a better job because we are where the rubber meets the road. 

I think everything discussed here today by Janie, Ms. Cullo and 

also Mr. Haskie. Everything combined with education and conversation gets us further down the road to doing these things and 

letting tribes participate in doing good things and feeding people. 

That is really what it is all about, feeding people, not only Native 

people but our local community. We want to make sure that no one 

goes to bed at night in our community hungry. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you to the whole panel. This was excellent testimony. This is clearly an important topic with lots of potential for improvements in Federal policy. I really look forward to 

diving in a bit deeper tomorrow at the Committee’s roundtable. I 

really appreciate your testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working so hard on this and making this a real success. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I want to again thank all of our witnesses for being here today 

and for your testimony. 

40 

If there are no more questions for today, members may also submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing record 

will be open for two weeks. 

Again, thanks to all of our witnesses. We appreciate it so much. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAMILLE FERGUSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN

INDIAN ALASKA NATIVE TOURISM ASSOCIATION

Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee, I offer 

testimony on behalf of the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association 

(AIANTA) about breaking new ground in agritourism opportunities in Indian Country. Agritourism and cultural tourism are a vital part of rural development in the 

United States, including Indian Country. AIANTA is requesting that the economic 

strides being made in tribal tourism—and the needs and interests of a growing 

number of tribes and tribal entrepreneurs—be reflected in the next Farm Bill. 

AIANTA provides tribes and tribal members with training, technical assistance, 

educational resources, international and domestic marketing assistance and public 

land partnerships in a wide variety of cultural and agritourism development areas. 

Indian Country Tourism Growth 

Indian Country is a unique part of the national and international visitor experience in America and is a strong contributor to the U.S. travel/tourism industry. 

International tourism to tribal destinations and experiences is an especially vital 

and growing market. Since AIANTA began marketing tribal destinations internationally in 2007, overseas visitors to Indian Country have increased 180 percent. 

According to the Department of Commerce, overseas travelers to Indian Country 

stay on average 12 days longer in the U.S., visit more states and destinations, take 

more domestic flights and rent more cars. In short, they spend significantly more 

travel dollars in the U.S. than other visitors. 

Tribal interest and investment is rising in agritourism as well as cultural tourism 

in Indian Country and both are excellent opportunities for rural development and 

small-business and job creation. 

Agritourism Growth in the U.S. 

According to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center and U.S. Census data, 

from 2007–2012 the number of farms with agritourism products increased by 30 

percent and income from agritourism increased by a corresponding 23 percent during the same period. It is a popular and growing visitor activity domestically and 

internationally. 

We are also seeing opportunities emerging in farm rich communities throughout 

Indian Country. As of the 2012 census (new data anticipated with the upcoming 

census survey), there were 58,475 American Indian farm operators in the United 

States (2012 U.S. Census) with signs of growth: American Indian farmers, particularly those that are Principal Operators (37,851 in 2012), increased by 9 percent 

from the 2007 to 2012 Census reporting. 

Sustainable agricultural infrastructure development and expansion creates a localized source for food access for communities and expands the impact of agriculture 

as an economic engine. As Native farmers grow their farming operations, 

agritourism and culinary tourism supports economic development goals and, in 

many tribal communities, an opportunity to further food sovereignty initiatives and 

efforts. Tribal agritourism development offers unique visitor experiences while supporting culture and the greater economy. Examples include farmers markets with 

tribal artisans; packaged food products to sell in galleries and gift shops; farm to 

table and culinary tourism; native food menus; cooking demonstrations, classes and 

participatory cooking; bed and breakfasts; buffalo culture; fishing culture; native 

food gathering tours and more. 

Currently, there are efforts by individuals and tribes to promote and preserve the 

agricultural assets specific to their communities, but there has not been a collective 

effort to identify where these efforts are and to document the methods used to preserve cultural integrity through sustainable practices. Further, there is a significant 

lack of access to training opportunities specific to tribal communities developing, enhancing or expanding direct producer to consumer operations and products. Due to 

42 

lack of connectivity and resources, networking continues to be a challenge for tribes 

and native communities-especially for new and emerging ideas and approaches such 

as establishing and implementing best practices for tribal agritourism. 

There are few divisions of the Federal Government more capable of assisting 

tribes and tribal entrepreneurs in their tourism aspirations than Rural Development. Among Rural Development’s programs, of special importance to tribes developing tourism programs and infrastructure and tribal members creating tourism 

businesses are: the Rural Business Development Grant Program, Rural Community 

Development Initiative Grants, Rural Micro-Entrepreneur Assistance Program, Special Evaluative Assistance for Rural Communities and Households (SEARCH) and 

the Business and Industry Loan Guaranty Program. 

The Role of the NATIVE ACT of 2016 

Public Law 114–221 (NATIVE Act of 2016) directs federal agencies, including the 

Department of Agriculture, in Section 5 of the Act, to ‘‘(1) take actions that help 

empower Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations to 

showcase the heritage, foods, traditions, history, and continuing vitality of Native 

American communities; (2) support the efforts of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, 

and Native Hawaiian organizations—(A) to identify and enhance or maintain traditions and cultural features that are important to sustain the distinctiveness of the 

local Native American community; and (B) to provide visitor experiences that are 

authentic and respectful; (3) provide assistance to interpret the connections between 

the indigenous peoples of the United States and the national identity of the United 

States; (4) enhance efforts to promote understanding and respect for diverse cultures and subcultures in the United States and the relevance of those cultures to 

the national brand of the United States; and (5) enter into appropriate memoranda 

of understanding and establish public-private partnerships to ensure that arriving 

domestic travelers at airports and arriving international visitors at ports of entry 

are welcomed in a manner that both showcases and respects the diversity of Native 

American communities.’’ 

One of the key actions the Department of Agriculture can take to implement the 

NATIVE Act is reference its provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill. This will ensure that 

Rural Development programs are responsive to the most viable tribal tourism development efforts in the Nation. 

Examples of How the Farm Bill Can Support Rural Tourism 

The ways in which Rural Development can support the NATIVE Act and tribal 

tourism through the next Farm Bill are too numerous to mention. 

Research has shown there is significant demand for visitors to see and experience 

tribal cultures, landscapes, traditional agriculture and culinary experiences. As part 

of AIANTA’s work to expand tribal capacity to respond to the demand, in 2017 

AIANTA launched a tribal agritourism pilot program, which provided outreach and 

technical assistance and training to hundreds of tribal agribusinesses and tribal representatives. AIANTA intends to expand the impact of our work by providing technical assistance, resources and tools for rural tribes and tribal communities to develop tribal tourism and tribal agritourism products and programming. AIANTA is 

also working to market Indian Country tourism products domestically and internationally to continue to grow visitor demand. AIANTA’s business plan includes tailored training opportunities and plans for more on-the-ground local and regional efforts to bring tourism training and technical assistance directly to Indian Country. 

A regional co-location approach (a tourism expert sharing space with other rural 

development experts for deployment to rural areas) or a circuit rider approach (such 

as the one offered by Rural Development for assistance with waste management 

issues) could make tourism experts from the industry and academia available to 

work directly with tribes in early stages of tourism development and management. 

With FY18 NATIVE Act funding, tribal Destination Marketing Organizations 

(DMOs) can begin to be organized in up to 10 states. North Dakota is working on 

a tribal DMO and Tribes in Montana/Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, 

Minnesota, Alaska and others have expressed an interest in developing this multitribal development and marketing strategy. These tribes can carry out their product 

development and destination marketing with Rural Development programming to 

create demonstrable results in income and jobs in the next 4–5 years. 

Summary 

The 2018 Farm Bill can accelerate business and job creation through proven tourism development practices in Indian Country. AIANTA and its partners are doing 

this work and ready to assist the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Congressional Agriculture Committees and USDA Rural Development in devising language 

that includes best practices and programs in rural tourism. 

43 

Inclusion of rural tourism in the 2018 Farm Bill will ensure that tribal tourism, 

a burgeoning area of economic development, will continue to grow rapidly-to the 

benefit of rural, state and national economies. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH B. ANDERSON, VICE-CHAIRMAN, SHAKOPEE

MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY


117a1.eps
44 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSS RACINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERTRIBAL

AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

‘‘Agriculture is the tradition.’’—Ross Racine 

’’Again, we realize our future will come from the Indian uses of Indian resources. There has never been a society in the history of the world that has survived without the ability to feed itself. A return to our proud stature will come 

through the ability to sustain ourselves on what we have left of our homelands. 

The use of those lands must come as goals set by the individual reservations 

and be done in a manner prescribed by the respective residents.’’ 

The preceding is a quote from Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC) testimony to 

a Joint Hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs and Ag Committees in 1998. That is 

the last time a joint effort including the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has been 

undertaken to examine the needs of Indian Agriculture. In the spirit of that collaboration, our testimony will center around the opportunity that exists in the formation 

of farm policy through Farm Bill discussions, however it will also highlight several 


117a2.eps
45 

opportunities for improvement outside the parameters of the 2018 Farm Bill which 

are fully within the jurisdiction of this committee to address. 

Agriculture Is the Tradition—The Farm Bill 

The Intertribal Agriculture Council fully supports and endorses the efforts and 

priorities of the Native Farm Bill Coalition as laid out by Janie Hipp during her 

oral testimony given at the hearing. While the witnesses did a very good job of explaining the particulars of Agriculture in Indian Country from the perspective of 

Tribes and Tribal farming and ranching operations, we are offering our additional 

testimony, not only to buttress their oral testimony, but to provide insight on the 

the issues that are important to the over 70,000 individual Indian producers operating on 50,000,000 acres throughout Indian Country. 

Many of our initiatives address capacity building in Indian Country so our people 

are empowered to take care of their own needs. Credit Deserts exist in Indian Country, and improving access to fair and reasonable credit is imperative in order to improve profit margins, and will allow personal investment in further infrastructure 

to engage in value-added agriculture. Federal resources are needed to address the 

shortfalls in available capital and increasing flexibility in Rural Development programs can alleviate this. We will delve more deeply into each of these items in turn; 

but the need for additional capacity development must first be discussed. 

Unique Needs in Indian Country and The Quapaw Exception 

Chairman John Berrey does a tremendous job at Quapaw, and we are proud of 

the work they are doing. It is the essence of value-added Agriculture. The question 

that needs to be asked however is: ‘‘If your territory wasn’t right alongside an interstate highway with ‘10 million cars a year’ driving by; offering up the customer base 

for a ‘lucrative Resort and Casino’ that provides the capital that fuels your Agriculture operation; how far along would you be in your efforts to construct your state 

of the art $5 million processing plant, or in your efforts to provide free bison meat 

to people in your community?’’ 

Quapaw is a notable exception to the norm in Indian Country. 

More than half of the 567 Federally Recognized Tribes do not have a casino. 

Fewer still have casinos that do much more than struggle to stay in the black in 

unpopulated areas as a means to provide some employment to their members. While 

the visionary leadership at Quapaw should be lauded and held up as an example 

of what can be, when commitment, resources, and planning converge, the entire picture must be examined more closely. 

The willingness of the Quapaw Tribe to share not only their operational and conceptual plans freely with their fellow Tribes only gets part way to the solution. 

There exists a gaping chasm between Native American Agriculture and Native 

American Food that can only be bridged by accessible capital resources. 

Rural Development and SUTA Language 

The lack of available capital to develop resources pervades Indian Country and 

serves to stifle economic development, and is the very foundation upon which impoverished communities exist. The willful extraction of resources that forced a growing 

nation to acquire these lands in the name of progress continues to this day in our 

reservation food economies. 

In 2012, $3.4 Billion in gross sales were attributed to Indian Country Agriculture. 

This number is representative of the 14.3 percent of a dollar’s worth of food that 

actually constitutes the producer’s share according the Economic Research Service 

at USDA. The potential economic impact of changing Indian Agriculture from commodities to ready to eat food, The Food Opportunity Multiplier, can therefore be 

summed up by the following equation: 

100 percent (Total Food Dollar)/14.3 percent (Producer’s Share) = FOM (Food 

Opportunity Multiplier) 6.99 = FOM 

In all likelihood, 14.3 cents is probably an overstatement of the producer’s share 

in Indian Country, given the cost of capital and the distance from the infrastructure 

needed to create food; but we will use this number for effect. The FOM in this case 

is 6.99. A generous estimate of the percentage of Indian Agriculture that is already 

turned into food is 1 percent, but again for the sake of explanation we will use 10 

percent, leaving us with only $3,000,000,000 to apply the FOM to. Table 1. below 

provides some perspective. 

46 

Table 1. Food Opportunity Modifier Illustrated 

Raw Ag Products BIA Budget 2012 IHS Budget 2012 

Value $3,000,000,000 $2,531,000,000 $5,380,000,000 

FOM 6.99 

Retail Potential $20,970,000,000 IHS/BIA Combined $7,911,000,000 

The missing part of this equation is infrastructure to develop Agriculture products 

into food. Without access to casino revenues, most Tribal ag ventures must compete 

for meager capital resources balanced against the emergent needs of impoverished 

populations. Much of the other potential for enhancing this opportunity is within 

the USDA’s Rural Development programs. Prohibitive requirements for participation in Rural Development programs; serve to prevent value added agriculture in 

Indian Country. The solution however is clear, and has already demonstrated a 

modicum of success in one such program. Within the Rural Utilities Service, there 

exists a provision wherein the Secretary of Agriculture can waive cash matching requirements and offer other more favorable terms to facilitate and incentivize development. The Substantially Underserved Trust Areas provisions, if applied more 

broadly through the Farm Bill, where Tribal participation is contemplated; could 

help eliminate one barrier to improved production. 

Credit Deserts 

As stated earlier, it is a matter of fact that the access to credit taken for granted 

by much of American Agriculture is nonexistent in Indian Country. Our work over 

the past 30 years has helped to improve access to Farm Service Agency loans for 

many of our producers, however the policy of the FSA is to prepare producers for 

a credit environment that simply doesn’t exist in Indian Country. FSA policy however, has been promulgated with the notion that there is a norm of credit availability in rural America that can be equally and fairly accessed by all by developing 

their business through the FSA Loan Programs. Our standing recommendation that 

serves as the foundation for all of our policy requests within the Credit title is an 

examination of Credit Deserts in Indian Country. Our definition from one of our 

early reports of a Credit Desert is the ‘‘lack of presence and availability of credit 

at fair and reasonable terms.’’ 

Redlines in the Margins 

The impact of Credit Deserts are far reaching and much broader than first glance. 

For producers operating on a tight margin, oftentimes there is precious little difference between poor financing and no financing at all. The average Net Farm Cash 

Income across all sectors of agriculture for 2017 is projected to be 4 percent. Absent 

a study on this metric, specific to Indian Country, we must look to Ag Census numbers that indicate the average Annual Market Value of Products Sold is ′ of the All 

Farm Average (American Indians = $57,801; All Farms = $187,097). Not only are 

Indian producers faced with lower disposable income, they are also faced with interest rates that quickly consume any profit margin that may be realized in the best 

of years. The difference between and FSA Farm Operating Loan at 3 percent vs. 

a loan from a commercial lender at 7–13 percent can literally determine whether 

you stay in business or not. 

Now this isn’t to say that non-Indians don’t suffer a similar dilemma from time 

to time, but this is far more likely to be the norm in the Credit Deserts that are 

Indian Country. What makes Credit Desert environments even more devastating is 

the ever-pervasive myth that ‘‘you can’t mortgage trust land.’’ When non-Indian producers with real estate assets find themselves in economic distress due to market 

volatility or weather related disasters, they can always fall back on the ability to 

go to virtually any lender, pledge land as security, and receive an extended period 

of time to repay the debt; typically 20–40 years. The capital secured by the mortgage can be used for annual operating expenses to get to the next production cycle, 

acquisition of income enhancing chattel, and can be paid back on a schedule that 

allows positive cashflow. 

Clients of our Technical Assistance Network have been told, in no uncertain 

terms, by several banks in Indian Country that they ‘‘will not take trust land as 

collateral.’’ What they are in fact saying is this: Because of our lack of familiarity 

with Federal and Tribal laws and policies that you as and American Indian are subject to, we are choosing not to serve you as we would a non-Indian member of our 

lending community. What this lack of willingness to serve the community has created is an environment where confusion and misunderstanding dictate lending policy. Even Indian law experts have uttered the phrase ‘‘you can’t mortgage trust 

47 

land.’’ Congress has, in fact, legislated solutions to a problem that ceased to exist 

in when it first addressed the matter in 1956. The confusion that remains is because 

‘‘Indian land’’ or ‘‘trust land’’ is used generally to describe of various types of ownership without distinction. Tribal Land, held in common by the membership of the 

Tribe is subject to prohibitions on encumbrance of based on Tribal Constitutions and 

Tribal law; not as a matter of Federal policy. Individuals have had the authority 

(with approval of the Secretary of Interior) to secure financing with their trust land, 

through an actual mortgage since the 1950’s. The Department of Interior’s administration of this process contributes to the banks ability to hide behind the myth, and 

is further elaborated on below (see Legislating Process to Address Inconsistency ). 

For now, a further examination of the impact of the Credit Desert reality. 

In 7 years of operation throughout Indian Country (primarily in the Great Plains, 

Rocky Mountain, and Northwest Regions), only one client of hundreds the TA Network has worked with was able to secure financing from a commercial lender to acquire trust land. The bank in this case offered him the loan at 6 percent, with a 

repayment term of 6 years. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume it was 200 acres 

at a purchase price of $500 per acre. 

Table 2. Credit Desert Lending-Impact on Cash Flow 

Indian Country Loan Bank Mortgage or FSA 

Loan 

Amount $100,000 $100,000 

Term 6 years 30 years 

Interest Rate 6% 3% 

Annual Payment $20,336 $5,101 

To the largest of operations $14,885 in available cash flow can make a huge difference. To an Indian Producer operating on the redlined margin, it was the difference between being able to diversify and open a lumber company, and foreclosure 

over poorly structured debt. 

GAO Study on Agriculture Credit in Indian Country 

In order to improve the ability of Indian borrowers and Tribes to fit the lending 

environment, an analysis of the availability of credit for agriculture enterprises 

must be conducted. This analysis should be conducted through the lens of legislation 

such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Federal Home Loan Bank lending agreements, or other policies aimed at ensuring banks are serving their communities in return for access to affordable currency. The IAC would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the Committee and/or Senators in developing the parameters of such a study request based on our extensive experience assisting producers 

in this environment. Until this is done, the following constitute our requests for the 

Credit Title of the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Structuring Loans to Suit the Business 

Authorize several innovative loan structuring measures in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

For example, currently FSA will lend 100 percent the cost of bred livestock. It will 

then subordinate its lien position to a local commercial lender for annual production 

costs, increasing the amount of debt secured by the same amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If the first year of operating expenses could be included in the original loan, and amortized over the life of the secured asset, producers would end the year with cash in the bank, allowing producers to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input materials, replacement stock, or expansion opportunities. Such an approach would incentivize operating from available resources, 

instead of what could be borrowed on an annual basis. 

Example: Current Situation: Cow Loan; $200,000 @ 3 percent over 5 years = 

$43,000 Annual Debt Service ($37k P $6k I) Operating capital: $75,000 at 6– 

7 percent paid annually = $79,000 Annual Debt Service Total Debt Service of 

$120,000 in an average year will consume all production income. No opportunity 

to expand or mitigate market or other disasters. Security position of FSA: 2nd 

on $200,000 in assets1 

Under Proposed Solution: Cow and Operating Loan of $275,000 @ 3 percent 

over 7 year = $43,000 Annual Debt Service Total Debt Service of $43,000 ($35k 

P, $8k I) At least $75,000 in bank or retained assets for operating, expansion, 

or disaster. Security position of FSA; 1st on 200,000 in chattel. 

48 

Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices 

When commodity price cycles run contrary to the mandated FSA Planning Prices, 

despite a producer’s inclination to plan conservatively, producers are often faced 

with choice of accepting a plan based on those planning prices, shutting down their 

operation, or being forced into the hostile world of unfair commercial credit in Indian Country. In cases that FSA planning prices are 20 percent lower than the actual prices, a producer should be able to restructure their debt in a way that will 

not count towards lifetime limits on loan servicing. 

Example: Producer A will have 100 head of 500 lb. calves for sale. FSA planning 

price is 1.75 per pound. Repayment of FSA debts and operating capital are 

based on this price, and under current practices FSA will try to shorten the 

term of the loan. Actual price at sale time is $1.35. A shortfall of $20,000 results in a lack of capital to make all necessary obligations, placing the borrower 

at risk of default. 

Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rate 

Update the Socially Disadvantaged Rate (SDR) interest rate for FSA loans from 

a static number (currently 5 percent) to number indexed to the prevailing rate and 

set at 50 percent of the standard rate. The current rate was set years ago when 

the prevailing interest rate was in the double digits and should already have been 

revisited and revised. 

Example: 

Borrower A seeks FSA loan and is offered SDR of 5 percent results in a 2 percent 

HIGHER rate than non-Socially Disadvantaged producers. (3 percent as of January 

1, 2018) 

FSA Food Loan Authority 

Under current program guidelines, there is some latitude for producers whose production will take a period to fully ramp up. Initial payments can be made at an 18- 

month mark rather than within the first year. This same methodology should be 

employed for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next step in the 

value chain. 

Example: Borrower A would like to borrow $50,000 to start a custom beef business. Will not have first beef in the box until 18–20 months after loan closing. 

First payment is due one year from date of loan closing; binding Borrower A 

to the commodity market. 2016 Market price for live calves = $800/hd (500 lb. 

@ $1.60). 2017 Market price for beef $2,527 (675 lb. @ $3.60). $1,700 in gross 

profit leaves the local due to FSA inflexibility. It also eliminates the possibility 

for the original dollar to turn in the local economy by causing the animal to fed, 

processed, and marketed in other locations off-reservation. 

FSA Forgiveness for American Indians 

Under current FSA practices, many producers that have received a debt writedown, write-off or other forms debt servicing are barred from further participation 

in FSA loan programs; giving them literally nowhere to go for financing. Native 

American producers feel the impact of this disparately, because they live in Credit 

Deserts. Any producer with debt forgiveness prior to 2004 should be allowed participation in FSA loan programs without regard to previous circumstances. 

Example: For Borrower A, everything is in order, and the loan has a positive 

cash flow allowing him to improve his standard of living, and improve the local 

economy. He is denied because of loan servicing he had in the late 1980’s when 

active discrimination was taking place against Indian producers all across the 

country. He is unable to appeal, or have any other recourse. 

Remove the Graduation Requirement for FSA programs 

Due to the existence of Credit Deserts on and near Indian reservations, it is difficult to access viable credit rates for even experienced producers operating farms 

and ranches on trust lands. Removing the statutory requirement for Indian producers operating on or near Indian Reservations to graduate from FSA programs 

would allow agriculture operations to be more stable and assist other producers who 

farm and ranch in areas where credit access is tenuous at best. 

Example: Borrower A has an FSA Farm Operating loan and is in their 10th 

year of participation. FSA pushes producer towards graduation. As an example 

of the nature of commercial credit in Indian Country, one local hometown bank 

on the reservation offers a loan of 12.9 percent on a ranch vehicle to a known 

3rd generation customer. That customer seeks financing from a chain bank in 

49 

another state and receives an offer of less than 3 percent. That is the environment that FSA Graduation requirements force Indian producers into. 

Borrower B through thoughtful planning has the opportunity to use a Disaster 

Set-Aside to establish a working capital reserve to secure more land which will 

serve to further mitigate further disaster impacts. Borrow B is told by their 

loan officer that isn’t allowed, and that ‘‘we can’t make you look to good or I 

have to send you to a bank.’’ 

Remove the Requirement for Private Credit Denial 

Pending the outcome of the GAO Report, explicitly exempt tribal producers from 

the FSA requirement of obtaining denial letters from private credit sources in order 

to participate in an FSA loan program. The general lack of private lending available 

in Indian Country renders the requirement onerous and unduly burdensome. 

Example: Producer A, who meets the definition of a Beginning Farmer or 

Rancher, downloads and completes an FSA Farm Operating Loan Application. 

Upon submitting this complete application, containing everything the FSA 

might need to approve a loan, a letter is generated that tells the borrower he 

must complete the process of applying for a loan at a bank, and get denied, 

TWICE, before their application can be considered. As an example of the nature 

of commercial credit in Indian Country, one local hometown bank on the reservation offers a loan of 12.9 percent on a ranch vehicle to a known 3rd generation customer. That customer seeks financing from a chain bank in another 

state and receives an offer of less than 3 percent. 

Legislating Process to Address Inconsistency 

The Farm Bill notwithstanding, our service to Indian Country agriculture in the 

last 30 years has shed light on other instances where thoughtful action on behalf 

of Indian Country by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and subsequently 

Congress as a whole, and finally the Executive Branch, can have a meaningful, and 

nearly immediate impact on enhancing the economic opportunities afforded through 

Agriculture development. It is worth noting that each of these challenges is and has 

been surmountable under current law, but the breakdown in policy or willingness 

inhibits progress. The solution is best arrived at by legislating streamlined policies 

that aren’t subject to interpretation or burdensome process and policy. These policies will serve to eliminate duplicative and costly federal processes, in addition to 

clearing the way for commercial credit to participate on a more robust level in Indian Country. 

Streamlining the Mortgage Process 

As discussed earlier, the ability of an individual Indian or a group of individual 

Indians desirous of pledging their trust land as security for financing has been 

available since 1956. Confusion and unwillingness on the part of some lenders, compounded by a process that within the same region can take from 2 weeks to 2 years. 

As it is currently written there are no requirements for timely review built in to 

the regulations. BIA officials receive an application for mortgage from Farm Service 

Agency for example, to review for approval. Oftentimes, because of different delegations of authority, that review may include a review of the business plan by the 

local BIA credit officer, or even the BIA regional credit official. Bear in mind, the 

business plan has been prepared by an individual that has done the requisite research to convince a trained professional to allow for the use of taxpayer dollars to 

finance the project. 

An Appraisal is an Appraisal 

The unwillingness of one Department to accept the appraisal generated at the request of another Department can cause further untoward delays in economic development. The appraisal function of the Interior Department being relegated outside 

the line of authority of the local designee of the Secretary (Interior) and the funding 

limitations of the OST in carrying out those appraisals, can result in an individual 

with a valid appraisal, by a certified appraiser, and a willing lender, to put their 

plans on hold while they wait for the OST (BIA’s) appraisal to be funded and completed. Further lending to the the inefficiency, in many places, the same appraiser 

serves both Departments. An appraisal provided by a certified appraiser should suffice for either, or both Departments, regardless of requesting entity, or payment 

therefrom. 

BIA Guaranteed Lending 

Currently there is a 20 percent equity requirement for applicants for the 90 percent BIA Guaranteed Loan. This requirement, when taken in the context of Credit 

50 

Deserts and the lack of available capital resource and assets in Indian Country can 

serve to stymie progress as well. Simply aligning the two at 10 percent along with 

eliminating the aforementioned bureaucratic hurdles, could facilitate increased lender participation. 

CDFIs-Automatic Certification Upon Treasury Certification 

The unmet credit need in Indian Country (and elsewhere) has lent itself to the 

creation of a burgeoning market of non-typical lenders. Community Development Financial Institutions serve as the advance team, or special forces, if you will, in lending in Indian Country. A familiarity with local policy, custom, and risk, makes these 

entities often the best equipped to serve their community. Each of these lenders 

must pass through a rigorous process within the Department of Treasury in order 

to be Certified CDFIs. Upon reaching this milestone, they would then have to largely repeat the process to become a Guaranteed Lender in the BIA, FSA, HUD, or 

SBA programs. Treasury Certification as a CDFI should be the standard that provides automatic qualification for participation in any federal guarantee programs. 

Conclusion 

Since establishment at the recommendation of the then Senate Select Committee 

on Indian Affairs, the Intertribal Agriculture Council has sought to fulfill its overarching mission of improving the use of Indian resources by Indian people for the 

betterment of their communities. The IAC welcomes the opportunity to engage in 

further discussions with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and would like to 

thank Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman Udall, the members of the Committee, and 

the staff for their attention to what we feel is an inextricable piece of true sovereignty, self sufficiency, and self determination. 

51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VIRGIL SIOW, GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. AARON PAYMENT, CHAIRMAN, SAULT STE. MARIE

TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

My name is Aaron Payment. As a member and as the leader of the Sault Ste. 

Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, I am speaking on behalf of the Tribe. As always, 

my Tribe and I want to work in partnership with you. 


117a3.eps

Dem-OW=an.Hooveu=d Vk<2 Olal.:unan Udal].. 

Otl b~hl!If of &.e J?'ucl)!o of Lagw.-.a, !.J;gvna, New l\fu~ WI'! Wlile to SLibsr>Jt testimony fur !hi! 

lSliXl~d wglng ~Senate Co:mmittee on.b~dim AfMra{offl'!St->re that lncfuu'> COiln!xy W included 

inthcup::nm!ngJ.tan:n EillWtlh Con~J:Ol!:'llliitering \he Farm nlli this $!!~ott, werequll:!!l the Senalt\Ccmn'titt&<\!!1 Irul.lan 

Affuirnwcd: . .::~lywltl\ b Senate Agrio.Uturoe C¢.11\Mitt<!:iHI'l a<!dtnss ImThm A.grituitu~ Jn this 

iLl"potffint piece of legislation, 

As ~!Dr U&ll is av.~ef th-e Ptrebk> o.f l.fl;$.tmll; i;; bc::.f«l apprmdm!lb.lly e milils W\l'St cl . 

Alb~ne <md Intet:s\otll"l 10 tra~j; thE! Pucl.iln's la.-;cis, Ltl5JlM is un~ .Q.f ~ orlginall9 

Pueblos located i..'l. New ~0:0 and has a lot'!g tm!hltm of fanning :l!nd <\gri~:Uiture ~ time 

lcmremprial Md OUl' oiliure ls sta>.pf<d .In this ttadltion- We h~ t.'tdl'(l4 0!\ 01.1r produ,t;lan "Of 

"~~eg$hWs:mdfru..~ W(!h<IV>!Tili!ied sheey Md eatt);) 'nltWhl1i'lw=s!cir-t!d.om-p~re furmany 

~erotions. Om foods are a.~red v.-'ith aU upect:s Gf nm t=Ution;, rmd e>~lhu:e ;mrl pl'ly an 

"i!lltrmnely Important parti:::uu.~ &:!~lJI:lllal way .:-flUe. 

'The Pueblo-relies on progrMtos funded thtough !he U.S. Dep:utmeru:of Agrh!Ulttlu {USPA). Our 

C=tmily Hmlth>uld W~{CHWD) prog:;ams have bwJ>.abl,l M pr:wit:i!!"tradltfun<ilfut>.:S. 

grow healthicr and ao::essibk fresh tlx:>d ~USDA ptQU~ 'Whldl bewilitfue cwnmucity. 

Our F'ucblc.hM a. dlat.-eb15 tal:ll f>f 14% and growitlg~tb futli\11 am :ilelp to dlll:t-00$1! !!-.~:rate. 

Th.a. Pueblo':. CffWD ffualfu Education P:ogrmtt 'l<tOUlU like to l'l!~elve funding directly fl;rnn fue 

ennronmental Quality r~,n-s Program IJ'.QU') for ow: -cormmmity ~ attd hwp Mu.sa 

!:tltmtives fat our jro\l.th. Additionally, y,.-e; cu..>rol"llly llavepatt:wr,'!hlps ~md ccllat>nrative clfor!s 

J.~.ilh lim l'nsc."ttru!: of Jl..me~.crm L.'ldtm Att:s tmd ~'mv M.;xie<J St;nn lJ"nlvtn:Sty, entltlet l'.'hkh 

:mmive. fu.'ldi:ng fur ptogl".ams from L'SiJA Md (J{fe:< S<lniei!S to oommunlty p~ogr.ams l>Uch as 

ou:rs. The Puebla would like to see ou:r Pueblo Government funded directly for these programs 

rather than relying on other entities. 

The Pueblo's LiVI!stoc:k Association members rely upon USDA programs available to the 

ranching communities but must compere against other !O<:al rillldmrs illld sometimes compete 

against neighboring Pueblos under the current system of program administration. Our 

associations also use !he EQIP and CSP programs. We would like to havetdbal piograms funded 

separately and apart hom Sbiil and CDunty programs. 

Considering the state of agriculture of aut 'ommunity, the PIWblo of La~ requestl the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs and Senate Agriculture Committee include !he following in any 

legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Govarnmentoll Parity with state and local governments throughout the 

entire Fann Bill. 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Foud Assistilllce Programs 

thmugh 6:lB Contracts. 

• Expand the Substantially UndeJ:served Tzus!: Area {SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development program5. 

In addition,. the Pueblo of Laguna. supports the recommendations made by !he Native Farm "Bill 

Caalitit>n and requests that those recammend~tion5 be included agriculture legislation in this 

Congre55. 

Thankyouforyou:r support of Indian Country priorities in this impt>rtant legislation. 
52 

1 Article I, Section 8 (The Commerce Clause); Article II Section 2, Clause 2 (The Treaty 

Clause); Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (The Property Clause). 2 Article I, Section 8 

* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee files. 

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is located in the Great Lakes 

area, along the Michigan—Canadian border. With over 44,000 members, my Tribe 

is the largest Tribal government east of the Mississippi River. Although our Tribal 

service area extends over 7 counties in rural Michigan, we have very limited reservation lands. 

Our goals are similar to the goals of other rural Americans: We want successful 

rural communities, strong economic growth, solid infrastructure, and sustainable development. To achieve these goals, we will all need to work together. 

Overall, reforms are needed within the Farm Bill. The United States economy requires all Americans to do more, with less. This testimony provides insight as to 

how the Farm Bill can be improved in ways that will enable rural America to thrive, 

without significantly increasing the overall budget. 

Parity Treatment 

Tribes are sovereign governments, recognized by the United States Constitution. 1

The U.S. Constitution places Indian Tribal governments at the same level as state 

governments and foreign nations. 2 Although the Farm Bill recognizes state and 

local government authorities throughout its text, very few places within the Farm 

Bill recognize the direct authority of Tribes. This needs to change. 

Government-to-Government Relationship 

Tribal governments have been recognized in the U.S. Constitution, the federal 

court system, and by law makers throughout the history of the United States. The 

relationship between the federal government and the Indian governments is long established. The Farm Bill needs to require the establishment of Tribal Offices within 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture that reflect this relationship. 

Farm Bill Accessibility 

The success of the Farm Bill can be measured by its accessibility to rural America. Although the Bill provides easy access to programs for most, it largely fails to 

accomplish this, for Tribes. This failure needs to be rectified. 

Reaching Our Goals 

Achieving parity treatment for Tribes, expanding recognition of the governmentto-government relationships, and creating improved Farm Bill accessibility can all 

be achieved if we work together. For example, my Tribe encourages Tribal representation on Advisory Committees and Technical Committees. Furthermore, as Congress drafts the Farm Bill, we urge lawmakers to work with national inter-Tribal 

organizations (Native Farm Bill Coalition, the Inter-Tribal Agricultural Association, 

and the National Congress of American Indians) and with individual Tribes, like the 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. 

*The in-depth analysis and proposed solutions regarding each of the issues has 

been retained in the Committee files.* 

Attachment 

Dear Senator Hoeven: 

As the elected Tribal Chairperson of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, I am writing on behalf of my Tribe. This letter concerns existing challenges and 

opportunities within the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Success of the Farm Bill can be measured by its accessibility to rural America. 

Although the bill provides easy access to programs for most, it largely fails to accomplish this, for Tribes. My Tribe has been able to identify areas requiring reform, 

as well as concrete ways to accomplish necessary changes. We have also provided 

suggested legislative language. This information is available in our ‘‘2018 Farm 

Bill—Challenges and Opportunities’’ document, * 

Some of the issues can be easily solved: For example, one reason it is difficult for 

Tribes to access Farm Bill programs is because there is not a common definition of 

‘‘land owned by Indian Tribes’’ across all the USDA programs. There is inconsistency in the definition even within programs run by a single agency. By requiring 

a common definition, the Farm Bill can create greater program accessibility for 

Tribes across the United States. Another example of a ‘‘quick fix’’ is the need for 

the Farm Bill to require clarification that the Farm Credit Administration and its 

Farm Credit System member institutions are authorized to provide lending services 

to tribal governments, tribal farmers and ranchers, tribal businesses (including but 

53 

not limited to cooperatives). Clarification will quickly create significantly greater 

loan accessibility for Tribes. 

Some issues merely require greater interdepartmental cooperation. For example, 

Tribal members are required to meet multiple requirements from multiple US agencies and departments. Some have been found in violation of USDA program requirements because of conflicting requirements required by the US Department of Interior. The Farm Bill needs to require agencies and departments to hold harmless, 

members who have been directed by federal agencies to act in a way that is contrary 

to requirements set by another federal agency. 

Other issues are more challenging, but are already close to achieving solid solutions: For example, Tribes want to have direct authority to administer their own 

federal food assistance programs which they are currently not allowed to directly 

manage. The USDA has already done a study, released in 2016, that found Tribes 

can manage food programs, but need clear 638 Overall, greater Tribal representation is needed in all advisory bodies (including technical advisory bodies). It is also 

recommended that wherever the Farm Bill makes reference to ‘‘states’’, it needs to 

include ‘‘Tribes’’ as well. 

Other issues are more difficult to easily fix. For example, we need to change the 

way we use FDPIR and SNAP. Our people are not being fed enough. Allowing those 

who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously participate in SNAP would make 

positive change. Neither program provides enough food for participants in remote 

places; by allowing simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental 

feeding programs can be combined to actually result in addressing food insecurity. 

Before closing, I would be remiss if I did not address the possibility of program 

restructuring. It is understood that facing significant federal budget constraints, 

lawmakers may restructure food programs in the 2018 Farm Bill. Two changes have 

been discussed in the past, and my Tribe wishes to discuss them, here: 

Block granting federal food programs: President Trump’s March 2017 Skinny 

Budget included the possibility of block granting SNAP through state governments. 

If Congress chooses to restructure federal food programs by block granting them 

through state governments, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians strongly 

recommends the federal treatment of Tribes as state governments. The alternative 

(blocking food programs through state governments and requiring Tribes to go 

through state processes to access federal programs) is impractical, unworkable, and, 

we believe, illegal: State governments do not have a government-to-government relationship with the Tribal Nations, nor do they have treaty obligations to provide for 

the health and general welfare of Tribes. The relationship between Tribal and state 

governments has been historically inconsistent and unreliable. Recently, state government administration of federal programs (like, LIHEAP) has hampered Tribes’ 

abilities to fully implement needed services. To make Tribal governments dependent 

upon state governments for food distribution programs would be wholly unacceptable. 

Work Requirements: Work requirements should be recognized as inapplicable to 

federally-recognized Tribes. Tribal people don’t need to ‘‘work’’ for federal benefits. 

Food and health benefits (and more) are already owed to us. Within the Treaties 

between the United States and the Indian Nations, the federal governments promised Tribes that, in exchange for all the Tribal lands and resources, it would continue to recognize Tribal sovereignty and provide forth health and general welfare 

of Tribal members, in perpetuity. Tribal nations met our part of the bargain. We 

gave the federal government everything we had. In the end, food benefits, is exactly 

the kind of thing that has been ‘‘bought and paid for’’ by the Tribal people. Any 

work requirements necessary for federal programs are inapplicable to federal recognized Tribes. 

I close this letter with my sincerest hope that we can work with you to achieve 

the changes discussed, herein. Again, please note the in-depth analysis and proposed solutions regarding each of the issues can be found in the ‘‘2018 Farm Bill— 

Challenges and Opportunities’’ document. 

Respectfully, 

AARON A. PAYMENT

PREPARED STATEMENT OF UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES SOVEREIGNTY

PROTECTION FUND (USET SPF) 

On behalf of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 

(USET SPF), we are pleased to provide the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

with the following testimony for the record of the Committee’s recent hearing, 

Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country held on JanVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
54 

1 USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (TX), Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (ME), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), 

Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee Tribe 

of Indians of Florida (FL), Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians 

of Connecticut (CT), Narragansett Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe (VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe at 

Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of Creek Indians (AL), Saint 

Regis Mohawk Tribe (NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), 

Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), and the Wampanoag 

Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (MA). 

uary 17, 2018. As it considers the reauthorization of the Farm Bill nears in 2018, 

Congress must use this opportunity to uphold the federal trust responsibility and 

fully engage with Tribal Nations in the development and negotiation of this important legislation. 

USET SPF is an intertribal organization comprised of twenty-seven federally recognized Tribal Nations, ranging from Maine to Florida to Texas. 1 USET SPF is 

dedicated to enhancing the development of federally recognized Tribal Nations, to 

improving the capabilities of Tribal governments, and assisting USET SPF Member 

Tribal Nations in dealing effectively with public policy issues and in serving the 

broad needs of American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). 

Agriculture is among the largest economic development industries in Indian Coun- try, providing $3.4 billion per year in revenue. In addition, more than 50 million 

acres of Tribal land throughout Indian Country is engaged in food and agriculture 

to some extent. Though agriculture has had such a big impact within Indian Country, Tribal Nations have been left out as key partners in the development of previous Farm Bill negotiations. As a result, Tribal Nations are left without access to 

vital programs, such as nutrition programs, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would help to provide healthy, sustainable and traditional food 

to Tribal Citizens. Though USET SPF appreciates the importance of Tribal agribusiness, we underscore the need to address larger agricultural needs for Tribal Nations within the Farm Bill, including the Nutrition and Conservation titles. With 

this in mind, we strongly support the testimony and legislative initiatives of the Native Farm Bill Coalition on the wide variety of Tribal priorities for this reauthorization. Below, USET SPF would like to highlight several Farm Bill priorities on behalf 

of our member Tribal Nations. 

Tribal Parity 

Overall, Tribal Nations must have parity when it comes to accessing all federal 

programs that would address any sort of disparities experienced within Tribal communities, including but not limited to infrastructure, health and safety. Full parity 

provides Tribal Nations with the tools that state and local governments already 

enjoy, to make important investments in their own communities. Therefore, Tribal 

Nations and Tribal producers must have equitable access to programs under all the 

titles within the Farm Bill. Full parity would allow Tribal governments, producers, 

and organizations access to every program allowed within USDA. Greater access to 

USDA programs would provide Tribal Nations with a wide range of support to build 

and strengthen agricultural economies, including: 

• Providing direct assistance to Tribal agricultural enterprises and individual AI/ 

AN producers; 

• Increasing access to credit and capitol for AI/AN farmers and ranchers; 

• Promoting conservation and best practices to enhance vitality of Tribal lands for 

agricultural production and forest land management; 

• Directly supporting Tribal Nations to meet their nutritional needs by increasing 

access to Tribal traditional foods, helping to address health disparities; and 

• Developing infrastructure, such as water and electricity utilities. 

Unfortunately, many of these programs, with some notable exceptions, are not 

currently tailored to the needs of Tribal Nations. The Farm Bill establishes the 

framework for USDA programs to serve America, therefore, now is the time to address the limitations to full access to crucial USDA programs by Tribal Nations. It 

is imperative that the reauthorization of the Farm Bill achieve Tribal parity within 

each title of the Farm Bill and not just a handful of provisions. 

Specifically, USET SPF requests full parity for Tribal Nations under the Conservation title. There is a growing need for Tribal Nations to access the USDA programs that provide conservation services. Parity for Conservation programs is esVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
55 

sential to Tribal Nations, as these programs help to provide protection and sustainability of Tribal land as well as Tribal agricultural products. USET SPF recommends that this can be accomplished by including or inserting the term ‘‘Tribal’’ 

into provisions where reference is made to ‘‘state’’, ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ producer. 

Improving access to USDA programs and funding for Indian Country will help to 

ensure Tribal governments have the ability to establish long-term plans and goals 

for their communities and the surrounding rural communities. In addition, improving revenue streams for Tribal Nations within the Farm Bill will help Native farmers and ranchers continue to grow their food businesses and build Tribal food systems to support their economies and communities. 

Tribal Set-Asides and Technical Assistance 

The Farm Bill must reflect the unique status of Tribal Nations and the government-to-government relationships with the United States. Currently, Tribal Nations 

compete with states and other Tribal entities to attain vital USDA funding. Tribal 

Nations should not have to compete with states or other Tribal entities to provide 

their citizens with the resources they critically need. This is contrary to the federal 

trust responsibility to Tribal Nations, and results in a severe lack of parity in access 

to resources for Tribal citizens. Tribal set-asides within each title of the Farm Bill 

will help to address the inadequate agricultural funding in Indian Country as well 

as help to address the unmet federal trust obligations for Tribal Nations. For example, many Tribal governments manage central infrastructure within their communities such as critical electric and water systems, which are covered by the Rural 

Development title of the Farm Bill. A Tribal set-aside within Rural Development 

would help to address a lack of utility infrastructure on Tribal land. 

In addition, due to the unique characteristics of Tribal Nations, including the 

unique status of some Tribal lands and legal jurisdiction in Indian Country, specialized technical assistance must be provided to Tribal Nations within the Farm Bill. 

At times, those providing technical assistance on USDA programs have little to no 

experience in working with Tribal producers or other Tribal entities. Lack of technical assistance has contributed to Tribal Nations not being able to access vital 

USDA programs. 

Traditional Foods 

Though Tribal Nations have access to millions of acres of land that are already 

engaged in some form of agriculture or food production, these foods do not stay within Tribal communities. At this time, the $3.4 billion generated annually through 

Tribal agriculture efforts is more than 99 percent raw commodities, instead of the 

healthy, local, economically beneficial, and nutritious food needed in Tribal communities and rural areas. Access to traditional and healthy foods is not just an economic issue, but a health and sustainability issue as well. When it comes to the production and access of traditional foods, the Farm Bill plays a important role within 

Indian Country to ensure Tribal Nations have the resource they need to address the 

health disparities within their communities. 

Food sovereignty is crucial to the health and overall wellbeing of Tribal communities. A lack of healthy foods has only exacerbated health disparities, including the 

prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer and other chronic diseases 

within Tribal communities. Across Indian Country, Tribal Nations and Tribal producers are actively engaging in food sovereignty projects that would increase the 

amount of traditional food, including fresh fruit, meat, and vegetables within Tribal 

communities. The Farm Bill must include provisions that would ensure Tribal food 

sovereignty and traditional food programs are supported under USDA. This includes 

ensuring Tribal Nations and Tribal agriculture programs have equal access to vital 

agriculture programs that would support traditional food programs, including, for 

example, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The sustainability of traditional 

foods and crops are vital to the cultural and spiritual lives of Tribal citizens. 

In addition to equal access to USDA program funding for the enhancement of 

Tribal traditional food programs, the Farm Bill must direct USDA to take the necessary steps, including engaging in comprehensive Tribal consultation, to ensure 

that Tribal products are given the maximum protection under federal law so that 

they are protected from non-Tribal commercialized purposes. Tribal products are 

often derived from traditional seeds, which are among the most sacred items to individual Tribal Nations. The Farm Bill must reflect the inherent right and sovereign 

status of Tribal Nations to protect traditional seeds not just to ensure biosecurity 

and food security for their communities, but to preserve market competitiveness for 

Tribal products as well. 

56 

Self-Governance of SNAP and other Nutrition Programs 

Finally, barriers to Tribally-run nutrition programs must be addressed within the 

Nutrition title of the Farm Bill. As a matter of governmental parity, Tribal Nations 

must have the authority to engage in Tribal Self-governance to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and other vital nutrition programs. Tribal Nations, like 

other units of government, are responsible for providing essential services to their 

citizens, including those related to nutrition. However, and in spite of a 2014 USDA 

feasibility study, Tribal Nations continue to be excluded from administering SNAP 

and other nutrition programs under P.L. 93–638 contracting and compacting. USET 

SPF joins Tribal Nations and organizations across the country in calling upon this 

Committee and this Congress to ensure that Tribal sovereignty and self-determination for federal nutrition programs is included as part of the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Conclusion 

As this nation’s first farmers, ranchers, and stewards of the land, Tribal Nations 

must be engaged as full partners in the development of the Farm Bill reauthorization. The 2018 Farm Bill negotiations must include and incorporate perspectives 

from Indian Country to afford parity, opportunity, and consistency under the federal 

food and agriculture laws, funding policies, and programs. Though there have been 

great strides made for Indian Country agriculture by individuals and organizations 

in previous Farm Bills, there are still many steps needed to reach full parity in 

2018. 

Attachment 

USET SPF RESOLUTION NO. 2018 SPF:004 

SUPPORT FOR REAUTHORIZING THE FARM BILL WITH TRIBAL PROVISIONS 

WHEREAS, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 

(USET SPF) is an intertribal organization comprised of twenty-seven (27) federally 

recognized Tribal Nations; and 

WHEREAS, the actions taken by the USET SPF Board of Directors officially represent the intentions of each member Tribal Nation, as the Board of Directors comprises delegates from the member Tribal Nations’ leadership; and 

WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress is deliberating on the nature of food and agriculture policy for the nation and the world, as it must reauthorize the multiyear 

Farm Bill in 2018, which governs all farm programs, rural development, and nutrition initiatives within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and 

WHEREAS, agriculture is among the largest economic development industries in 

Indian Country, providing $3.4 billion per year; and the policies that provide the 

framework for Indian Country’s agriculture production constitute a large portion of 

the Farm Bill; and 

WHEREAS, an overwhelming majority of the land throughout Indian Country is 

involved in agriculture production; and 

WHEREAS, many Tribal citizens live in rural areas and communities where the 

cost of building or repairing basic infrastructure systems is often prohibitively high, 

and the 2018 Farm Bill will provide an authorization of federal funding for rural 

infrastructure initiatives; and 

WHEREAS, Tribal citizens in rural areas are often afflicted by poverty of place, 

where they are unable to find suitable employment to provide adequate income that 

supports good nutrition for their families; and thus, may rely on federal nutrition 

programs authorized in the Farm Bill; and 

WHEREAS, even with the great strides made for Indian Country agriculture in 

previous Farm Bill negotiations, the $3.4 billion generated annually through Indian 

agriculture efforts is still more than 99 percent raw commodities, instead of the 

healthy, local, economically beneficial, and nutritious food needed in Tribal communities and rural areas; and 

WHEREAS, the 2018 Farm Bill negotiations, resulting policies, and funding must 

include and incorporate perspectives from Indian Country to afford parity, opportunity, and consistency under the federal food and agriculture laws, policies, and 

programs; and 

WHEREAS, improving programs and funding for Indian Country will help to ensure Tribal governments have the ability to establish long-term plans and goals for 

their communities and the surrounding rural communities, and help Native farmers 

and ranchers continue to grow their food businesses and build Tribal food systems 

to support our economies and communities; and 

57 

1The Oglala Band reorganized as the ‘‘Oglala Sioux Tribe’’ under Section 16 of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. 25 U.S.C. § 5123. All pre-existing treaties of the Oglala Band still apply 

to the Oglala Sioux Tribe under 25 U.S.C. § 5128. 2Treaty of July 2, 1825 (7 Stat.252). 

3September 17, 1851 (11 Stat. 749). 

4Treaty of April 29, 1868 (15 Stat. 635). 

WHEREAS, the 2018 Farm Bill effort being promoted by the Native Farm Bill 

Coalition is the best opportunity in decades for Indian Country to effectively create 

positive and truly relevant change in federal agriculture policy to enhance the development of Indian agriculture beyond raw commodities, support infrastructure, research, and education in Tribal communities, and improve federal food nutrition 

programs in Indian Country while providing Tribal governments the authority to 

manage these programs; and 

WHEREAS, in December 2010, the United States recognized the rights of its 

First Peoples through its support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights 

of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), whose provisions and principles support and promote the purposes of this resolution; therefore, be it 

RESOLVED that the USET SPF Board of Directors calls upon the U.S. Congress 

to fulfill its federal trust responsibility to Indian Country during the development 

and negotiation of the 2018 reauthorization of the Farm Bill to incorporate Tribal 

parity, opportunity, and consistency throughout, and encourage and support continued participation, development, and progress in Indian Country’s agriculture businesses, food systems, infrastructure, and nutrition programs. 

CERTIFICATION 

This resolution was duly passed at the USET SPF Annual Meeting, at which a 

quorum was present, in Cherokee, NC, October 12, 2017. 

Chief Kirk E. Francis, Sr., President/Chief Lynn Malerba, Secretary, United 

South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TROY SCOTT WESTON, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX

TRIBE

On behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, I am submitting testimony for the January 

17, 2018 hearing about ‘‘Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country’’ to provide preliminary comments on the priorities and needs of the 

Tribe for the upcoming Farm Bill. The Farm Bill is extremely important to Indian 

Country, and we will be actively engaged as the bill is further developed. We request that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee to share its expertise for addressing Indian Agriculture in this 

important piece of legislation. 

We thank Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall for continuing the important discussion of Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country at a roundtable on 

January 18, 2018, titled ‘‘Advancing Native Food Traditions for Indian Country.’’ We 

were encouraged by the testimony of a representative from the National Indian 

Health Board who spoke of the fact that tribes have long carried out the administration of complex health systems, which demonstrates that they have the necessary 

experience to administer the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. 

Tribal History and Background 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a sovereign band of the Teton Division of the Great 

Sioux Nation. 1 Our unique political relationship with the United States, and our 

rights and the United States’ obligations to us, are set forth in a series of treaties. 

Under the 1825 Treaty, the Oglala Band of the Teton Division of the Sioux Nation 

became a protectorate of the United States. 2 In 1851, the United States recognized 

the seven Teton bands’ title to sixty million acres of territory in the present-day 

states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming. 3 However, the United States did not abide by the treaty terms. Continued westward expansion resulted in the Powder River War of 1866–1868. The war culminated with 

the signing of the 1868 Fort Laramie Peace Treaty. 4

Significantly, the Sioux Treaty of 1868 provided for a quid pro quo: by the terms 

of the Treaty, the United States promised to provide certain benefits and annuities 

to the Sioux bands each year in exchange for peace. The United States discontinued 

negotiating treaties with tribes in 1871 by statute, yet that statute provides that 

‘‘no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation 

or tribe prior to March 3, 1871 shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.’’ Our treaties are still in full force and effect, and the United States’ obligations to us are not 

58 

5 United States Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 2. 

6There are different statistics available. The cited membership number is from the United 

States Bureau of Indian Affairs’ website page about the Reservation and the member resident 

number is from a study conducted by Colorado State University (Dr. Katherine Pickering and 

David Bartecchi, Pine Ridge Project director for Village Earth) in 2005 that the United States 

Department of Housing and Urban Development accepted. HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant 

Formula Data, 2014, has Tribal Enrollment at 43,146 with an American/Indian Alaska Native 

Population Residing on the Reservation as 33,935. The Tribe’s Enrollment Office also tracks the 

figures. 7The figures for Reservation size and trust land amount are from the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s 

Land Office and the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs’ website page about the Reservation, 

respectively. 8 U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., PINE RIDGE AGRICULTURE ECONOMY, at 4 (2017), available 

at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/USDARD-PRAEJanuary2017.pdf. 

discretionary; they are legal and moral obligations. The Oglala Sioux Tribe’s treaties 

are of utmost importance to us. They are what define our relationship with the 

United States and we rely on them to press the United States to act in accordance 

with the solemn promises it made to us in them. Treaties are the supreme law of 

the land. 5

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a body politic comprised of approximately 46,855 tribal 

members, of which approximately 28,000 reside on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 6 Our Reservation consists of approximately 2,785,658 acres of territory in the 

southwestern portion of South Dakota. The Tribe and its members hold over 1.7 million acres of trust land 7 within the Reservation. As such, the Tribe is one of the 

largest land based tribes in the United States. Unfortunately, while we have vast 

land holdings and natural resources, our members suffer from some of the worst 

quality of life indicators in the country from unemployment to overcrowded housing 

to health disparities and beyond. Oglala Lakota County (formerly Shannon County), 

which is the western part of our Reservation, is consistently one of the three poorest 

counties in the entire United States. Our Reservation is also the most highly 

fractionated in all of Indian Country, as recognized by the Department of the Interior’s Buy-Back Program, and this hinders the use of our lands. We need economic 

development and community infrastructure suitable to meet the needs of our members. 

Agribusiness is critical for our Tribe and the whole of Indian Country. However, 

there are significant opportunities to increase agribusiness success on Pine Ridge 

Reservation. According to the 2012 Census of Ag-American Indian Reservations— 

USDA, only 55 percent of the 363 farms located on Pine Ridge are operated by Native Americans, and of those 200 farming enterprises, at least 64.5 percent meet 

USDA’s definition of small farm (gross sales less than $250,000) with farm value 

sales of less than $99,999. Furthermore, 39 percent report sales of less than 

$50,000. 8

Given the importance of treaties and our government-to-government relationship 

with the United States, in addition to Indian Country’s large presence in the agriculture industry, we call on Congress to support tribal interests and recognize the 

significant impact Farm Bill policies have on our communities. 

Legislative Priorities for the Farm Bill 

The Farm Bill authorizes USDA programs and addresses numerous areas of law 

and policy related to agriculture. Considering the importance of agriculture for our 

community, the Tribe requests that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the 

Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the 

Farm Bill: 

• Ensure tribal governmental parity with state and local governments throughout 

the entire Farm Bill. 

• Provide for tribal administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all federal food assistance programs through extending ‘‘638’’ 

selfgovernance contract authority. 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs. 

As the Farm Bill has many titles and covers numerous issues deeply important 

to Indian Country, the following recommendations are not an exhaustive representation of the Tribe’s priorities to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. However, we hope that they serve to highlight for the Committee some of the 

matters that the Tribe supports for the Farm Bill reauthorization at this stage in 

its development. The Tribe will continue to engage and supplement this testimony 

going forward. 

59 

9The term ‘‘Indian country’’ means ‘‘(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation 

under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any 

patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) 

all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rightsof-way running through the same.’’ 18 U.S.C. § 115. 10 E.g., Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1702(e)(2) (enabling act for the 

Bureau of Land Management; excluding ‘‘lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos’’ from the definition of ‘‘public lands’’). 

Title I: Commodities 

• Amend definitions for the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs in Section 1501(a)(1)(B)(iv) to create parity for tribal governments and 

extend recognition of the authority of entities organized under tribal law or 

under federal law. Revise the law to recognize commonly raised or harvested 

animals in tribal communities as livestock and eligible for full protection and 

program participation across USDA. 

• Increase Livestock Indemnity Payments for tribal producers to 90 percent under 

Section 1501(b), to address the lack of land equity that exists for tribal producers on trust lands and account for the unique challenges tribal livestock producers have in obtaining secure markets for their animals, which generally 

causes a lower rate of market return. 

• Ensure tribal eligibility in the Livestock Forage Disaster Program by ensuring 

that payment rates are set at 90 percent levels. Additionally, tribal producers 

must be explicitly exempt from any limitations on receiving payments on any 

losses due to fire on ‘‘public managed land.’’ Tribal lands 9 are not ‘‘public’’ 

lands. 10

• Amend Section 1606 to explicitly recognize tribal governments, entities, and 

producers as farmers or ranchers eligible to participate in the Geographically 

Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program. 

Title II: Conservation 

• Give priority consideration to tribal governments, tribal entities, and individual 

tribal landowners and operators to participate in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) activities, in addition to the 5 percent tribal set-aside. 

Among many ways to increase tribal priority, ensure increased consultation between tribal governments and state conservationists and notification to tribes 

regarding all activities related to the EQIP program and other NRCS programs 

in their state. 

• Enhance the use and continuity of conservation programs on tribal lands and 

individual Indian owned land by authorizing the USDA Secretary to create a 

permanent technical assistance fund for tribal governments and organizations. 

• Authorize the Secretary to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

a Tribal Conservation Technical Committee made up of tribal government representatives from each of the BIA regions to identify initiatives and programmatic opportunities to improve the conditions of tribal lands and individual Indian-owned lands. 

Title IV: Nutrition 

• With 25 percent of all Native Americans receiving some type of federal food assistance, and in some tribal communities as high as 60–80 percent, the importance of the Nutrition Title programs in Indian Country cannot be overstated. 

SNAP provides benefits to 24 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native 

households. Further, American Indians and Alaska Natives make up more than 

12 percent of the participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

• Significant legislative changes need to occur within the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and other Federal feeding programs. 

Since 2015, USDA has consulted with tribal leaders on how to make improvements to these programs and many of these improvements should be adopted 

in the 2018 Farm Bill. There needs to be improvement in funding and flexibility 

in the FDPIR. 

• Provide for tribal administration of SNAP and all other federal food assistance 

programs that tribes are currently not allowed to directly manage by providing 

tribes with ‘‘638’’ contract and compact authority for nutrition programs, which 

60 

11 U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., PINE RIDGE AGRICULTURE ECONOMY, at 17 (2017), available 

at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/USDARD-PRAEJanuary2017.pdf. 

already exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health Service programs. 

Title VI: Rural Development 

As one of the largest land based tribes in the United States and due to the rural 

nature of Pine Ridge Reservation, Rural Development (RD) Title programs and 

funding are vitally important to our Tribe and members. The USDA Economic Research Service classifies South Dakota as ‘‘frontier and remote’’ in both land area 

and population and our Pine Ridge Reservation represents Level 4, the ‘‘most isolated group.’’ 11 The RD programs provide important tools for the Tribe to build or 

update infrastructure, which is essential to our communities and to spur economic 

development on our Reservation. One recent example is our work with the USDA 

to upgrade certain community water systems so they can be transferred into the 

Mni Wiconi Project. Much work remains on this monumental work and RD is critical to our efforts. 

• Broaden the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision to include 

all RD programs and allow the Secretary to exercise this discretion more broadly, so that, among other things, the waiver of matching requirements for 

projects funded through RD would also be extended. 

• Provide a tribal set-aside for tribal applications within each of the RD program 

authorities to address the inadequacy and general lack of rural infrastructure 

in Indian Country. Many shovel-ready tribal infrastructure and community development projects have gone unfunded over the past several years. We need 

dedicated funding for our infrastructure projects. 

• Establish a permanent rural development tribal technical assistance office to 

provide tribes with technical assistance across all RD funding authorities within 

the USDA. 

• Maintain an Under Secretary for Rural Development. Having an Under Secretary whose primary duties are to focus on RD programs and funding is critical 

for Indian Country. Any changes that would impact the role of Under Secretary 

for Rural Development must be the subject of tribal consultation. 

• Maintain rural water and wastewater program funding. Rural water and wastewater systems are essential to community support and economic growth for our 

Tribe and all of Indian Country. This funding should never be lost. 

Title IX: Energy 

• Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program to help spark 

economic development and energy infrastructure development in tribal communities, while providing low-cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding 

rural areas. 

Title XII: Miscellaneous 

• Fully fund the USDA Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at a minimum of $1.5 

million. Adequate funding is essential to carrying out OTR duties, including the 

oversight of all USDA tribal consultation. 

• Authorize the establishment of an Office of Tribal Agriculture within the Office 

of the Secretary to coordinate all USDA programs as those programs apply to 

tribes, maximize the value of the programs, address issues in compliance and 

access of programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve as a liaison 

between the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian producers. 

• Develop a new program, based on those USDA already has, that focuses on educating and training the tribal agriculture labor force, provides key scholarships 

to Native producers, and encourages Native scholars and scientists to focus on 

food and agriculture. 

• Create an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian Agriculture within the OTR, 

the Office of the Secretary, and representatives of each of the agencies and offices of the USDA, along with the BIA, to develop administrative efficiency and 

regulatory changes needed to ensure Native agriculture is supported. 

• Require the USDA to recruit and appoint tribal citizens to each of the federal 

advisory committees it seats and supports. 

• Permanently establish the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching 

to advise the Secretary and USDA, and fully fund its work. 

61 

Conclusion 

We thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for taking the time to conduct 

this hearing and think it is crucial for Congress to continue to engage with tribes 

on these important issues through additional hearings and roundtables. Tribal Nations have considerable experience and much to share regarding the federal nutrition, agriculture, and conservation policies included in the Farm Bill. We encourage 

Congress to support tribal interests and recognize the significant impact Farm Bill 

policies have on our communities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LUMMI TRIBE OF INDIANS (LUMMI NATION) 

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice-Chairman Udall, 

Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee members for the opportunity to share with you our priorities. On behalf of the Lummi 

Tribe of Indians (Lummi Nation) of the State of Washington, we write to submit 

testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure 

that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Committee on Agriculture; Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to address this important piece of legislation. 

Background Information 

Since time immemorial, the Lummi people have been, and still are, referred to 

as the Lhaq’temish (people of the sea). We are the original inhabitants of Washington’s northernmost coast and southern British Columbia. The Lummi Indian Reservation (Reservation) is located approximately eight (8) miles west of Bellingham, 

WA; 90 miles north of Seattle, WA; and 60 miles south of Vancouver, BC. The Reservation is comprised of a five (5) mile long peninsula (known as the Lummi Peninsula) and separates the Lummi Bay (located on the eastern side of the Reservation) 

and Bellingham Bay (located on the western side of the Reservation). The mouth 

of the Nooksack River is located at the northern end of the Reservation, whereas 

Portage Island is located at the southern end of the Reservation. There are approximately 32 miles of highly productive marine shoreline that surrounds the Reservation. The Reservation is approximately 13,500 acres of uplands and 10,500 acres of 

tidelands. 

Today, the Lummi Nation is the third largest Tribe in the State of Washington 

serving a population of over 5,000 tribal members. We are connected to the lands 

and waters that provide us with the cultural and traditional foods including, but 

not limited to, animals, berries, birds, fish, plants, and shellfish that physically and 

spiritually sustain us as a people. We understand the challenge of respecting the 

environment and our traditions. The wisdom of our ancestors and previous leaders 

allow us to teach our children and grandchildren to care for the lands and waterways, to educate them about the importance of the environment, and to strengthen 

our appropriate ties with neighboring communities, governments, and jurisdictions. 

Aquaculture of the Tribe 

For thousands of years, and still today, our people fish, gather, harvest, hunt, and 

celebrate life on the shores and waters of the Salish Sea (formally known as the 

Puget Sound). On January 22, 1855 the Lummi Nation was one of the signatories 

to the Point Elliot Treaty of 1855 (Treaty). Article V of the Treaty secured us the 

‘‘right of taking fish at usual and accustomed [U & A] grounds and stations.’’ Article 

XIII of the Treaty states that the United States agreed to ‘‘enable the said Indians 

to remove to and settle upon their aforesaid reservation, and to clear, fence, and 

break up a sufficient quantity of land for cultivation.’’ Article XIV of the Treaty 

states that the United States agreed to ‘‘establish. . .an agricultural and industrial 

school, to be free to children of said tribes and bands,’’ and ‘‘to furnish them with 

the necessary tools. . .’’ 

The Nooksack River watershed is comprised of approximately 786 square miles 

within Whatcom County, WA. The North, Middle, and South forks of the Nooksack 

River originate on federal lands near Mt. Baker and are within the Water Resources 

Inventory Area No. 1 (WRIA 1). The Nooksack River watershed hosts nine (9) species of salmonids. One-third (3 of 9) of the species of salmonids are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull trout. There are twenty-five (25) salmonid stocks within WRIA 1 and only three (3) salmonid stocks are 

currently considered healthy. Twelve (12) percent (3 of 25) of the salmonid stocks 

62 

are considered healthy in the WRIA 1. Factors that impact the number of healthy 

salmonid stocks include, but are not limited to, habitat degradation, low quality 

water, high levels of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and sedimentation. 

The 2018 Farm Bill is an important piece of legislation that primarily focuses on 

agriculture. Many tribes throughout the United States are tied to agriculture production; however, the Lummi Nation is unique and do not consider ourselves as 

agriculturalists, we consider ourselves as aquaculturists (farmers of the sea). The 

Lummi people established hatcheries and programs during the early 1970s in response to environmental threats to fish and shellfish populations. The Skookum 

Creek Fish Hatchery was built in 1970 and is located near the mouth of Skookum 

Creek in Acme, WA. The Skookum Creek Fish Hatchery produces 1.5 million yearling Coho salmon each year. These yearlings are released into the South Fork 

Nooksack River each spring. 

The Lummi Bay Hatchery was built in 1971 and is located on the western side 

of the Reservation. The Lummi Bay Hatchery works in coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Kendall Creek Hatchery and 

Samish Hatchery and the Bellingham Technical College (BTC) Whatcom Creek 

Hatchery. The Lummi Bay Hatchery releases 1 million juvenile Coho salmon and 

500,000 juvenile fall Chinook salmon for its program. Another 500,000 juvenile fall 

Chinook salmon are released from an acclimated pond located in Bertrand Creek 

near Lynden, WA. Furthermore, the Lummi Bay Hatchery produces and releases 

more than 400 million shellfish seed to local tidelands and buyers (geoduck, manila 

clams, and oysters). 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Programs Utilized by the 

Lummi Nation 

It is estimated that twenty-five (25) percent of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people in the United States receive some type of federal food assistance. 

However, in some tribal communities, participation in these federal food assistance 

programs is as high as sixty (60) to eighty (80) percent. Furthermore, approximately 

sixty-eight (68) percent of AI/AN children in the United States qualify for free and 

reduced-price lunches. More importantly, more than twelve (12) percent of AI/AN 

participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) utilize the 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food assistance program. 

Considering the state of agriculture/aquaculture for our community, the Lummi 

Nation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Government Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill; 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through the Self-Determination Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93–638; and 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provisions across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition, the Lummi Nation supports the following recommendations to be included in any Farm Bill legislation in the Congress. 

Title I (Commodity Programs) 

The Lummi Nation is deeply invested in the production, distribution, and consumption of hatchery fish and shellfish. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• The Lummi Nation requests that the 2018 Farm Bill include support for commercial fishing harvests that are deemed disasters (e.g. Sockeye disaster) 

caused by adverse weather. 

• Update the farm-raised fish definition in § 1501 (a)(2) of the Agriculture Act of 

2014 to include fish and shellfish hatcheries. The Lummi Nation does not have 

agriculture land; we are aquaculture-based using hatcheries to supplement the 

lack of harvestable fish and shellfish. 

• Update the livestock definition in § 1501 (a)(3) of the Agriculture Act of 2014 

to include other commonly raised livestock like ‘‘Chinook salmon,’’ Coho salmon,’’ ‘‘geoduck,’’ and ‘‘manila clams’’ or other animals raised or harvested in tribal communities. All of these animals must be further recognized as a livestock 

and eligible for full protection and program participation Department-wide. 

• Ensure that tribal producers’ (agriculture/aquaculture) are eligible for all disaster assistance programs in Title I, and increase payments to 90 percent of 

value to acknowledge their unique land and market issues. 

63 

• Create parity for tribal producers in the Farm Agency Committees and decisionmaking. 

Title II (Conservation) 

Conservation programs are an essential part of land protection and product development. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• The Lummi Nation requests that the USDA conservation programs allow for 

the use of traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservations practices. 

• Update 16 U.S.C. § 3838d(4)(A)(i) to include aquaculture commodities and update 16 U.S.C. § 3838d(4)(B) to include tidelands. Expanding the USDA conservation programs to include aquaculture and tidelands would allow fishing 

tribes to utilize these programs and services to improve tideland habitats. 

• Update 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa-2(g)(1) to include tideland habitats. The Lummi Nation has approximately 10,500 acres of tidelands. In 1996 the Lummi Nation 

closed 60 acres of shellfish beds in Portage Bay due to poor water quality. In 

1997 the Lummi Nation closed an additional 120 acres of shellfish beds in Portage Bay due to poor water quality. During these two closures, it was estimated 

that a lost value of the shellfish products was approximately $825 thousand dollars, which does not include the multiplier effect on the economy. 

• The Lummi Nation requests that the USDA implement a Self-Governance block 

grant within the conservation programs. The Lummi Nation is the largest fishing fleet in the State of Washington. About nineteen (19) percent of our tribal 

members (988 of 5238) depend on the fish and or shellfish harvesting either for 

ceremonial, commercial, or subsistence use. 

Title IV (Nutrition) 

Over a five (5) year period (2014–2018), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the Farm Bill would cost $489 billion dollars. The 2014 Farm Bill authorized $2 million dollars to be appropriated for the Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations (FDPIR) for each fiscal year of 2014 through 2018. This authorization represents only 0.002 percent of the $489 billion dollars projected for the 

2014 Farm Bill. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• Allow tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination Contracts pursuant to 

P.L. 93–638 for administration of the SNAP and all other federal feeding programs. 

• Improve the funding, flexibility, and infrastructure of the FDPIR. 

• Include a provision for Food Sovereignty. For the Lummi people, we define food 

sovereignty as the ability to produce, distribute, and consume our cultural and 

traditional foods that include, but not limited to, animals, berries, birds, fish, 

plants, and shellfish. Food sovereignty is our ability to cultivate, fish, gather, 

harvest, and hunt for our cultural and traditional foods. 

Title VI (Rural Development) 

Stretching over thirty-four (34) states, more than 100 million acres of tribal lands 

are located in rural areas. Tribal businesses, tribal entrepreneurs, tribal governments, and local communities rely on rural development (RD) funding to build new 

infrastructure, sustain economic development and growth, but face issues when accessing this type of funding. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• Increase the RD funding available for tribal governments. An increase in RD 

funding will allow reservations, tribal businesses, tribal entrepreneurs, tribal 

governments, and rural communities to develop and improve declining infrastructure systems, create jobs, and ensure that the federal government trust responsibility is upheld by providing tribal consultation for tribes within the 

USDA RD programs. 

• Maintain the rural water and wastewater funding. A vast majority of tribal reservations are located in rural communities. Tribal governments, individual tribal and non-tribal business owners, reservations, and rural communities rely on 

this type of funding, which is essential for economic growth. 

Title VII (Research, Extension, and Related Matters) 

The Northwest Indian College (NWIC) is a direct result of the Lummi Indian 

School of Aquaculture (LISA). The LISA was founded in 1973 as a training program. 

The program was designed to develop and prepare technicians for employment in 

Indian-owned and operated fish and shellfish hatcheries. In 2010, the NWIC was 

granted accreditation at the baccalaureate level. Today, the NWIC offers four (4) 

64 

bachelor degree programs: Bachelor of Arts in Native Studies Leadership; Bachelor 

of Arts in Community Advocates and Responsive Education in Human Services; 

Bachelor of Science in Native Environmental Science; and a Bachelor of Arts in 

Tribal Governance and Business Management. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• Programs within this Title allow for the development of tribal research and education at Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). The NWIC incorporates traditional knowledge and practices while providing education. One of the functions within the Cooperative Extension program at NWIC is food sovereignty. 

Fund the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) at a minimum of $10 million to address agriculture programming and food sovereignty. 

• Update funding systems to reflect the research and educational needs of tribal 

communities. With 567 federally recognized tribes, each tribe is unique. We 

must continue to focus on the tribal research and education, and traditional 

knowledge and practices that are incorporated within tribally owned and managed institutions. 

Title VIII (Forestry) 

The Federal Government manages 57 million acres of Indian land held in trust. 

One-third (18.6 million acres) of these lands are Indian forests and woodlands. The 

Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) is administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The HFRP is designed to help landowners restore, enhance, protect forestland resources, and aid in the recovery of endangered or threatened species under the ESA. Below are the Lummi Nation Recommendations: 

• Improve the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) and adopt the Section 301 and 

303 (114th H.R. 2642 Rep. Westerman) legislative language into the 2018 Farm 

Bill. Streamline the TFPA to improve the timelines for review and implementation of forest restoration projects requested by tribes. 

• The Nooksack River watershed hosts three (3) salmonid species that are listed 

under the ESA. Restoring the forest is critical to the survival of salmonids. For 

many decades, the Lummi Nation has worked to restore the wildlife habitat to 

ensure that the fish and shellfish populations continue to thrive. We ask for 

parity so that we can access, manage, and develop tribal and federal forests and 

woodlands to protect the environment, tribal resources, and wildlife habitat. 

Title X (Horticulture) 

Horticulture primarily focuses on specialty crops and organic farming operations. 

As mentioned previously, the Lummi people are aquaculturists (farmers of the sea). 

Our Reservation is approximately 13,500 acres. In 1999 the Lummi Natural Resources Department conducted a study to determine how many acres of our Reservation were considered wetlands. The study concluded that 5,432 acres (or 40 percent) 

of our Reservation was wetlands. We simply do not have agriculture land. Below 

are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• Food sovereignty is important to the AI/AN people. We ask that the Farm Bill 

support food sovereignty throughout Indian Country. The Farm Bill needs to include provisions that protect cultural and traditional foods. 

• We ask that the USDA consult with tribes to ensure that our cultural and traditional foods are given maximum protection under federal laws. 

Title XII (Miscellaneous) 

Through cooperative agreements (National Aquatic Animal Health Plan), the 

USDA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service work together to detect, control, or eradicate diseases of aquaculture species while promoting species-specific best management practices. In August 2017, Cooke Aquaculture Inc. failed to notify tribes that an Atlantic salmon 

net pen collapsed releasing hundreds of thousands of non-Native finfish species into 

the Salish Sea. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations: 

• We ask that the Farm Bill fully fund, at a minimum $1.5 million dollars, the 

Office of Tribal Relations at USDA. 

• When conducting agriculture, aquaculture, and food operations on our own 

lands, tribes and individual landowners should not be required to conduct a full 

NEPA. This requirement is far more excessive than any applicable law, and violates our right to food, food access, environmental and food justice, and food sovereignty. 

65 

• Amend the language that controls USDA contracting and procurement to recognize and support a ‘‘Buy Indian’’ provision. We ask that Indian preference be 

given when the USDA is purchasing any product being utilized by AI/AN people 

within our communities (like the FDPIR). 

Conclusion 

For thousands of years, our people have flourished in and around the Salish Sea. 

The land and water provide us with the cultural and traditional foods (animals, berries, birds, fish, plants, and shellfish) that sustain us as a people. We are a fishing 

community; we farm the sea for a lack of better term. We request that you consider 

fish and shellfish hatcheries when deliberating this piece of important agriculture 

legislation. 

In 1985, the average Lummi fisherman made $22,796 ($51,860 in 2017 dollars). 

Eight (8) years later, in 1993, the average income from fishing was $5,555 ($12,693 

in 2017 dollars). Today, our fishermen/women are working hard to financially sustain themselves through fish and shellfish harvesting. We request that Congress 

consider legislative language for tribes who rely on aquaculture. Forty (40) percent 

of our Reservation is wetlands, and since time immemorial, we have always been 

a fishing community. We simply cannot farm our lands the way agriculturalists do, 

we are aquaculturists. 

In 2013 the Port of Bellingham in the State of Washington commissioned a study 

title, ‘‘The Economic Impacts of the Commercial Fishing Fleet at the Port of Bellingham 2013.’’ There are 2,220 fishing jobs at the Port of Bellingham. There are 

988 jobs (596 fishers, 258 crabbers, 49 divers, and 85 clam diggers) within the 

Lummi Nation. The total number of commercial fish and shellfish jobs in Whatcom 

County is 3,208. The Lummi Nation accounts for thirty-one (31) percent of those 

jobs. The total economic value of fishing (tribal and non-tribal) on Whatcom County 

is a little more than $519 million dollars. The economic value of Lummi fishing on 

Whatcom County is nearly $161 million dollars, or thirty-one (31) percent of $519 

million dollars. The economic value of non-Lummi fishing on Whatcom County is a 

little more than $358 million dollars, or sixty-nine (69) percent of $519 million. 

In January 2017, the Lummi Nation entered into a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with seven (7) dairy farmers of Whatcom County, WA. We (Lummi Nation 

and dairy farmers) depend on the health and productivity of the lands and waters 

of Whatcom County. The purpose of the MOA was designed so that the Lummi Nation and dairy farmers can work cooperatively to improve the water quality of the 

Nooksack River Basin. The goal of this MOA is to develop Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs) that are specific to each facility, which is still an ongoing process. 

Lastly, the Lummi Nation (tribal government, tribal business enterprises, and the 

NWIC) is the largest employer in Whatcom County. One (1) in every thirty-three 

(33) people employed in Whatcom County receive their paycheck from the Lummi 

Nation. There are 1,888 direct jobs from the Lummi Nation, an additional 2,939 indirect and induced jobs, for a total of 4,827 jobs. The economic output of the Lummi 

Nation is $496 million dollars per year. We are a tribal government that strives to 

strengthen our appropriate ties with neighboring communities, governments, and jurisdictions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN JACKSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, we write to submit testimony 

for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian 

Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe (HVT) is located on the Hoopa Valley Reservation (HVR) 

in the remote and beautiful rugged mountain terrain of the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. HVT has the distinction of being the largest land base 

Indian reservation within the state of California. Presently, there are approximately 

3,400 enrolled members of the Tribe. The HVR was established in 1864 by executive 

order and is commonly referred to as the twelve-mile square representing nearly 

93,000 Acre of lands that have been the home of the Hupa people since time immemorial. Nearly the entire reservation is in trust, with less than 5 percent of the 

lands held in fee status by non-tribal members. The HVT has existed within the 

same aboriginal lands within the valley floor of the HVR where ancient village sites 

66 

have been radiocarbon dated and shown continuous usage for over 10,00 years. The 

Hupa people have lived along the banks of the Trinity River which bisects the valley 

floor. 

The Trinity River represents the lifeblood of the Hupa people who have sustained 

themselves with the bounty of resources that the Trinity River has provided to the 

Hupa people such as fish and related resources. The remote location has maintained 

a heavy reliance on fishing, hunting, gathering, and organic agricultural practices 

by Hupa people. 

The Tribe has designated itself as a Self-Governance Tribe, thereby administering 

the breadth of its programming through direct services to its membership. Many 

USDA programs are administered on the Hoopa Reservation including SNAP, 

FDPIR, Rural Development Community Facilities, NRCS EQIP, and more. The following guidance offered to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs stems from direct experience with the following programs and agencies. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Hoopa Valley Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill (see below) 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts (see below) 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition, as a member of the Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC), the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony and incorporates it herein by reference. In 

addition, the Hoopa Valley Tribe would like to add the following recommendations 

to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Treatment as a State for Tribal Governments 

It is important that Congress insist on parity for tribes throughout the Farm Bill. 

Congress should finally and permanently recognize the role of tribal governments, 

in parity with state and local governments. Tribal governments and departments 

must have the authority to engage with all of USDA and federal agencies related 

to the Farm Bill. USDA must seriously recognize and work with tribes, and provide 

tribal liaisons that are more responsive and knowledgeable about Indian Country 

issues. Tribes should receive full treatment as a state for tribal governments, including recognition of their tribal laws, authority, and jurisdiction. The Hoopa Valley 

Tribe already has a complete food code and economic development program similar 

to our local and state counterparts. 

638 Authority and Tribal Management of USDA programs 

For the Hoopa Valley Tribe, particularly as an early and successful Self-Governance Tribe, it is essential that Congress grant USDA the 638 authority necessary 

so that Hoopa and other tribes can administer and control the delivery and success 

of the many USDA programs that are important in Indian Country, especially the 

Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We know best how to administer 

these programs for our people, and who most needs food assistance and what type. 

A Hoopa led government approach will bring us more success efficiencies and engagement of our people, including the incentive to grow and produce more of our 

own locally produced traditional foods. Management of these USDA food programs 

is important both for our sovereignty and to better provide direct service to Tribal 

citizens in need of assistance. We need Congress to fully recognize our wisdom in 

providing flexibility in the management of nutritional quality of the food provided 

and culturally appropriate programming and service delivery. 

Tribes need a mechanism to more effectively engage with all the USDA agencies; 

638 authority would help that. 638 authority is particularly important in the Nutrition, Forestry, and Conservation Titles for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. Hoopa stands 

ready, as a sovereign, to administer its own food assistance programs for the benefits of our citizens. Contract support costs must be included as well. Managing our 

own nutrition and feeding programs allows us to both exercise our sovereignty in 

the best interest of our people’s nutritional needs, but also do so with an eye towards economic development and self-sufficiency. We are best equipped to know our 

own community’s needs and how best to ensure we are creating jobs at the same 

time. 

We also request that USDA incorporate more traditional foods into the variety of 

feeding programs. USDA has not fully taken advantage of the wealth of traditional 

tribal and locally grown foods for inclusion in FDPIR. USDA also needs to provide 

67 

improved technical assistance to tribes in accessing and understand USDA programming and requirements. Matching fund requirements under FDPIR should be stricken. 

Recommendations Pertaining to the 2018 Farm Bill Titles 

Commodities Title—The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that 

can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Conservation Title 

Priority: Maintain and further the flexibility of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to insure that Tribal traditional management practices, 

such as cultural burning, can be supported to manage for culturally significant 

plants, fibers, foods, and animals. 

Issue: The reimbursement incentive payment rates established for many NRCS 

practices do not adequately incentivize conservation work within Tribal contexts. 

The size/scale of operations in CA Indian Country tend to be much more diverse and 

smaller than conventional agricultural operations in other parts of the state (with 

few exceptions). Reimbursement incentive payments must reflect the distance contractors/supplies must travel to remote locations, which is a financial burden on 

many producers. 

Priority: Native producers in Hoopa only have at largest 12 acres lots to develop 

conservation planning. EQIP practices need to be more accessible to small scale producers. Tribal EQIP set asides need to be adopted as protocol within states that 

have substantial populations of Tribes to insure that the competition for program 

dollars is amongst other Tribal projects, rather than competing with substantial 

commercial agriculture operations. 

Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Trade Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Nutrition Title 

The HVIR resides in Humboldt County where 16 percent of the population receives SNAP benefits. The Hoopa Food Distribution Program services 800–900 people in 12 counties (native/non-native) and 10 Tribes in Northern California. Native 

Americans face the highest rates of obesity, heart disease, and nutritional deficiencies. With our Tribal Grocery Store set to open this spring, a Community Canning and Kitchen Facility, and irrigation infrastructure projects also in the works, 

we are constantly making strides towards our goals of selfsufficiency. By reducing 

or eliminating these programs at such a critical time, we will run the risk of being 

set back years while our local agriculture production is set to expand and flourish. 

Reducing these programs will block access to healthy, locally produced foods and 

thus reduce local producers’ ability to expand and take advantage of the favorably 

changing local market conditions that are emerging with the development of local 

markets. Shrinking local markets by eliminating these programs will also reduce job 

opportunities, while demand for locally produced goods would be lessened by the 

elimination and/or reduction of these programs. Producing more of our own goods 

and services in Hoopa, while investing in infrastructure that will allow for this, 

have been major goals of the Tribe that were formalized with the completion of our 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Eliminating funding to 

SNAP, FDPIR, WIC, Early Head Start/Head Start, and Free Lunch Programs would 

disproportionately impact our most sensitive populations (seniors, single parents, 

and children) ’within native communities across the country. This at-risk population 

includes both enrolled members of Federally-recognized Tribes and non-Indian persons who share the same living conditions. 

The Tribe’s Senior Nutrition Program has operated from a variety of funding 

sources including Federal, State, non-profit, and Tribal funds over the years. Seniors 

in the Hoopa community would be disproportionately affected by cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Beyond insuring proper nutrition, this program provides an important social outlet for seniors who otherwise might not leave 

their home or socialize with others. Over 17,000 meals were served through our programming in 2017. The Senior Nutrition program is a resource hub as well, linking 

seniors to other essential community services. In addition to a hot and healthy meal, 

the Senior program connects elders to programs that are essential to filling the gap 

in groceries in their home lives. Programs like the Food Bank offer brown bags of 

foodstuffs to seniors throughout our community, supplementing with much needed 

staples. Other food programs will work out arrangements with local farmers to prepare packages of locally grown fruits and vegetables for delivery to the homes of 

seniors. For the seniors that cannot make it to the center due to health concerns, 

68 

a home delivery option is also provided both for the hot meal and the special bagged 

food services. Cuts to this program represent the most devastating kind, targeting 

a population that does not have available resources to absorb such impacts. 

Any cuts to these programs—SNAP, FDPIR, Senior Nutrition, Early Child Care 

Lunch programs, free lunch programs, and WIC would be a great hardship on rural 

tribal communities that are located in food deserts. The impacts would disproportionately impact Indian County as a whole, making the nutrition title a primary 

focus area for tribes. 

We also request that USDA incorporate more traditional foods into the variety of 

feeding programs. USDA has not fully taken advantage of the wealth of traditional 

tribal and locally grown foods for inclusion in FDPIR. Matching fund requirements 

under FDPIR should be stricken. 

HVT recommendations include: 

• Nutrition programs utilized by Tribes throughout the country need to operate 

at current or increased funding levels. 

• Eliminate matching policies for all nutrition programming administered by 

Tribal communities to lessen the hardship for limited resource tribes. 

• Allow SSI recipients to apply for FDIRP and SNAP benefits. 

• Funding be provided to train and hire tribal food inspectors, as well as a rural 

tribal technical assistance office. 

• Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be 

incorporated herein as reference. 

Credit Title 

Access to credit for Indian Country has been an ongoing and difficult issue. Having access to a lending entity that understands Indian Country, tribal sovereignty 

and difficult financial realities is critical. Given our remote and isolated location, 

Hoopa like many tribes, lives as a ’credit desert’—tribes need equitable access to 

credit. It is important that rural lending programs are clear and explicit about their 

ability to lend to Indian Country—including with programs like the Farm Credit 

Systems. And USDA needs to ensure that banks can’t hide behind the myth that 

individual Indians can’ t mortgage land to get loans or put onerous requirements 

on such as short loan period. Due to the nature of landholding and land ownership 

in Indian Country, some clarification of this requirement is in order to help provide 

certainty for the FCS in lending in Indian Country. Access to credit through FSA 

and Rural Development must not be hampered by outdated program rules that do 

not match our credit needs. 

Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Rural Development Title 

Issue: The reimbursement stmcture for the Community Facilities grant program 

is a hardship on limited resource tribes and tribal non-profits. The seeking of outside assistance implies a lack of internal resources to begin with. Having to purchase all contracted items outright prior to receiving the cost-share reimbursement 

can keep many who need assistance out of this program. 

Solution: Structure the grant portion of the program to enable the hatching of 

purchases with a reimbursement schedule that can be paid in installments to enable 

smaller purchases and more realistic outlay of limited resources. For example: Rural 

Development could do a 50 percent upfront for each project, or reimburse in increments of25 percent for tribes, non-profits, and tribal members. 

Issue: Single Family Housing Repair Loans and Grant Program is undemtilized 

inCA Indian Country. This may be due to inadequate outreach regarding this important program, or it may also be due to the programmatic stmcture and application 

process. 

Solution: Employ Rural Development Tribal Liaisons in each state who are familiar with distinctions and issues in Indian Country to directly outreach to Tribal 

communities. Insure that that grant program applications and processes are streamlined to be more reflective of needs in Indian country. Institute Tribal fund pools 

to insure resources are earmarked for Tribal projects to minimize competition with 

municipalities and other entities. 

Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Research Title 

USDA also needs to provide improved technical assistance to tribes in accessing 

and understanding USDA programming and requirements. Outreach from extension 

69 

1For over 40 years, this area was prohibited from improvements or developments by the federal government. 2Since infrastructure is now allowed to be built, the 23rd Navajo Nation Council approved 

funding to provide 36 housing units in the area. Moving forward, the Navajo Nation will continue to work with federal officials to development basic infrastructure, housing. and economic 

development opportunities within the FBFA. 

officers to Hoopa and rural tribes has been lacking; allowing tribes and universities 

to better access FRTEP funds would help ease this challenge. 

In General, tribal liaisons in each USDA program that has depth of understanding of tribal communities and federal/sovereign laws 

Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Forestry Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be 

incorporated herein as reference. 

Energy Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be 

incorporated herein as reference. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the 

lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Crop Insurance Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that 

can be incorporated herein as reference. 

Miscellaneous 

Tribal Food Inspectors: 

As part of its economic development strategy and prioritization of locally grown, 

traditional foods, Hoopa is in the process of developing a marketplace for the processing and production of locally grown foods for market. However, federal regulations and certification requirements are burdensome and confusing. It is essential 

that the Farm Bill provide for funding of training and provision of tribal food inspectors. USDA should also create a mral tribal technical assistance office. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated 

herein as reference. 

Thank you for receiving the recommendations from the Hoopa Valley Tribe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL BEGAYE, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION

As the elected leaders of the Navajo Nation we write to outline our priorities for 

the 2018 Farm Bill. We urge you as leaders of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to support these priorities to be included in the final Farm Bill. 

The Navajo Nation’s land base is 28,000 square miles across Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The Navajo Nation faces many of the same issues as other rural 

American communities. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is approximately 40 

percent and the labor force participation rate is significantly higher. There is a serious lack of access to high-speed broadband which reduces economic opportunity. The 

Navajo Nation also relies heavily on employment at two rural coal fired power 

plants. The Nation also faces several federally-created economic and legal barriers 

such as the Former Bennett Freeze Area (FBFA) 1 a congressionally authorized 

freeze on any building development on Navajo and Hopi lands from 1966 to 2009 2

and the Gold King Mine Spill, an environmental mining spill caused by the Environmental Protection Agency that contaminated the San Juan River, which is used by 

Navajo farmers and ranchers. 

While there are many challenges that need federal attention, the Navajo Nation 

is using its own resources to fund infrastructure projects. The Navajo Nation has 

sought to of leverage our own funds with the assistance of federal, state, or private 

entities. Some of these projects will be highlighted in this letter. While we have had 

some success, the Navajo Nation will continue to request and advocate for additional 

federal funding and programs to supplement financing its own projects. The Nation 

also tmW be eligible to participate in any federal matching funds that are available 

to states. 

The upcoming changes to the Farm Bill will have a substantial impact on Navajo’s agriculture production, economic development, job growth, infrastructure improvement, technological innovation, energy security and quality of life of our citizens. It is critical that the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people participate in this 

opportunity to update the Farm Bill. 

Program Self-Governance. 1be Farm Bill presents a tremendous opportunity 

for USDA program administration reform and tribal self-governance. The Nation requests the Committee on Indian Affairs create the statutory authority for Indian 

tribes to administer nutrition and other USDA programs. Such a self-governance 

70 

3The SNAP is a state-administered program that does not administer demographic data. 

4 USDA FY 2018 Budget Summary pg. 30. 

5 In early July, the Navajo Nation was able to successfully finalize an agreement with the 

NGS owners to allow the power plant to remain in operation until the end of 2019. Since lease 

extension, the Navajo Nation to seek new owners and operators of the power plant. Aside from 

securing new owners and operators, there remains the challenge of securing power purchase 

agreements in order to continue selling the power that is generated at the plant beyond 2019 

keeping the future of continued operations uncertain. 6 American Indians on five reservations are exposed to mill tailings that are the radioactive 

byproduct of uranium mining and milling that helped the federal government win WWII and 

the Cold War. Currently there is research being conducted on the links of Uranium exposure 

to cancer and other medical issues. 7Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, (7 U.S.C. 950bb). 

8Section 2333(d)(5) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, (7 U.S.C. 

950aaa-2). 

program has already proven to be effective in direct service delivery and local governance, both with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and with the Indian Health 

Service. It is critical Congress take advantage of this opportunity to modernize 

USDA program administration and direct service delivery. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While the exact numbers of Navajo citizens receiving SNAP is unknown, 3 the County Community Data 

Profile of Navajo County, AZ found that an average of 30 percent of Navajo households were receiving SNAP in 2013. This emphasizes the need to continue the SNAP 

program in the Farm Bill; however, the SNAP program can better serve tribal members if the Farm Bill also authorizes Indian tribes to manage and administer SNAP. 

Presently, Navajo citizens have to apply through the state creating difficulties for 

our citizens in traveling long distances and additional administrative/economic burdens for state agencies. 

Rural Development. President Trump’s USDA Budget Request for FY 2018 re- quested an $80 million set-aside for rural infrastructure grants to be used for Distance Learning and Telemedicine, Broadband, Community Facilities and housing in 

the Appalachia Region. 4 The Navajo Nation would like to request a portion of the 

overall requested $162 million for Indian tribes located on Indian reservations affected by declining coal. In February 2017, the owners of the Navajo Generating 

Station (NGS) informed the Navajo Nation that they intended to shut down the 

coal-burning power plant due to the low price of natural gas as opposed to the cost 

of burning coal. While the plant remains open, the future of the plant and the more 

3,000 jobs connected to the plant remains uncertain. 5 Thirty-five percent of homes 

on the Navajo Nation lack access to electricity, running water, wastewater, and 

other utility services. The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), a Navajo-owned 

utility company, has previously taken advantage of USDA Rural Utility Service 

(RUS) loans and grants for Water Security Systems, telecommunications programs, 

electric programs, and energy programs. Recently, the NTUA built a solar plant to 

help with energy security on a coal dependent community and received an RUS loan 

that helped putting the cost on the rate-payers on the Navajo Nation. 

Community Facilities. Cost savings for individual residents, such as NTUA’s 

use of the RUS loans, frees up household income to be spend in other areas of the 

Navajo economy. For example, travel costs for cancer treatment. Typical cancer 

treatment requires fifty medical visits, which requires a round trip visit for a patient who lives on an Indian reservation, that can total 8,000 miles in all. The Indian Health Service has no cancer treatment budget and a dedicated source of federal funding is needed for tribes to launch their own cancer treatment programs. 6

The Navajo Nation requests the Rural Development Community facilities Program 

be reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill to provide grants for oncology programs and 

facilities on Indian reservations. 

E-Connectivity. The Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation needs more quality 

Internet access. The NTUA has received a USDA Community Connect Grant 7 to 

provide Internet access for a portion of the Eastern Agency. The Navajo Nation 

would like to request increased funding and to allow for ‘‘tribal ownership’’ to count 

for a higher grant score for Community Connect Grants. In addition, the Navajo Nation would like to gain access to spectrum in the area. The Navajo Nation would 

like to see additional resources for broadband access including allowing tribal governments to establish competitive grants for carriers, allowing refinancing for 

projects that serve substantially underserved trust areas, and including more Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants 8 projects on Indian reservations. 

Individual Farmers and Ranchers. Many individuals participate in conservation efforts in order to improve land to launch new farms and ranches. For example, 

the community of Many Farms is a unique fanning community with a 25,000 acre 

71 

9Section 11026 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L 113–79, (7 U.S.C. 1523). 

10 American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act. Pub. L 103–177. 11The Watershed Planning Team is for 5-years and is for watershed pursuant to Pub. L. 83– 

566. 12 In January 2016, the Navajo Nation Council approved a historic legislation that funded 

$180 million for bulk water projects and water sanitation projects—marking the largest ever 

water infrastructure investment by the Navajo Nation. In September 2017, the Navajo Nation 

broke ground on the first of several bulk water infrastructure projects in the community of 

Greasewood, Arizona. 

foot lake and the potential to dramatically expand their fanning operations. There 

are many families who would like the opportunity to develop farmland in their communities, but the lack of start-up resources is a challenge. Community farms and 

ranches produce fresh foods for families and businesses and provide healthier food 

options for people on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation would like to reauthorize and meaningfully increase funding for the Beginning farmer and Rancher Development Program in the 2018 farm Bill. 

Infrastructure. Currently, the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) provides 

water for the Navajo Nation’s international agribusiness Navajo Agriculture Products Industry (NAPI). Despite Congress passing the NIIP in 1964, the project has 

yet to be fully constructed. We request the complete construction of a portion of 

NIIP known as ‘‘Block 9,’’ which consists of early 10,000 acres. Construction is the 

responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). We request the appropriations 

cap be lifted for construction costs and that construction appropriations be increased 

to finally complete the NIIP. 

After construction, the BOR then transfers the project to the BIA for maintenance. Federal funding has decreased from approximately $24 million annually to 

a current low of $3.3 million for O&M costs. The Navajo Nation would like to see 

increased O&M funds for the NIIP. Based on a 2012 study by researchers at the 

University of Arizona and economists with Compass-Lexecon Consulting, NAPI has 

lost approximately $4 billion thanks to federal inability to complete construction. 

The NIIP is not able to reach its full capacity in terms of revenue, production, and 

job creation due to the funding deficiencies. 

Funding Parity and Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans & Grants. In April 

2016, the Navajo Nation Council approved the ’’Permanent Trust Fund Income FiveYear Expenditure Plan,’’ which provides $150 million to increase economic, community, and agricultural development. The funding for the expenditure plan is derived 

from the interest, earned from the Navajo Nation’s Permanent Trust Fund’s principal balance. We seek to maximize the usage of outside funding to supplement to 

cost of developing the project listings over the five-year period. We urge Congress 

to ensure that tribes are eligible for any and all matching funds available to states. 

In addition, the we request the Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans and Grants to 

be reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill to assist traveling agriculture workers. 

Crop Insurance. The Navajo Nation owns 26 tribal ranches and allows individuals to produce and maintain livestock on the ranches and participates in the USDA 

Farm Risk Agency Pasture, Rangeland, Forage (PRF) Pilot Insurance Program, 

which allows financial protection against drought for production of losses for grazing 

or harvested hay. The Navajo Nation requests the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is authorized to continue the PRF Pilot Insurance Program. 9

Due to low commodity prices and other industry factors, the NAPI seeks innovative ways to reduce pest populations and promote its international sales. The Navajo 

Nation supports the protection of agricultural resources and international marketing through the USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Agricultural 

Marking Services program. 

Conservation. Conservation is a priority for the Navajo Nation, and order to 

minimize duplicative reviews, we request that USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRSC) accept the more detailed Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) grazing 

plans 10 for the USDA conservation programs. 

The Navajo Nation participates in several USDA Conservation Programs including Environmental Quality Incentive Programs (EQUIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), 

which provide financial assistance to install and maintain conservation practices. In 

2017, the Navajo Nation participate in the RCPP to establish a Watershed Planning 

team 11 for watersheds in the Little Colorado River Basin, which is about 25 percent 

of the Navajo Nation. Watershed studies are important for the region to access quality water sources. 12 Quality water is a challenge due to uranium mining and environmental accidents such as the Gold King Mine. The Navajo Nation would like to 

its preserve funding for RCPP. 

72 

The Navajo Nation requests CSP, EQIP, and RCPP grants be reauthorized beyond 

2018. The Navajo Nation would like to see these programs cover contracted acres 

where the covered entity still grows the covered crops and to see additional outreach 

to Navajo producers. In order to provide additional outreach, the we would like to 

keep Natural Resources Conservation Service offices specifically in St Michaels and 

Chinle, Arizona to retain Navajo Nation members conservation engagement. 

Customer Service. The Navajo Nation would like any USDA reorganization efforts to increase Indian tribe’s prosperity and that support for prosperity on tribal 

lands is elevated within the USDA. In order to continue progress and improvement 

of USDA-tribal relations, we request Congress make The Council on Native American Farming and Ranching13 a permanent13 statutory advisory committee beyond 

2018. 

The Navajo Nation is looks forward to working with the Committee on moving 

forward our priorities for the 2018 Farm Bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. AMBER TORRES, CHAIRMAN, WALKER RIVER PAIUTE

TRIBE

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Walker River Paiute Tribe of Schurz, Nevada, we write to submit 

testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure 

that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. We joined the Native 

Farm Bill Coalition on October 12, 2017 with Resolution WR–1 04–2017 and wholeheartedly support their ongoing efforts to support the Farm Bill reauthorization and 

advocate for greater Native inclusions in future Farm bills. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

Our reservation is located in rural Nevada, located in the northwestern part of 

the state. Our reservation town is Schurz, Nevada. Our land base covers 325,000 

acres of land that includes three counties—Mineral, Lyon and Churchill. We service 

3,643 members on our reservation. 

Farmers on our reservation grow alfalfa crops on small farms (est. 20 acres). We 

have a Cattleman’s Association made up of tribal members that graze 550 head of 

livestock within the reservation boundaries. We incorporate our traditional foods 

into our everyday lifestyle that our people have lived on for thousands of years, including Pinenuts, Buckberries, fish, deer and small animals such as rabbit and wild 

turkey. 

We have and continue to work with our nearby USDA representatives in utilizie 

funding from the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, through the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service and emergency type programs from the Farm Service 

Agency. We were also fortunate to receive a fireworks building through the Rural 

Development program a few years ago; this allowed for a great economic boost to 

our tribe. 

Agriculture is a very important component for our community, and a way of life 

for most. The Walker River Paiute Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill. 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts. 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs. 

• Include Tribes, Native Organizations and Natives in all phases of drafting regulations for programs that will impact Indian country. 

In addition, the Walker River Paiute Tribe supports the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. We are noting 

a couple of our priorities below: 

Nutrition Title: This is the most important pnonty to our reservation as we have 

a high population of unemployment. The access to the Food Distribution Programs 

on Indian Reservations is critical to our population’s health and well-being. The 

tribal members also appreciate the availability of the traditional foods that have 

been incorporated into the food packages, along with the fresh fruits and vegetables. 

The Supplemental Food Assistant Program is very vital within our community as 

73 

well, as this supports a majority of our tribal members as well and allows them to 

make smart and healthy decisions for their households. The Women, Infant and 

Children program is a much needed program on our reservations to make sure that 

our children are getting access to all the nutritional values that they need on a daily 

basis to become strong, healthy indigenous leaders of tomorrow. Our Tribe wants 

to make sure that these programs get full funding with no budget cuts as this is 

a trust responsibility of the Federal Government to our Native population. 

Commodities Title: The tribes know that the NAP program is funded at 75 percent currently and would like to see this increase to at least 90 percent of agricultural funding. Access to food, and markets is a huge barrier, and policies should be 

designed to keep this in mind. Tribes should be at the table for meaningful feedback 

and consultation when drafting regulations that would impacts how they can serve 

their population. 

The entire Farm Bill has programs, funding and resources that our Tribe and others depend on. We are requesting that there be no funding cuts to any of the programs. We are also endorsing any and all recommendations as brought forth by the 

Native Farm Bill Coalition. 

We also want to advocate for a meeting of the Tribal Nations across Indian country to have good, meaningful consultation with you and others to discuss this bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM IYALL, P.E., CHAIRMAN, COWLITZ INDIAN

TRIBE

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, we respectfully submit testimony for the 

record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe represents our area of historic interest on the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington. We are the stewards of the land. The 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe was restored to federal recognition in 2000. We received a 

small reservation in 2015. The U.S. Forest Service National Forest system has been 

important to our people, as we continue to gather our traditional and cultural resources primarily on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. There are a wide variety 

of resources we have always utilized from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for 

survival and trading purposes. This activity pre-dates any land-management policies 

of the United States. 

Among the primary sources of material or traditional and cultural purposes, 

Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) is one that is very significant to us. Cedar bark 

and roots were and still are used for many reasons, such as cedar woven hats and 

clothing. Cedar wood was and is used for making longhouses, canoes, and traditional art carvings. Traditionally, this source was important to maintain our way 

of life, and today it also serves to maintain our culture and economies. Other significant products include black huckleberry, beargrass, mountain goat wool, mushrooms, cones, salal, river rock, and poles. 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe works with Gifford Pinchot National Forest staff to coordinate Cowlitz tribal resource gathering. This gathering is established through inherent right and through the Memorandum of Understanding and Letter of Authorization specifically outlining the Forest Service’s understanding that natural resources are vital to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s economic, religious, spiritual, and cultural life ways. 

Considering our community, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill. 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts. 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs. 

In addition, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe supports the following amendment to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Forestry Title VIII 

74 

SEC. 8105. FOREST PRODUCTS FOR TRADITIONAL AND CULTURAL PURPOSES. 

(a) In General—Notwithstanding section 14 of the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Secretary may provide free of charge to Indian 

tribes any trees, portions of trees, or forest products from National Forest System 

land for traditional and cultural purposes. 

(b) Prohibition-Trees, portions of trees, or forest products provided under subsection (a) may not be used for commercial purposes. 

(strike above existing language for subsection (b) and insert the replacement 

below) 

(b) Trees, portions of trees, or forest products provided under subsection (a) may 

be used for traditional or cultural purposes by Indian tribes of which the final products rendered from forest resources may be used for commercial purposes. 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe asserts that our traditional and cultural practices included bartering, trading, and, in modern parlance, sale of carvings, canoes, and 

other wood products as a normal traditional or cultural practice. A tremendous 

amount of traditional, cultural products can be derived from just a few trees. Some 

products, such as cedar bark, do not destroy the resource when harvested in the traditional manner. Much of the wood materials we gather comes from already downed 

trees, which we salvage in partnership with the Forest Service. For our Tribe, Tribal 

members who sell or barter their traditional and cultural products do so for nominal 

gain (monetarily speaking) in order to continue their practice due to the costs associated with raw product acquisition, etc. Our Tribe has sustainably harvested forest 

products since time beyond memory. We don’t intend to do anything different for 

future practices. 

We thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 2018 Farm Bill. Our ability 

and our tribal members’ ability to continue to practice our traditional and cultural 

rights are connected to the US Forest Service and primarily Titles II and VIII. We 

emphasize the importance of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Anchor Forests 

to our Tribe and the United States. We encourage wise and thoughtful management. 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is committed stewarding our community towards ethical, 

environmentally sensitive resource conservation and utilization 

Attachment: Dated September 29, 2014: Comments regarding: Sale and Disposal 

of National Forest System Timber; Forest Products for Traditional and Cultural 

Purposes. 

Dear Director, 

I am writing on behalf of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe regarding your proposed rule 

to formally implement section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill. The Cowlitz Tribe was 

restored to federal recognition in 2000. Although federally recognized, we have yet 

to receive a reservation of our own. Without a land base, we continue to rely upon 

National Forest System lands to gather resources for traditional and cultural purposes. We will also be dependent on receiving resources on Forest Service lands 

even after we receive our reservation. There are a wide variety of resources we have 

always utilized from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for survival and trading 

purposes. This activity pre-dates any land-management policies of the United 

States. 

Among the primary sources of material for traditional and cultural purposes, 

Western Red Cedar is one that is very significant to us. Cedar bark and roots were 

and still are used for many reasons, such as cedar woven hats, and clothing. Cedar 

wood was and still is used for making longhouses, canoes, and traditional art carvings. Traditionally, this source was important to maintain our way of life, and today 

it also serves to maintain our culture. 

Although we appreciate the Forest Service providing an avenue for our Tribe to 

receive forest products through section 8105 of the Farm Bill, we have already been 

securing forest products from the Forest Service before the 2008 Farm Bill. Through 

our inherent right to the resource and continued positive relationship with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, we plan to continue to secure necessary resources as 

we have always done. Provisions of section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill should not 

impact or trump our previous rights to forest products for traditional and cultural 

purposes, including the nominal barter and trade of the ‘‘art’’ or subsistence material derived from the forest products. 

We would like to mention that although this draft rule provides to the Tribe the 

ability to secure forest products free of charge, there still is a cost born on the Tribe 

for the planning, implementation of securing our traditional resource, and the processing of raw material. One of the reasons the Tribe secures forest products is to 

provide cultural (artistic) products for display at tribal centers, at various centers 

75 

within our neighboring communities, at museums, at other tribal centers, etc. This 

is important to us, and provides multiple benefits. It fosters positive relations and 

increases awareness and appreciation of who we are within the community and beyond. In many cases, we receive requests from outside our Tribe for traditional and 

cultural products that are derived from forest products. The only way we can uphold 

and follow through with requests is to receive forest products from National Forest 

System lands. There are also other tribes who are challenged on securing a source 

of suitable wood products of which we can assist given the rich resources within our 

traditional territory of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. All of the examples mentioned come at a cost to the Tribe. The draft rule doesn’t explain or describe our 

ability to recoup any costs born on the Tribe. In order for our Tribe to fully utilize 

the provisions under this rule, we will need the freedom to find ways to recoup 

costs, and the ability to barter and trade to keep important programs alive concerning the products derived from forest products. 

The draft rule mentions that sale and/or barter concerns will be handled through 

anticipated special forest products rule promulgation. We think that it is necessary 

that ‘‘wood products’’ utilized for traditional and cultural purposes (including sale 

and/or barter) needs to be further addressed. 

For at least our Tribe, we have the opinion that any sale or barter concerns associated with traditional and cultural products will not amount to any significant concerns for the Forest Service. A tremendous amount of priceless cultural and traditional products can be derived from just a few trees. Some products (such as cedar 

bark) don’t even destroy the resource when harvested properly. Much of the wood 

materials we gather from the forest come from already downed trees of which we 

salvage in partnership with the Forest Service. For our Tribe, Tribal members who 

sell or barter their traditional and cultural products do so for nominal gain (monetarily speaking) in order to continue their practice due to the costs. The tribal/regional benefit of the ability to have these forest derived traditional/cultural products 

is priceless. Our Tribe has sustainably harvested forest products since time beyond 

memory. We don’t intend to do anything different for future practices. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on ruling connected to forest products for traditional and cultural purposes. Our ability and our tribal members’ ability of continuing to practice our traditional and cultural rights are dependent on our 

ability to recoup costs in order to sustain that practice. Again, this draft rule doesn’t 

address the concerns brought forward. We request to be directly contacted on future 

rulemaking as it pertains to all forest products important to our Tribe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD TRAHAN, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH

AND KOOTENAI TRIBES

Introduction 

Greetings Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee. My name is Ronald Trahan, Chairman of the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) located in western Montana. Thank you for this opportunity 

to provide written testimony concerning tribal agriculture, agribusiness opportunities in Indian Country, and the Farm Bill. The January 17th Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs hearing was timely as the Farm Bill is up for reauthorization this 

year. 

The CSKT of the Flathead Indian Reservation are comprised of three tribes: the 

Salish, the Pend d’Oreille, and the Kootenai. Our ancestors lived in the territory 

now known as western Montana, parts of Idaho, British Columbia, and Wyoming. 

The CSKT aboriginal territory exceeded 20 million acres at the time of the signing 

of the Hellgate Treaty on July 16, 1855. From th e signing ofthe Treaty until 

present day, the CSKT call the 1.3 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation its 

home. 

Although our Reservation was opened up to homesteading over 100 years ago with 

the passage of the Flathead Allotment Act and its Amendments, our tribes have 

worked hard for many decades to buy back lands within our Reservation. Today the 

CSKT own over 60 percent of lands within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead 

Indian Reservation. Through a compact with the BIA, the CSKT manage 345 agricultural leases on over 104,000 acres of tribally owned and allotted lands. The 

Tribes also manage 54 range unit permits on over 385,000 acres of tribally owned 

lands. 

The health and welfare of our tribal membership is ofthe utmost importance. Having access to nutritious and traditional foods is a priority for our Tribes. Clean 

drinking water is also crucial for the well-being of our people. The availability of 

economically viable jobs through farming, ranching, forestry, preservation, and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
76 

struction are vital for the protection of our agricultural lands, forests, and natural 

resources. 

The CSKT are a member of the Native Farm Bill Coalition. The Coalition is made 

up of tribes and organizations including the Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC), 

the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and the Intertribal Food and 

Agriculture Initiative (IFAI) that have identified priorities to be included in the 

2018 Farm Bill. Discussed below are some of the priorities for the CSKT (many of 

which we share with the Coalition) for the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization. 

Nutrition 

The CSKT were encouraged that the 2014 Farm Bill included some significant 

provisions for tribes with respect to nutrition programs. For example, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Traditional Foods Demonstration Project 

(FDPIR), which is a federal program that provides USDA foods to low-income households, including the elderly, living on Indian reservations, created a new demonstration project with technical assistance and tribal consultation to allow the inclusion 

of traditional and locally grown foods from Native farmers, ranchers, and producers 

in FDPIR. For the 2018 Farm Bill, in addition to opposing further cuts to nutrition 

programs, tribes like the CSKT and tribal organizations are pushing for changes to 

allow tribes greater authority to administer nutrition programs by providing tribal 

governments and tribal organizations the direct authority to administer Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all other federal food assistance 

programs which they are currently not allowed to directly manage. This can be 

achieved by providing tribes with 638 self-governance contract authority for nutrition programs, similar to that which exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health Service programs. Changes to the FDPIR program could include eliminating or limiting the matching funds requirement for each of the FDPIR program 

sites to participate; providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state counterpart 

programs by allowing them to carryover unspent funds from year to year; requiring 

FDPIR traditional food purchases (for example bison, salmon, and other products) 

to be a regular part of food package purchases and not require supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods; and requiring the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to engage in further consultation with tribes to improve the 

FDPIR program. 

Rural Development 

As you are aware, Rural Development (RD) programs at USDA offer loans, grants 

and loan guarantees to support economic development and essential services in 

rural areas through support for housing, health care, first responder services and 

equipment, and water, electric and communications infrastructure. These RD programs are vitally important to tribal governments, communities, individual Indian 

producers, and tribal businesses. In many cases the grants and loans offered byRD 

are the only financing tools available to tribes and neighboring communities to enhance or build new infrastructure. Over the years many tribes have experienced difficulty in accessing RD programs at USDA so Congress included a provision in the 

2008 Farm Bill that was intended to give USDA enhanced authority to finance 

projects on tribal lands-this is known as the Substantially Underserved Trust Areas 

(SUTA) provisions. SUTA applies to some, but not all, RD programs and authorities 

(mainly to basic infrastructure such as water and electric) and allowed those beneficiaries who could demonstrate that they existed in a ‘‘substantially underserved 

trust area’’ to gain access to important waivers of program requirements, lower interest rates, longer repayment terms, and similar assistance through RD programs. 

Broadening SUTA in the 2018 Farm Bill to include all RD programs would help ensure more equitable access to RD programs and authorities, and the change would 

allow the waiver of matching requirements for projects funded through RD. Matching requirements can be a significant barrier to socially disadvantaged applicant 

participation in RD business and infrastructure projects. 

A tribal set aside for rural development programs is also needed as many applications from tribes for funding under RD programs have been denied in recent years. 

Further, establishing a permanent office providing technical assistance across all 

RD funding authorities is needed due to the complexities of lending and infrastructure establishment in Indian Country. This office could prepare and monitor lessons 

learned, establish user-friendly application systems, and assist staff at the tribal or 

business level in preparing applications. Other provisions of interest to be included 

in the RD title ofthe bill include ensuring that the position of Under Secretary for 

Rural Development at USDA is maintained, as the primary duties of this position 

are to focus on RD programs and funding for Indian Country and rural America. 

77 

Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions at USDA 

Changes to many offices and programs at USDA could help expand Native participation in agriculture. A broad reaching Office of Tribal Agriculture should be established within the Office of the Secretary to coordinate all USDA programs applicable 

to tribes. This Office could maximize the value of the programs, address issues in 

compliance and access of programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve as 

a liaison between the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian producers. The Office of 

Tribal Agriculture should also be required to report to Congress at least once annually on its activities and progress in advancing tribal agriculture interests. Adequate 

funding for the existing Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at USDA is needed to ensure that the OTR has the needed resources to provide education, training and technical assistance to tribes so USDA programs and services can be better accessed. 

USDA could also establish a new scholarship and training program to assist in 

training the tribal agricultural workforce and encourage Native students to pursue 

careers in agriculture. Creating an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian Agriculture with the OTR, the Office of the Secretary, and representatives of other agencies and offices across USDA, along with the BIA would help to examine and develop administrative efficiency and regulatory changes needed to help ensure Native 

agricu lture is supported and has mechanisms to grow. USDA should also be required to recruit and appoint tribal members to all of the federal advisory committees it seats and supports. 

Research and Education 

Changes to research and education programs at USDA can enhance the development of tribal research, education, and Native youth participation in agriculture by 

making programs and funding more accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities 

(TCUs}, and supporting a tribally led focus on traditional knowledges and practices. 

One item is to strengthen funding for the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension 

Program (FRTEP) that provides support to Extension programs on Ind ian Reservations to address the needs and problems of Tribes. FRTEP helps to build Indian 

community capacity through 4–H and tribal youth development, agriculture and 

natural resource management, and entrepreneurship and business development, 

and seeks to address inequities in educating and developing Native American extension resource programming and Native youth in food and agriculture programming. 

Making TCUs eligible for funding under al l programs administered by the USDA’s 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA} programs would help TCU extension personnel better serve tribes. Further, creating a tribal set aside for NIFA programs and requiring NIFA to focus a portion of their work on building knowledge 

and capacity in business development unique to tribal lands and individual Indian 

owned land would allow tribes to better access and utilize these programs. Changes 

could also be made to allow tribal governments and tribal organizations full access 

to all nutrition education programs at NIFA, including SNAP-Ed—which is an evidence-based program that teaches people using or eligible for SNAP about good nutrition and how to make their food dollars stretch further. Thus, giving tribes full 

access to SNAP-Ed and all research programs would help build knowledge in nutrition, health, obesity, and diabetes prevention in tribal communities. 

Conservation 

Changes to agriculture conservation programs to improve coordination between 

the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS} and the Bureau of Indian Affairs would help ensure that tribal producers have access to conservation 

programs and other USDA programs that require an NRCS-approved conservation 

plan. This could be achieved in the Conservation title of the Farm Bill by explicitly 

including ‘‘tribes’’ or ‘‘tribal’’ where ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producers are mentioned to ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs. Further, all 

tribal lands falling under the jurisdiction of the BIA, tribal governments, tribal agricultural entities, and individual tribal producers, landowners, or land operators 

should receive mandatory priority consideration for al l conservation programs authorized in the Farm Bill. The bill should also direct funding to USDA to provide 

technical assistance to tribes and tribal producers so they can better utilize and access conservation programs. 

Commodities and Credit 

Further improvements can be made to Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs to 

address the availability, efficiency and application of credit programs to producers 

in Indian Country. Specifically, changes are needed to FSA loans to allow producers 

to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input materials, replacement stock, or 

expansion opportunities, and incentivize operating from available resources. ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
78 

ducers should be able to restructure their debt in a manner that will not count towards lifetime limits on loan servicing. Creation of a joint administrative team at 

USDA and BIA with the role of reviewing and updating federal practices and regulations that hinder tribal food production, tribal food system lending, and tribal loan 

servicing would also help producers. With respect to commodity programs, modifications can be made to enhance and protect the ability of tribal producers to participate in the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, Supplemental Agricultural Disaster 

Assistance Programs, and other USDA programs that provide emergency relief 

funds for livestock. Changes should also be made to ensure that tribal producers are 

represented on FSA County Committees. Producers who serve on these committees 

help decide the kind of programs their counties will offer and they work to make 

sure FSA agricultural programs serve the needs of local producers. The FSA should 

conduct an assessment based on Census data and Agricultural Census data to determine the population makeup of the county and conduct tribal consultation with tribal governments to guarantee that tribal citizens are effectively notified of the opportunity to be nominated and considered for county committee membership. All FSA 

county committees in areas with significant tribal population and/or tribal land base 

areas should have correlating Native membership. 

Forestry 

The Farm Bill could include improvements to the Tribal Forest Protection Act 

(TFPA) to allow tribes to better access, manage and develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect tribal resources and provide jobs and economic development. Proposals from forestry legislation introduced in previous Congresses mandating timelines for review, approval and implementation of TFPA projects are 

needed because of the underperformance of the current TFPA authority. While the 

TFPA was signed into law in 2004, only three projects have been fully implemented, 

while others have been mired in years of delay and red tape. This has led to tribal 

forest lands remaining at high risk of wildfire coming from adjacent federal lands. 

Modernizing TFPA would give tribes the certainty to pursue TFPA projects with 

their federal neighbors and reduce the risk of wildfire migrating from federal lands 

onto Indian trust land. Specifically, allowing for greater tribal participation in TFPA 

projects by authorizing a discretionary pilot program to allow the application of 638 

contracting authority to TFPA projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands is needed. Authorization for the USDA to fund a Native 

American forestry workforce coordination and development program administered 

through an intertribal organization with expertise in Tribal forestry issues could 

help address workforce issues and the growing shortage of trained workers for the 

management and operation of Indian forests. This shortage of forest workers constrains the ability of tribes and related federal agencies to effectively manage and 

protect tribal forests and forest-related natural resources and to participate in 

broader landscape-based forest management activities. Ensuring that all Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) are eligible to access federal programs to support 

them in offering degree programs in forestry and helping the schools perform tribally and state-relevant forestry research and develop a well-trained Native forestry 

workforce would also be beneficial. 

Any wildfire provisions in the Farm Bill should ensure that tribal forests are appropriately prioritized for fire suppression activities and funding. In 2017 alone, 

there were over 60 fires that burned over 33,000 acres on our Reservation. As you 

know, the current system which places the protection of private structures above 

that of tribal forest has led in the past to crews being pulled off wildfires on Indian 

lands and reassigned to protecting private structures. This leads to the unneeded 

loss of timber that is vitally important to tribal economies. Providing authority to 

develop more Anchor Forest initiatives will help with forest health and management. The Inter-Tribal Timber Council, its member Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service, 

and other forest resource stakeholders recently completed a pilot study in Washington State and issued a report on an ‘‘Anchor Forest’’ concept to foster landscapescale forest collaboration and management projects intended to improve forest 

health while preserving local loggi ng, milling, and other critical infrastructure. Ensuring tribal consultation to protect sacred tribal areas and requiring tribal representation on all local, regional and national planning and implementation advisory committees at the USDA and the U.S. Forest Service is also critical so tribes 

have a say in policy making and management. 

Conclusion 

I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to discuss 

the importance of agricu lture, nutrition, and cultural resource preservation for our 

Tribes. It is vital that the upcoming Farm Bill includes input from Indian Country 

79 

and allows tribes and their membership equa l access to USDA programs and funding opportunities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY JANE MILES, CHAIRMAN, NEZ PERCE TRIBE

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice-Chairman Udall: 

The Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) submits this testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the 

upcoming Farm Bill. In addition, while Congress considers the Farm Bill this session, the Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with 

the Senate Agriculture Committee to address Indian agriculture in this important 

legislation. 

Since time immemorial, the Tribe has occupied and used over 13 million acres of 

land now comprising north-central Idaho, southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, 

and parts of Montana. The current Nez Perce Reservation covers approximately 

750,000 acres, 38,000 of which is used for agricultural purposes. Like all governments, the Tribe has profound economic, social, and political impact on the regional 

economy and is one of the largest employers in north-central Idaho. 

The Tribe provides many services that fall under the purview of the Farm Bill. 

For example, in 2013, the Tribe established the Tribal Agricultural Center (TAC) 

with the mission of producing local, sustainable, and healthy food for the Nimiipuu 

and surrounding communities. The TAC, in coordination with U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is developing 

guidelines for best agricultural management practices on tribal lands, monitoring 

compliance, evaluating agricultural impacts to resources and traditional gatherers 

on tribal lands, and developing restoration protocols for traditional food and Eber 

plants. 

The Tribe currently provides daily services across the Nez Perce Reservation 

through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). The Tribe has also been able 

to expand and provide telecommunication and broadband services throughout the 

Nez Perce Reservation with assistance from the Rural Utility Service programs. 

Considering the state of programs in Indian Country contained in past iterations 

of the Farm Bill, the Tribe requests that both the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation 

regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal governmental parity with state and local governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill. 

• Tribal administration of the SNAP and all federal food assistance programs, 

such as FDPIR, through 638 Contracts. 

• Expansion of the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision 

across all rural development programs. 

In addition, the Tribe supports inclusion of the following recommendations, set 

forth by the Native Farm Bill Coalition, in any agriculture legislation¥ during this 

Congress. 

Commodities Title 

• Ensure tribal producers’ eligibility for all disaster assistance programs in this 

Title, and increase payments to 90 percent of value to acknowledge their unique 

land and market issues. 

• Create parity for tribal producers in Farm Service Agency Committees and decision-making. 

Conservation Title 

• USDA conservation programs must allow for the use of traditional and ecological knowledge-based conservation practices. 

• Cross-agency coordination between the NRCS and Bureau of Indian Affairs 

must be improved to ensure all tribal producers have access to conseryation programs and other USDA programs that require an NRCS-approved conservation 

plan. 

• Parity must be achieved throughout the Conservation Title by explicitly including ‘‘tribes’’ or ‘‘tribal’’ where ‘‘State’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producers are mentioned to ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs. 

80 

Trade Title 

• Support and maintain tribal food and agriculture businesses’ entry into foreign 

markets by expanding Indian Country’s access to the Market Access Program 

and protecting unique tribal foods against fraud. 

• Improve interdepartmental coordination and tribal government and individual 

Indian producer inclusion on all U.S. trade missions. 

Nutrition Title 

• Indian Country needs a consistent, comprehensive, and tribal-led approach to 

tailor federal food assistance programs to the specific needs of tribal communities and citizens. 

• Tribes should be allowed the option to enter into Self-Determination Contracts 

pursuant to P.L. 93–638 for administration of the SNAP and all other federal 

feeding programs. 

• Funding, flexibility and infrastructure of the FDPIR needs to be improved. 

Credit Title 

• Improvements must continue to be made to Farm Service Agency programs to 

address the availability, efficiency, and application of credit programs in Indian 

Country. 

Rural Development Title 

• Recognizing the United States’ trust responsibility to the Tribe, the Rural Development (RD) programs at the USDA must have dedicated funding and technical assistance for tribal governments to ensure that tribal communities and 

the rural communities around them thrive. 

• Tribes must be consulted during the restructuring of the USDA’s RD agency 

due to its unique impact on tribal economies and tribal economic development. 

Any budget shifts must be subject to meaningful tribal consultation before 

changes occur. 

Research Title 

• Research Title programs must allow for the development of tribal research, education, and Native youth in agriculture by making programs and funding more 

accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), support a tribally led 

focus on traditional knowledge and practices, and provide additional opportunities for education. 

• The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) must be funded 

at a minimum of $10 million to address the persistent inequity in educating and 

developing Native American extension resource programming and Native youth 

in food and agriculture programming. 

• Dedicated funding and tribal preference at the National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture must be provided to develop tribal research and educational capacity. 

• All institutions (non-TCUs) that receive any funding for extension programming 

in states that have tribal lands and tribal producers must be required to report 

and demonstrate their work with tribal governments, tribal communities, and 

tribal producers and their cooperative and respectful coordination with TCUs in 

close proximity. Further, these institutions should be required to conduct a percentage of their overall work that is equal to the amount of land in the state 

held by Indians and Indian farms in those states. All such extension programming must be done with Indian communities and by staff experienced in and 

having knowledge of issues important to Indian Country. 

Forestry Title 

• Tribes must be provided parity throughout the Forestry Title to better access, 

manage, and develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect tribal 

resources while also providing jobs and economic development. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title 

• Many traditional Native foods fall under the designation of horticulture crops 

and are necessary to support food sovereignty and healt— food access in Indian 

Country. USDA programs which oversee horticulture crops must engage in tribal consultation to ensure the unique needs of tribal producers are being met. 

81 

• The Farm Bill must include provisions to protect Native foods in the marketplace, including Native seeds, and traditional foods. 

Miscellaneous 

• Fully fund the Office of Tribal Relations and create a new Office of Tribal Agriculture that will improve the service and coordination of USDA programs for 

tribes and tribal producers. The new Office of Tribal Agriculture should report 

to the Office of Tribal Relations and funding for both offices should be mandatory. 

• Create a mandatory interdepartmental working group between departments at 

USDA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to examine and determine solutions in 

areas where the two agencies overlap, are requiring duplicative documentation 

or actions on the part of tribes and individual Indian landowners in order to 

access programs and services, or are generally lacking in coordination and efficiency for tribal agriculture. The identified barriers and problems must be addressed and resolved by sustained, mandatory interdepartmental working 

groups. 

Thank you for consideration of the Tribe’s testimony and your support of our recommendations as the Farm Bill is put together. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. ZORN, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, GREAT LAKES

INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on this important 

topic. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (‘‘GLIFWC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) is an intertribal natural resource agency exercising delegated authority 

from 11 federally recognized Ojibwe Tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. 

GLIFWC member Tribes retain hunting, fishing, gathering rights, and associated 

governmental management and regulatory authorities, in territories ceded to the 

United States in various treaties. Specifically, portions of the Lake Superior, Lake 

Michigan and Lake Huron basins are within territory ceded by the Treaties of 1836, 

1837, 1842 and 1854. 

Because of the upcoming deadline, we have not had the opportunity to discuss 

these comments with GLIFWC’s governing Board of Commissioners or the Voigt 

Intertribal Task Force. However, as the Farm Bill serves as a catalyst to advance 

food policy nation-wide, and GLIFWC’s Board of Commissioners and Voigt Intertribal Task Force have prioritized efforts to incorporate traditional foods into tribal 

programs, we would be remiss if we did not offer testimony addressing this issue. 

GLIFWC’s mission includes supporting the exercise of tribal sovereignty and 

intertribal co-management by protecting and enhancing treaty-guaranteed rights to 

hunt, fish and gather within the ceded territories. The exercise of these rights supports tribal sovereignty in a variety of ways. Harvesting activities and the consumption of traditional foods promote health in tribal communities, and connection to cultural lifeways. These rights also translate into tangible economic benefits for tribal 

individuals, businesses and communities. 

GLIFWC member Tribes have been encouraged by the inclusion of traditional 

foods in USDA programs, such as within the Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations (FDPIR), and would like to see more opportunities for tribal programs 

to include wild-caught game and fish, manoomin (wild rice) and other wild-harvested and locally-produced foods in their menu options. The 2014 Farm Bill included a provision for the use of donated wild-harvested foods in USDA-supported 

programs (Traditional Foods in Public Facilities, 128 Stat. 818). This provision is 

a step in the right direction, however more is needed to ensure that traditional foods 

become a regular part of program menus. 

Addressing this issue in the 2018 Farm Bill would provide tribal programs with 

greater access to healthy, local sources of protein from wild game by enabling the 

purchase of these foods. This would also support tribal harvesters by providing compensation for the time and effort spent on food production activities. We expect that 

tribal communities, as a whole, would benefit, especially in communities where conventional forms of employment are not always available. 

The Guidance from the Food and Nutrition Program to Regional Directors of the 

Special Nutrition Programs and State Directors of the Child Nutrition Programs 

issued in 2015, suggests that wild-caught game cannot be considered part of a ‘‘reimbursable meal’’ unless slaughtered and inspected in a federally-inspected facility, 

state inspected program, or originate from an approved source as established by 

82 

state and local regulatory authorities. Language in this memorandum ignores the 

self-governing authority of tribes to establish laws and food safety systems independent of state and federal governments. We note that wild-harvested game has 

been, and continues to be, a regular part of the diets of many tribal communities. 

Some tribes have established or are in the process of establishing food codes and 

inspection capabilities to ensure safe consumption of traditional foods. Even without 

the establishment of written standards, tribal communities have long-established 

customary law on food safety addressing appropriate killing of animals, standards 

on processing, transporting and storing game meat, and teachings that govern how 

these meats are prepared for consumption. 

GLIFWC member Tribes are also cognizant that concerns regarding the conservation of game animals have influenced the development of food policy. In the late 

19th and early 20th centuries, the conservation movement advocated for the adoption of wide-ranging legislation to curtail the overharvesting of wild animals. Prohibitions on the sale of meat derived from wild-harvested animals was one aspect of 

the legislative agenda. Although certain positive changes were made to curtail 

unsustainable harvesting practices, policy makers failed to consider the effect that 

these changes would have on tribal communities. The tribes reserved rights to hunt, 

fish and gather on and off-reservation, and their rights of self-government, were 

largely ignored, leaving tribal communities vulnerable to poverty, disease and hunger. 

Tribal nations spent decades suing for recognition of their treaty-reserved rights. 

In numerous decisions, the Courts have recognized that the tribes’ reserved rights 

include the ability to regulate their members differently than the states: tribal conservation codes may provide for the use of efficient methods of harvest (as opposed 

to inefficient methods required by states to promote conservation) and to sell products derived from their treaty-reserved harvesting. In furtherance of their conservation goals, the tribes have developed sophisticated systems to maintain sustainable 

harvests. They work together, and with state and federal partners, to study plant 

and animal populations and trends in order to set appropriate quotas and maintain 

a dynamic management approach. They have also developed conservation codes and 

the means of enforcing those codes, including effective law enforcement that coordinates with federal and state officers, and tribal courts experienced in handling treaty rights cases. Tribes continue to adopt forward-thinking environmental standards 

and advocate for the adoption of state and federal policies that support healthy ecosystems. 

Because of the importance of these issues and the need to recognize the appropriate governmental authority of tribes, and in recognition of the federal government’s ongoing treaty obligations, the Committee should consider adding language 

that provides for: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill, including recognition of tribal food codes and food safety systems; 

• Tribal Administration of USDA Programs, including flexibility in purchasing 

traditional and locally produced foods; and 

• An exemption for treaty-harvested game meats purchased for Tribal Government programs from federal or state slaughter and inspection requirements. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. REGINA GASCO-BENTLEY, TRIBAL CHAIRPERSON, 

WAGANAKISING ODAWAK, LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIAN

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indian of Michigan, please 

accept this testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians is headquartered in Harbor Springs 

Michigan Our Tribal Service Area extends to 27 counties in Michigan along the 

Great Lakes. We recognize the importance off the Farm Bill and programs within 

the Farm Bill have helped our Tribe. Our tribe owns and operates a farm that is 

approximately 300 acres, we utilize the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and other funds for our programing and services to our Tribal Citizens. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Little Traverse Bay Bands 

of Odawa Indians requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate 

83 

Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm 

Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 63 8 Contracts 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians supports the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Commodities Title 

—Indian Country is heavily invested in commodity food production, especially livestock, which makes up nearly $2 billion of agriculture income for tribal producers. 

—Ensure tribal producers’ eligibility for all disaster assistance programs in Title 

I, and increase payments to 90 percent of value to acknowledge their unique land 

and market issues. 

—Create parity for tribal producers in Farm Service Agency Committees and decision-making. Conservation Title 

—U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs must allow for 

the use of traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservation practices. 

—Cross-agency coordination between the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs must be improved to ensure all tribal producer 

have access to conservation programs and other USDA programs that require an 

NRCS-approved conservation plan. 

—Parity must be achieved throughout the Conservation title by explicitly including ‘‘tribes’’ or ‘‘tribal’’ where ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producers 

are mentioned to ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs. 

Trade Title 

—Support and maintain tribal food and agriculture businesses’ entry into foreign 

markets by expanding Indian Country’s access to the Market Access Program (MAP) 

and protecting unique tribal foods against fraud. 

—Improve interdepartmental coordination and tribal government and individual 

Indian producer inclusion on all U.S. trade missions. 

Nutrition Title 

—Approximately 25 percent ofNative Americans receive some type of federal food 

assistance, and in some tribal communities, participation is as high as 60–80 percent. 

—Indian Country needs a consistent, comprehensive, and tribal-led approach to 

tailor federal food assistance programs to the specific needs of tribal communities 

and citizens. 

—Allow tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination Contracts pursuant to 

P.L. 93–638 for administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) and all other federal feeding programs. 

—Improve the funding, flexibility and infrastructure of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). 

—Require a CBO or CRS inquiry into the impact of drastic cuts or elimination 

of food assistance programs on the overall agricultural economies of tribes. 

Credit Title 

—Many tribal communities are located in ‘‘Credit Deserts,’’ where access to fair 

and reasonable credit terms is limited or non-existent. 

—Improvements must continue to be made to Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs to address the availability, efficiency and application of credit programs in 

Indian Country. 

Rural Development Title 

—The Rural Development (RD) programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) are essential for rural and reservation tribal communities to develop and 

improve declining infrastructure systems while spurring economic development and 

job creation in tribal communities. 

—Many ready-to-go (‘‘shovel-ready’’) tribal infrastructure and community development projects have gone unfunded over the past several years, leaving promises to 

Indian Country and rural communities unrealized. 

84 

—RD must have dedicated funding and technical assistance for tribal governments as part of the federal trust responsibility and to ensure that tribal communities and the rural communities around them thrive. -Tribes must be consulted 

during the restructuring of the USDA’s RD agency due to its unique impact on tribal economies and tribal economic development. Any budget shifts must also receive 

tribal consUltation before changes occur. 

Research Title 

—Research Title programs must allow for the development of tribal research, education, and Native youth in agriculture by making programs and funding more accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), support a tribally led focus on 

traditional knowledge and practices, and provide additional opportunities for education. 

—Fund the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) at a minimum of$10 million to address the persistent inequity in educating and developing 

Native American extension resource programming and Native youth in food and agriculture programming. 

—Provide dedicated funding and tribal preference at National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture (NIFA) to build tribal research and educational capacity. 

—Require all institutions (non-TCUs) that receive any funding for extension programming in states that have tribal lands and tribal producers to report and demonstrate their work with tribal governments, tribal communities, and tribal producers and their cooperative and respectful coordination with TCUs in close proximity. These institutions should be required to conduct a percentage of their overall 

work that is equal to the amount of land in the state held by Indians, the Indian 

farms in those states, and such extension programming must be done with Indian 

communities and done by staff experienced in and knowledgeable of issues important to Indian Country. 

—Remove FRTEP from the Farm Bill requirements that all Smith-Lever programs be competitive and reinstate the consultative requirements for FRTEP implementation. 

Forestry Title 

—Tribal forests and woodlands make up one third of all tribal lands held in trust, 

and provide resources, jobs, and economic development opportunities for many tribal 

governments. 

— Many tribal forests and adjacent federal forests contain sacred places and important trust and treaty-protected resources. 

—Tribes must be provided parity throughout the Forestry Title to better access, 

manage and develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect tribal resources while providing jobs and economic development. 

Energy Title 

—Tribal lands, individual Indian-owned land, and natural resources hold immense potential to develop biobased energy economic development, energy infrastructure build-outs, and jobs in tribal communities and surrounding rural communities. 

—Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program to help tribal 

governments, tribal producers, and tribal business entities develop bio-energy businesses and production. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title 

—Many Traditional Native foods fall under the designation of horticulture crops 

and are necessary to support food sovereignty and healthy food access in Indian 

Country. 

—USDA programs which oversee horticulture crops must engage in tribal consultation to ensure the unique needs of tribal producers are being met. 

—The Farm Bill needs to include provisions to protect Native foods in the marketplace, as well as Native seeds and traditional foods 

Crop Insurance Title 

—Due to the high risk of agriculture and food production, especially in Indian 

Country, crop insurance products must cover tribal producers in unique ways. In addition, livestock producers in Indian Country must be afforded the same risk protection as crop producers as well as the same payment options since livestock production makes up a significant percentage of tribal food production. 

85 

* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee files. 

Miscellaneous 

Covering a wide variety of topics, as well as issues which span multiple titles of 

the Farm Bill, the Miscellaneous Title is an important mechanism for Indian Country. 

— Fully fund the Office of Tribal Relations and create a new Office of Tribal Agriculture to improve the service and coordination of USDA programs for tribes and 

tribal producers. The new Office of Tribal Agriculture should report to the Office of 

Tribal Relations and funding for both offices should be mandatory. The current 

funding limits OTRs ability to provide programs and technical assistance. 

—Create a mandatory interdepartmental working group between agencies at 

USDA and the BIA to examine and determine solutions to areas where the two departments overlap, are requiring duplicative documentation or actions on the part 

of tribes and individual Indian landowners in order to access programs and services, 

or are generally lacking in coordination and efficiency for tribal agriculture. The 

identified barriers and problems must be addressed and resolved by sustained mandatory interdepartmental working groups. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSHUA RILEY, SR. POLICY ANALYST, CHOCTAW NATION OF

OKLAHOMA

On behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (‘‘Choctaw Nation’’ or the ‘‘Nation’’), I am writing to urge the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) to work 

closely and collaboratively with the Senate Committee on Agriculture to ensure that 

Indian agriculture and food and nutrition interests are included in and supported 

by the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill. 

The Choctaw Nation is comprised of 11,000 square miles stretching across 10.5 

counties in southeastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma became the Nation’s home in 1831 

after we were forcibly removed from our ancestral homelands which included parts 

of what are now Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and most of Mississippi. Today, we 

have nearly 200,000 citizens living worldwide, with nearly half of those living within Oklahoma. 

The Choctaw Nation has always been an agrarian society. In our traditional 

homelands, our ancestors grew a number of vegetables in a unique way. Corn was 

planted in rows with squash, pumpkins, beans, peas, sunflowers, and melons grown 

in between the rows of corn. Choctaws also participated in traditional forms of 

permaculture. Fruit and nut orchards, in particular, were vital to the survival of 

the Choctaw people. (see the document on the history of Choctaw Food) * 

Today, the Choctaw Nation and our citizens maintain a primarily agrarian lifestyle. The Nation has several operating ranches with thousands of head of cattle 

and bison. The Nation also operates, just as did our ancestors, a number of pecan 

orchards, and has recently been able to market those pecans for retail sale. 

While the Nation’s agribusiness, based on the production of traditional foods, is 

growing, the Nation and many of its members are not able to access healthy, quality 

nutritious food. This is due in part because of the Nation’s rural location and high 

rates of poverty, which qualify our Reservation as a food desert pursuant to U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) guideposts. Despite these troubling statistics, 

through the leadership and record success of Choctaw Nation, we are improving our 

situation by establishing strong partnerships with federal, state, and local governments, community leaders, and non-profits. 

One of our most successful programs within the Choctaw Nation is the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Nationwide, this program 

serves approximately 93,000 Native Americans each month. In Choctaw Nation 

alone, we serve close to 6,000 Native Americans monthly, including our own tribal 

citizens and other Indians who reside in our area. This program serves our neediest 

families in Choctaw Nation, providing close to $300,000 worth of food each month. 

FDPIR is intended to be a supplemental program, but for far too many of our tribal members, it is their primary source of food. When compared to other federal feeding programs, FDPIR is a healthier choice for our people. The FDPIR food our citizens receive monthly adheres to strict nutritional guidelines. The food has low sodium and low fat content, and little to no sugar. Things like cakes, pies, and sodas 

are not available through FDPIR. Our participants receive healthy ingredients each 

month like fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, beans, lean meats, and other items that 

can be prepared into full, nutritional meals. 

Choctaw Nation has five locations for food distribution. The Choctaw Nation has 

used its own money to build these facilities for the FDPIR program, in order to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
86 

vide our citizens a well-rounded shopping and learning experience as they get their 

family’s food supplies for the month. Our five stores are top-notch facilities and provide a real grocery store experience for our citizens served by the FDPIR program. 

There are also kitchen facilities and cooking classes offered on a regular basis to 

help teach our citizens how to prepare nutritional meals. Before the Choctaw Nation 

built these stores, program participants were handed their food from the back of a 

truck at designated locations on Choctaw Nation. We believed our citizens deserved 

a more dignified way of obtaining food, and that is why we invested millions of tribal dollars to help shape this program into a well-rounded experience for our citizens. 

In addition to FDPIR, the Nation participates in the following USDA programs 

to assist the Nation achieving our goal of providing Choctaw citizens with quality 

nutrition services: WIC, Senior Farmers Market, Summer Food Service Program, 

and the National School Lunch Program. 

Considering the importance of agriculture in our community, the Choctaw Nation 

requests this Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee implement the following recommendations as you move forward in enacting the next Farm Bill: 

Recommendations To Apply Throughout the 2018 Farm Bill 

1. Provide tribal governmental parity with state and local governments throughout the entire Farm Bill. 

2. Allow all tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination Contracts pursuant 

to P.L. 93–638, as amended, for the negotiation, funding and administration of all 

USDA programs. 

3. Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision to apply 

across all Rural Development (RD) programs. 

Conservation Title 

4. Amend any reference to ‘‘state law’’ in the Conservation Title to say ‘‘state law 

or tribal law’’ and any reference to ‘‘state technical committee’’ to ‘‘state or tribal 

technical committee.’’ 

5. Codify the current Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice 

which explicitly allows a tribe or a group of tribes within a state or region to develop 

traditional, ecological, knowledge-based technical standards that control the implementation of all conservation projects allowed under the Farm Bill. 

6. Allow the use of Conservation Reserve Program land or other lands engaged 

in conservation practices to be used by tribal citizens who are beginning farmers 

and ranchers in ways that do not damage the conditions of the land or resources. 

7. Provide priority consideration for tribal governments, tribal agricultural entities, and individual tribal producers, landowners, or land operators for all conservation programs authorized in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

8. Provide priority consideration for beginning farmers and ranchers seeking to 

establish or reestablish working land activities on tribal lands and commercial activities related to the reestablishment of working lands or the emergence of beginning farmers and ranchers who are tribal citizens utilizing those working lands. 

9. Exempt individual tribal citizens, tribal governments, and tribal entities who 

are, under current law, required to compensate the former lessee of the tribal lands 

for the installation or maintenance of such practice when conservation practice installed on tribal or individual Indian-owned land expires, or when a lease/permit expires, since those practices have already been the subject of cost share with the federal government. Any further payment to lessees or users of the lands constitutes 

an unjust enrichment to such user of the land. 

Nutrition Title 

10. Remove the ‘‘Urban Place’’ definition to allow tribes and USDA to work collaboratively to serve even more tribal citizens who need nutritious food, regardless 

of where they live. 

11. Require all FDPIR purchasing of foods to occur on a regional basis and include 

as much locally and regionally tribal-produced food as reasonably possible. 

12. Require FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice, salmon, blue corn, 

and other products) to be a regular part of food package purchases that does not 

require supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods. 

13. Allow tribes the option to negotiate, enter into, fund and administer Self-Determination Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93–638 for administration of the SNAP and 

all other federal feeding and nutrition assistance and training programs. 

87 

Rural Development Title 

14. Provide a tribal set-aside each of USDA’s RD program authorities to address 

the inadequacy and general lack of rural infrastructure in Indian Country. The trust 

responsibility of the federal government to tribes provides the broad foundation for 

such set-aside. Without dedicated funding for tribal rural development, the promise 

of these places will never be realized and Indian Country’s infrastructure will continue to decline. In many areas around the country, tribal governments are the 

strongest remaining rural government entity. In some locations, tribal governments 

have taken over the management of key infrastructure (such as water systems, electric, and other utilities) because there is no other sound governmental or non-governmental entity that can handle these functions. 

Forestry Title 

15. Allow for greater tribal participation in the Tribal Forest Protect Act (TFPA) 

projects by authorizing, whether as a mandatory across-the-board initiative, or as 

a pilot program, the application of ‘‘638’’ contracting authority to TFPA projects on 

Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. 

16. Establish a pilot program authorizing tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to conduct cooperative, discretionary forest restoration activities on Forest Service 

and BLM lands adjacent to the Choctaw Nation and other tribal reservations, using 

existing regulations governing the management of Indian forests. Additional means 

and legal and financial arrangements that would support the cooperative management of forest lands with and through Tribes must be explored with the potential 

to see the lands ultimately returned to the local tribes for local governing. 

17. Ensure that Indian forests are properly prioritized in fire suppression activities and funding. Current priorities place protection of private structures above protection of tribal forest assets held, managed and protected by the U.S. as trustee. 

As a result, in the 2015 fire season, suppression crews were removed from wildfires 

on Indian trust forests to protect private structures. The fires on Indian trust forests 

exploded, destroying hundreds of thousands of acres and millions of board feet of 

timber vitally important to tribal economies. These priorities, allowing federally protected trust assets essential to tribal communities to be sacrificed to protect private 

structures, needs review. 

18. Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian sacred places are 

maintained and strengthened, and that the responsibilities of USDA and other federal departments to consult with tribes on an ongoing basis concerning sacred places 

continually occurs. 

19. Create parity between Forest Service management agreement language and 

NRCS determination of land control language to preserve tribal sovereignty and 

rights to gather/manage traditional plant stands and enhance opportunities for 

tribes to leverage Environmental Quality Incentives Program assistance on traditional lands under Forest Service jurisdiction. 

The Choctaw Nation thanks you for the opportunity to provide testimony on one 

of the most important pieces of legislation in Indian Country. We would also like 

to thank our partners at USDA for the great work that they do. We hope we can 

continue to build upon these relationships as we make important improvements to 

the 2018 Farm Bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILFRID CLEVELAND, PRESIDENT, HO-CHUNK NATION

On behalf ofthe Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, we write to submit testimony for 

the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian 

Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legjslation. 

For some 360 years, our tribal nation was labeled as the Winnebago Tribe by the 

French. In November 1994, the official results of the Ho-Chunk Nation secretarial 

election were published, approving the revised constitution and the proper name of 

the nation reverting to the Ho-Chunk (People of the Big Voice) which we have always called ourselves, thus establishing the Ho-Chunk Nation. Our territory extended from Green Bay, beyond Lake Winnebago to the Wisconsin River and to the 

Rock River in Illinois, tribal territory was by the Treaty of 1825, 8.5 million acres. 

The Wisconsin Ho-Chunk do not have a reservation in Wisconsin, but portions of 

land that hold ‘‘reservation’’ status. Today, all Wisconsin Ho-Chunk tribal lands are 

lands we once owned, but have had to repurchase. 

88 

The Ho-Chunk Nation has recently formed an agriculture division that will focus 

on growing traditional foods, and organic vegetable and fruit production with livestock incorporated in the future. 

The Ho-Chunk Nation utilizes various USDA resources and services through multiple agencies within the government. The programs currently used are: Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Farm Service Agency, Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations, Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, the Ho-Chunk Nation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition, the Ho-Chunk Nation supports the following recommendations to be 

included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Commodities Title 

Amend Section 1606 on ‘‘Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers’’ 

to ensure that tribal governments, tribal entities, and tribal producers are explicitly 

recognized as farmers or ranchers eligible to participate in the program, as they are 

often left out even in the ‘‘insular areas’’ provision. 

Conservation Title 

Develop a new section of the Conservation Title to explicitly allow a tribe or a 

group of tribes within a state or region to develop traditional, ecologica!, knowledgebased technical standards that will control the implementation of all conservation 

projects allowed under the Farm Bill. This new section would codify current NRCS 

practices that encourage traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservation and 

would further recognize the fact that tribal jurisdiction and use of traditional practices to improve conservation project implementation are decisions best left to tribal 

governments and individual Indian producers who live on those lands and are engaged in ongoing activities that are designed to improve environmental conditions, 

habitats, and their lands for agricultural purposes. These traditional, ecological, 

knowledge-based standards already have a solid scientific basis and are acknowledged by various federal research organizations and agenctes. 

Trade Title 

Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to institute a system by 

which fraudulent foods that mimic tribal foods and tribal food businesses can be uncovered and prevented in the marketplace. Food fraud is on the rise throughout the 

world, and unscrupulous food business entities are already trying to mimic or replicate unique tribal food products. Those businesses should not be allowed to participate in programs that allow them to access markets with products that perpetrate 

frauds on tribal food producers or food businesses. 

Nutrition Title 

Since 2015, several tribal leaders have consulted with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) over significant improvements needed to FDPIR. While tribes 

have made some headway with USDA, significant legislative changes still need to 

occur within the FDPIR program, including: 

—Eliminating the matching funds requirement for each of the FDPIR program 

sites to participate, or limiting the matching requirement to 5 percent. 

—Providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state counterpart programs by allowing them to engage in carryover of unspent funds from year to year. This unequal treatment is problematic to tribal feeding programs whose funding needs, particularly for food distribution infrastructure (e.g., warehouses), could be met by allowing carryover funding. 

—Requiring FNS to continue to engage in tribal consultation. 

—Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation concerning reasonable alternatives to the regulatory-approved practice of ‘‘tailgating’’ at FDPIR program sites. 

No FDPIR program site should be allowed to engage in this demeaning practice. 

—Requiring FNS to consult with tribes and develop a written, public contingency 

plan in the event of any lapses in funding, disasters, governm.ent closures, or related incidents that might interrupt or cause the stoppage of food delivery. 

89 

—Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously participate in 

SNAP. Neither program provides enough food for participants in remote places; by 

allowing simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental feeding programs can be combined to actually result in addressing food insecurity. 

—Requiring FNS to hire at least one national tribal liaison located in its Washington, D.C., offices and one regional tribal liaison located in each regional FNS office subject to a federal Native American hiring preference or high levels of experience with tribal communities. 

—Increase nutrition education funding to at least $5 million per year and create 

an alternative to competitive funding so each tribal program receives support for nutrition education program materials through a coordinated approach. 

—Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice, salmon, blue com, 

and other products) to be a regular part of food package purchases and not require 

supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods. 

—Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation to compile a budget for FDPIR 

warehouse and other infrastructure needs to be included in its entirety in each federal budget cycle and request until it is fully funded. 

—Requiring all FDPIR purchasing and distribution to occur on a regional basis 

and include as much locally and regionally tribal-produced food as reasonably possible. 

—Remove the ‘‘Urban Place’’ definition to allow tribes and the USDA to work collaboratively to serve even more tribal citizens who need nutritious food, regardless 

of where they live. 

Credit Title 

Explicitly exempt tribal producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining three 

denial letters from private credit sources in order to participate in an FSA loan program. The general lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders the 

requirement onerous and unduly burdensome. 

Rural Development Title 

Develop a process to allow small, new and emerging Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFis) access to loan authority. The concept ofbatching and obligating all loan guarantee authority annually is a game changer. The requirements 

put upon CDFis to participate in this endeavor are patently prohibitive. Only the 

largest CDFis could secure any meaningful funding levels, and some had threatened 

litigation to do that. 

Research Title 

—Provide tribal set-asides and preferences within all non-FRTEP NIFA funding 

authorities while retaining the competitive nature of the funding, which is necessary 

to continue building capacity and strength. 

—Amend the agricultural legal funding authority contained in the 2014 Farm Bill 

to ensure that competition for the funds occurs and funding is set-aside to be provided to organizations and entities that have a proven specialty and primary focus 

on Indian law issues that intersect with food and agriculture law. 

—Require NIF A funding authorities to focus a portion of their work on building 

knowledge and capacity in business development unique to tribal lands and individual Indian owned land, and approach this work separately due to the unique 

complexities in tribal land use, law, regulatory burdens, and related issues. Since 

business training and the development of solid business planning tools are also necessary, funding would be best focused around risk management education programs 

and the funding authorities in this area. 

—Allow tribal governments and tribal organizations full access to all nutrition 

education programs at NIFA, including SNAP-Ed, and all research programs related 

to building knowledge in nutrition, health, obesity, and diabetes prevention. 

—Include a set-aside in Small Business Innovation Research projects funded 

through NIFA for tribal projects leading for commercialization of food products or 

food systems innovations. 

—Ensure that the federal formula funding authorities that support basic research, 

education, and extension funding for 1862 institutions is revisited to ensure that the 

institutions receiving such funds based on the federal formula actually provide research, education, and extension services to the tribal communities, farms, ranches, 

farmers, and rural citizens who are counted in the formula that establishes funding 

allocations. At present tribal interests are considered in establishing formula allocations but there is no follow through to determine if actual projects result in such 

funding allocations. 

90 

Forestry Title 

Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian sacred places are maintained and strengthened, and that the responsibilities of USDA and other federal 

departments to consult with tribes on an ongoing basis concerning sacred places 

continually occurs. The Memorandum of Understanding among departments of the 

federal government must be kept in place indefinitely. 

Energy Title 

Create a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program in the 2018 Farm 

Bill to help spark economic development and energy infrastructure development in 

tribal communities, while providing low-cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding rural areas. This grant program for tribal governments and wholly owned 

tribal entities would operate much like a grant in lieu of tax credit, similar to the 

existing Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REP I) Program. Further, the 

Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program should specify the eligibility 

of tribally chartered and federally chartered tribal corporations for rural development programs, including for grants and loan programs, as well as any technical 

assistance programs available. Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made 

a policy statement that it will recognize federally charted Section 17 Tribal Corporations as eligible entities for rural development programs, the program should codify 

this and clarify that tribally chartered tribal corporations are also eligible. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title 

Require USDA to take steps after tribal consultation to ensure that tribal seeds 

are given the maximum protection available under federal law and not allowed to 

be accessed for commercialized purposes without the consent of tribal governments. 

Seeds of traditional foods are among the most sacred items to Indigenous peoples 

and the protection of those seeds, not only as food sources but as important cultural 

systems, must be required. 

Crop Insurance Title 

Encourage RMA to develop a unique crop insurance policy product designed to 

cover the production systems associated with tribal food products, tribal livestock, 

and traditional food systems. The production systems associated with such products 

should be recognized as Good Agricultural Practices (OAPs), and tribal producers 

should also be afforded the same opportunity to pay premiums upon the sale of the 

crop or livestock instead of making an up front payment. 

Miscellaneous 

Require the BIA to coordinate with USDA in all aspects of supporting any tribe 

or individual Indian landowner that wishes to draft and implement (including receiving Secretary of Interior support) an Agricultural Resource Management Plan 

(ARMP), authorized under the American Indian Agricultural Resource Management 

Act of 1993 (AIARMA). This act has never been fully implemented, and only a few 

tribes and individual Indian landowners have placed a plan in motion. The BIA, 

working in concert with USDA, should prioritize finding resources to assist tribes 

(including technical assistance resources) in establishing plans authorized under the 

act. The BIA should be required to accept any conservation plan or forest management plan conducted by the NRCS or USFS agencies within USDA as equivalent 

to any environmental assessment deemed necessary in implementing the AIARMA. 

Tribes and individual Indian landowner should not be required to conduct a full 

NEP A analysis to conduct food and agriculture operations on their lands. The requirement is far more excessive than any applicable law, and this interpretation violates principles of rights to food, food access, environmental or food justice, and food 

sovereignty. An ARMP created pursuant to the AIARMA should be allowed as a 

fundable EQIP practice, and exempted from full NEPA analysis. 

In closing, the Ho-Chunk Nation urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WILDCAT, PRESIDENT, LAC DU FLAMBEAU

BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe in Wisconsin, we write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm 

Bill. 

91 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

Historv & Background of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior 

Waaswagonning, or Place of the Torch, was settled in 1745 by an Ojibwe Tribal 

leader named Kilshkiman, and was later named Lac du Flambeau by French furtraders. Through the Treaties of 1847 and 1854, the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation was established. Located in Northern Wisconsin, the Reservation covers approximately 86,500 acres, including 41,733 acres of forested uplands, 24,000 acres 

of wetlands, and 17,897 acres of lakes and rivers (49 percent of the Reservation’s 

areas is covered by lakes, rivers and wetlands), within Vilas, Oneida, and Iron 

Counties. Reservation land status includes trust (Tribal and allotted) 66 percent and 

fee land 34 percent. There are currently over 4000 enrolled members, with approximately over 1,800 members residing on the Reservation. Also, there is a high population of non-members living within the Reservation boundaries. 

Under the Treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854, in the ceded territories of Wisconsin, 

Michigan and Minnesota, the Tribe retains and exercises their rights to hunt, fish 

and gather as well as for cultural, spiritual and recreational practices. The Tribal 

population depends on resources from both reservation and ceded territory to sustain subsistence practices. Water is vital to the cultural, spiritual and economic survival of the Lac du Flambeau Band. The name of Lac du Flambeau or 

Waswawagonning reflects the connection of the Band and its water-based natural 

resources. Traditional fishing activities, as well as subsistence hunting and gathering, are also dependent on those waters. Traditional beliefs and sacred places rely 

on the purity of the waters for their vitality. The ties to water, have existed from 

time immemorial, and the Band continues to rely heavily on the Reservation waters 

and natural resources for its economic and cultural survival. 

Tribal Agriculture/USDA protects 

The Tribe currently operates the Golden Eagle Farm on the reservation; that 

grows strawberries, blueberries, and pumpkins for purchase to the public and tribal 

elder use. 

The Tribe is solely responsible for aquaculture management that stocks walleye, 

musky, trout, sturgeon, etc. within the reservation and in the ceded territory areas. 

There are approximately 200 +lakes, rivers and streams within the reservation. 

The Tribe is responsible for the management and restoration of wild rice within 

the reservation as well as assisting the work in the ceded territories. 

The Tribe has utilized USDA funding to build infrastructure for water & sewer, 

buildings and forestry management programs and the need continues to improvements and upgrades. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, the Lac du Flambeau 

Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture 

Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance 

Programs through 638 Contracts Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area 

(SUTA) provision across all Rural Development programs In addition, the Lac Du 

Flambeau Tribe supports the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Commodities 

Amend Definitions for the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs 

• Section 1501(a)(l)(B)(iv) must be amended to read: ‘‘a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other farm organizational structure organized under Federal, 

State law and Tribal law.’’ This addition creates parity for tribal governments 

and acknowledges the authority of entities organized under tribal law or under 

federal law such as Section 17 corporations. 

• Update the livestock definition in Section 150l(a)(3) to include other commonly 

raised livestock like ‘‘reindeer,’’ ‘‘caribou,’’ ‘‘elk,’’ ‘‘horses,’’ or other animals 

raised or harvested in tribal communities. All of these animals must be further 

recognized as a livestock and eligible for full protection and program participation Department-wide. 

Increase livestock Indemnity Payments for Tribal Producers to 90 Percent 

• The current 75 percent Livestock Indemnity Payment under Section 1501(b) to 

eligible producers who have incurred livestock death lasses above the normal 

mortality rate, does not address the lack of land equity that exists for tribal proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
92 

ducers on trust lands, and the unique challenges tribal livestock producers have 

in obtaining secure markets for their animals, which generally causes a lower 

rate of market return. To put tribal producers on equal footing, indemnity payments for tribally owned livestock should be increased to 90 percent. 

Ensure Tribal Eligibility in the livestock Forage Disaster Program 

• A new provision under Section 1501(c) must be added to protect tribal producers’ eligibility in the Livestock Forage Disaster Program through issues of 

federal government preclusion outside of their control. For example, instances 

relating to ‘‘normal carrying capacity’’ may inadvertently exclude some tribal 

producers if the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not negotiate or recognize the 

specific environmental or other variances that impact production. 

• Due to the unique challenges facing tribal livestock and forage producers, all 

other provisions of the program shall ensure that payment rates are set at 90 

percent levels (as opposed to any lower rates identified in the law for non-tribal 

producers). 

• Explicitly exempt tribal producers from any limitations on receiving payments 

on any losses due to fire on ‘‘public managed land.’’ Tribal lands are not ‘‘public’’ 

lands. 

Farm Service Agency Co11nty Committee 

• Amend the FSA County Committee determinations on normal grazing periods 

and drought monitor intensity to be established at the national FSA office to 

ensure that separate carrying capacities and normal grazing periods for each 

type of grazing land or pastureland are set at different rates for tribal lands 

and individual Indian-owned land after tribal consultation. 

• Require FSA to do an assessment based on Census data and Agricultural Census data to determine the population makeup of the county and conduct tribal 

consultation with tribal governments to guarantee that tribal citizens s are effectively and efficiently notified of the opportunity to be nominated and considered for county committee membership. All FSA county committees in predominantly tribal population areas and/or tribal land base areas should have predominantly Native membership and should reference the local administrative 

areas, which are the voting districts mapped by FSA county committees. 

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish 

• Explicitly include tribes and individual Indian producers as eligible for Commodity Credit Corporation emergency relief funds for livestock, bees, and farmraised fish under Section 150l(d). 

Trees 

• Make tribal producers eligible for 80–90 percent of the cost of replacement, salvage, pruning, removal, or preparing the land or replanting under Section 

150l(e). This ensures that the higher cost of providing these remediation activities on tribal lands and individual Indian-owned land is accommodated within 

the limitations of the program and tribal governments. 

• Recognize tribal business entities organized under tribal law and individual 

tribal producers as ‘‘legal entities’’ and ‘‘persons’’ allowed to participate in the 

program. 

Rulemaking Related to Significant Contribution for Active Personal Management 

• Amend Section 1604 regulations related to ‘‘active personal management’’ or 

‘‘active engagement in farming/ranching’’ to recognize that tribal producers, 

tribal business entities, and tribal governments should not be excluded from 

any determination of ‘‘active personal management/engagement’’ simply by the 

existence of an active lease relating to their lands. 

• Require the Secretary of Agriculture to engage in tribal consultation concerning 

the application of this requirement to tribal producers. 

Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 

• Amend Section 1606 on ‘‘Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers’’ 

to ensure that tribal governments, tribal entities, and tribal producers are explicitly recognized as farmers or ranchers eligible to participate in the program, 

as they are often left out even in the ‘‘insular areas’’ provision. 

Base Acres 

• Require the Secretary to consult with tribal governments regarding the determination and election of ‘‘base acres’’ applicable to all programs under the Commodity Title. 

93 

Conservation 

Recognition of Traditional, Ecological Knowledge-Based Conservation 

• Develop a new section of the Conservation Title to explicitly allow a tribe or 

a group of tribes within a state or region to develop traditional, ecological, 

knowledge-based technical standards that will control the implementation of all 

conservation projects allowed under the Farm Bill. This new section would codify current NRCS practices that encourage traditional, ecological, knowledgebased conservation and would further recognize the fact that tribal jurisdiction 

and use of traditional practices to improve conservation project implementation 

are decisions best left to tribal governments and individual Indian producers 

who live on those lands and are engaged in ongoing activities that are designed 

to improve environmental conditions, habitats, and their lands for agricultural 

purposes. These traditional, ecological, knowledge-based standards already have 

a solid scientific basis and are acknowledged by various federal research organizations and agencies. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) And Availability for Beginning Tribal Farmers 

and Ranchers 

• Create a new section of the Conservation Title to allow the use of CRP land 

or other lands engaged in conservation practices to be used by tribal citizens 

who are beginning farmers and ranchers in ways that do not damage the conditions of the land or resources. 

Include Tribal Priorities in Definition of Priority Resource Concerns 

• Amend the definition of ‘‘Priority Resource Concerns’’ in Section 12380(5) of the 

Farm Bill to include any natural resource as determined by the Secretary that 

is identified at the national, state, tribal or local level as a priority for a particular area of a state or tribal area and to consider environmental disaster 

mitigation as a priority resource concern. 

Allow Lands Held in Common and by Tribal Entities to Access Conservation Programs 

• Create a new section of the Conservation Title or in sections related to eligibility determinations to ensure that lands held in common, such as reservation 

lands that are controlled and farmed/ranched by groups of individuals, can participate in all Conservation Title programs and that special provisions are enacted in regulations to ensure that any tribal government-allowed entity is the 

recognized conservation program participant (as opposed to specific individuals). 

Priority for Enrollment of Tribal Lands in the Conservation Reserve Program 

• Section 200 I of the 2014 Farm Bill establishes priorities for the Secretary to 

consider when implementing the Conservation Reserve Program and Conservation Priority Areas. Due to the prolonged periods that tribal lands and individual Indian-owned lands have been under-enrolled in conservation programs 

and due to the needs of those acres and watersheds to have focused attention 

on enrollment in conservation programs and utilization of conservation practices, all tribal lands falling under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal governments, tribal agricultural entities, and individual tribal producers, landowners, or land operators should receive mandatory priority consideration for all conservation programs authorized in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

Further priority should be given to beginning farmers and ranchers seeking to 

establish or reestablish working land activities on tribal lands and commercial 

activities related to the reestablishment of working lands or the emergence of 

beginning farmers and ranchers who are tribal citizens utilizing those working 

lands. In any ranking activity conducted by USDA officials to determine which 

lands or resources to enroll in a conservation program allowed under this title, 

the Secretary and/or state conservationists or technical committees (state or 

tribal) shall give priority to tribal lands for enrollment in relevant programs, 

provided these lands or resources also meet requirements for inclusion in the 

programs. 

Notice Regarding Conservation Activities and ARMP Compliance 

• Ensure conservation activities will be required to be in conformance with the 

tribal government’s Agricultural Resource Management Plan, if one is in place, 

and that proper individuals or officials receive adequate notice of conservation 

activities. 

94 

Recognizing Tribal Law Parity 

• Amend any reference to ‘‘state law’’ in the Conservation Title to say ‘‘state law 

or tribal law’’ and any reference to ‘‘state technical committee’’ to ‘‘state technical committee or tribal technical committee.’’ Tribal Technical Committee • Require each state conservationist to establish a separate tribal technical committee should any tribal headquarters exist within their state boundaries or any 

land exist under the jurisdiction of tribal governments or the BIA. These tribal 

technical committees shall be given the same respect and deference that is currently given to the state technical committee, and each tribal technical committee shall be able to establish separate technical standards utilizing traditional ecological knowledge and, to the extent that they do so, such standards 

shall be the technical standards under which conservation programming can be 

deployed on tribal lands. Require establishment of state-level inter-tribal, regional inter-tribal, and national tribal advisory committees regarding conservation matters. 

Alternative Funding Arrangements—EQIP and Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP) 

• The 2014 Farm Bill allowed for entering into alternative funding arrangements 

with tribal governments to carry out the intention of the EQIP program and the 

CSP if the Secretary determined that the goals and objectives of the law would 

be met by such arrangements and that statutory limitations on entering arrangements with individual producers would not be exceeded. This provision 

needs more attention and improved implementation to ensure that each tribal 

government is offered the opportunity for alternative arrangements. 

Tribal Conservation Technical Committee 

• Authorize the Secretary to work with the BIA and a technical committee made 

up of tribal government representatives from each of the BIA regions to formulate a set of initiatives and programs that can be carried out under existing 

laws as well as a set of programs that may be needed under future conservation 

program authorities to improve the conditions of tribal lands and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the United States. This interdepartmental entity 

shall be put in place no later than 12 months after the passage of the 2018 

Farm Bill and shall issue its report no later than 24 months after passage of 

the 2018 Farm Bill. The interdepartmental efficiencies and improvements shall 

be undertaken immediately upon the issuance of the interdepartmental report, 

and annual reports of improvements and actions taken under this provision 

shall be made to Congress. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

• Create a pilot program to explore the use of livestock to improve soil health in 

CRP fields, and allow for a rental rate over and above the CRP payment to be 

made to the producer. Scientific studies have demonstrated the effect that a 

lack of animal impact can have on the soil. This program would seek to determine the impacts and benefits of this pilot program, for consideration in subsequent iterations of the Farm Bill or conservation legislation. Preference in the 

use of this land would be afforded first to SDR producers, Young and Beginning 

Producers, and then to customary producers. The more need that is met 

through the rental agreement, the smaller the reduction in CRP payment. 

Beginning Producers in Conservation Programs 

• Encourage and allow all beginning producers to participate in conservation programs and amend all conservation programs to incentivize beginning producers 

by removing the ‘‘one year of control’’ requirement. 

Rollback CSP Program to 2013 Standards 

• Reinstitute the CSP program to 2013 standards. 

Next Generation Easement 

• Incorporate a new ‘‘next generation easement’’ in conservation programs. This 

‘‘easement’’ should incorporate tax credits for landowners who are mentoring 

new and beginning producers and should include a death tax ‘‘write-off’ for farm 

transfer to the next generation. 

Trade 

Expand Market Access Program (MAP) 

• Expand MAP by substantially increasing the funding available to the existing 

agreements that facilitate coordination and administration of the MAP program 

95 

and result in increasing tribal food business participation in the program so 

that tribal audiences and more tribal food and agriculture businesses can benefit from the program. The impact of such engagement will further solidify local 

food economies and food businesses and stabilize tribal economies. 

Supporting Unique Tribal Foods and Fighting Native Food Fraud 

• Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to institute a system by 

which fraudulent foods that mimic tribal foods and tribal food businesses can 

be uncovered and prevented in the marketplace. Food fraud is on the rise 

throughout the world, and unscrupulous food business entities are already trying to mimic or replicate unique tribal food products. Those businesses should 

not be allowed to participate in programs that allow them to access markets 

with products that perpetrate frauds on tribal food producers or food businesses. 

No Additional Compensation for Expired Conservation Measures 

• When a conservation practice installed on tribal or individual Indian-owned 

land expires, or when a lease/permit expires, do not require individual tribal 

citizens, tribal governments, or tribal entities to compensate the former lessee 

of the tribal lands for the installation or maintenance of such practice since 

those practices have already been the subject of cost share with the federal government. Any further payment to lessees or users of the lands would constitute 

a windfall or unjust enrichment to such user of the land. 

NRCS Report on Natural Resource Inventory Investments Needs on Tribal Lands 

• Require USDA–NRCS to immediately develop a report to be delivered to all 

tribal governments and individual Indian producers identifying which tribal 

lands still need proper Natural Resource Inventory funding support to perform 

soil and range surveys to create a baseline report of needs for said lands. 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Consideration for Conservation Compliance 

• Consider traditional ecological knowledge whenever the Secretary determines 

the level of compliance of landowners who have lands or resources enrolled in 

any of the Conservation Title programs, particularly when determining whether 

a meaningful stewardship threshold has been reached. 

BIA Actions Responsible for Non-Compliance 

• Do not determine any tribal landowner or operator of lands in violation of any 

term of a conservation program enrollment requirement when the BIA can be 

established as the cause for any alleged non-compliance, whether through delay 

in action, other non-action in decision-making requirements, or any other reason. 

Tribal Priority in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

• Give priority consideration to tribal governments, tribal entities, and individual 

tribal landowners and operators to participate in EQIP program activities, in 

addition to the 5 percent tribal set-aside. This priority shall be widely advertised throughout each state in which the lands are located, and each tribal 

headquarters in the state shall receive notice of all activities related to the 

EQIP program. Tribal and individual Indian landowners and operators shall be 

entitled to additional priority for any activities related to organic and organic 

transition practices on their farms and ranches. Each tribal government shall 

be invited to at least two meetings with the state conservationist in a government-to-government conversation concerning the implementation of NRCS conservation programs that could be beneficial to tribal lands. When requested by 

tribal headquarters, the state conservationist shall enter into cooperative agreements and other activities that will establish a plan by which NRCS programming will be deployed on tribal lands for which the tribal government has an 

ongoing plan for conserving and protecting habitat, grasslands, rangelands, and 

other lands and land uses within tribal jurisdiction. 

Tribal Parity in the Conservation Title 

• Include a provision in all sections of the Conservation Title allowing tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal entities or organizations created for conservation and natural resource protection purposes to have full access to every 

program allowed under the Conservation Title. Wherever reference is made to 

‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producer, the terms ‘‘tribal’’ should 

be inserted into that section to ensure that inadvertent failure to list tribal governments, tribal producers, or tribal organizations does not preclude them from 

participating or relegate them to a lesser importance or priority within the relevant section. 

96 

Technical Assistance Funding for Tribal Governments and Organizations 

• Due to the relatively low use of all conservation programs on tribal lands and 

individual Indian-owned land, give the Secretary the authority to create a permanent fund within the available technical assistance funding authorities, appropriations, and programs to ensure that specialized technical assistance is 

made avaiJable on a continual basis to tribal governments, tribal organizations, 

and tribal landowners and producers throughout Indian Country, including in 

all tribal areas of Alaska and Hawaii. These targeted technical assistance funds 

shall be given priority to tribal organizations that have an established record 

of providing technical assistance to tribal audiences and shall demonstrate their 

knowledge of and ability to successfully complete projects involving conservation 

programming with tribal audiences. The funding shall not be provided to predominately non-Native organizations with little to no experience and knowledge 

of working with tribal audiences. Multi-year cooperative agreements should be 

authorized under such technical assistance programs. 

Interdepartmental Coordination to Support Tribal Trade 

• Include Indian Country as the USDA develops a stronger relationship with the 

Department of Commerce on food and agriculture trade. A special interdepartmental coordination group with USDA, Department of Commerce, Department 

of State, and other applicable agencies should be created to ensure that tribal 

food production is properly supported and encouraged on tribal lands and is 

thereafter made a part of the U.S. trade missions and efforts to promote agricultural trade. 

Tribal Representatives on U.S. Trade Missions 

• Include tribal governments, tribal food businesses, and individual tribal food 

producers on all foreign trade missions undertaken by the United States to further assist the access of tribal food products to such markets. Study 011 Tribal 

Representation on USDA Advisory Bodies • Require the Secretary to study all Trade Title programs to ensure that tribal 

representatives are included on all advisory bodies related to agricultural trade 

issues and concerns. 

Nutrition 

Tribal Administration of the SNAP and All Federal Food Assistance Programs 

• Provide tribal governments and tribal organizations the direct authority to administer SNAP and all other federal food assistance programs which they are 

currently not allowed to directly manage. This can be achieved by providing 

tribes with ‘‘638’’ self-governance contract authority for nutrition programs 

which exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health Service programs. Allowing tribes to take over these functions from the federal government 

will improve efficiency, reduce regulatory burdens, and support tribal self-governance and self-determination. 

Improvements to the FDPIR and Other Federal Feeding Programs 

• Since 2015, several tribal leaders have consulted with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) over significant improvements needed to FDPIR. While 

tribes have made some headway with USDA, significant legislative changes still 

need to occur within the FDPIR program, including: 

—Eliminating the matching funds requirement for each of the FDPIR program 

sites to participate, or limiting the matching requirement to 5 percent. 

—Providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state counterpart programs by allowing them to engage in carryover of unspent funds from year to year. This 

unequal treatment is problematic to tribal feeding programs whose funding 

needs, particularly for food distribution infrastructure (e.g., warehouses), could 

be met by allowing carryover funding. 

—Requiring FNS to continue to engage in tribal consultation. 

—Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation concerning reasonable alternatives to the regulatory-approved practice of ‘‘tailgating’’ at FDPIR program 

sites. No FDPIR program site should be allowed to engage in this demeaning 

practice. 

—Requiring FNS to consult with tribes and develop a written, public contingency plan in the event of any lapses in funding, disasters, government closures, or related incidents that might interrupt or cause the stoppage of food 

delivery. 

—Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously participate 

in SNAP. Neither program provides enough food for participants in remote 

places; by allowing simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental 

97 

feeding programs can be combined to actually result in addressing food insecurity. 

—Requiring FNS to hire at least one national tribal liaison located in its Washington, D.C., offices and one regional tribal liaison located in each regional FNS 

office subject to a federal Native American hiring preference or high levels of 

experience with tribal communities. 

—Increase nutrition education funding to at least $5 million per year and create 

an alternative to competitive funding so each tribal program receives support 

for nutrition education program materials through a coordinated approach. 

—Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice, salmon, blue 

com, and other products) to be a regular part of food package purchases and 

not require supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods. 

—Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation to compile a budget for FDPIR 

warehouse and other infrastructure needs to be included in its entirety in each 

federal budget cycle and request until it is fully funded. 

—Requiring all FDPIR purchasing and distribution to occur on a regional basis 

and include as much locally and regionally tribal-produced food as reasonably 

possible. 

— Remove the ‘‘Urban Place’’ definition to allow tribes and the USDA to work 

collaboratively to serve even more tribal citizens who need nutritious food, regardless of where they live. 

Credit 

Structuring Loans to Suit the Business 

• Authorize several innovative loan structuring measures in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

For example, currently FSA will lend 100 percent the cost of bred livestock. It 

will then subordinate its lien position to a local commercial lender for annual 

production costs, increasing the amount of debt secured by the same amount of 

assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If the first year of operating expenses could be included in the original loan, and amortized over the life of the 

secured asset, producers would end the year with cash in the bank, allowing 

producers to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input materials, replacement stock, or expansion opportunities. Such an approach would 

incentivize operating from available resources, instead of what could be borrowed on an annual basis. 

Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices 

• When commodity price cycles run contrary to the mandated FSA Planning 

Prices, despite a producer’s inclination to plan conservatively, producers are 

often faced with choice of accepting a plan based on those planning prices or 

shutting down their operation. In cases that FSA planning prices are more than 

20 percent higher than the actual prices, a producer should be able to restructure their debt in a way that will not count towards lifetime limits on loan servicing. 

Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rate 

• Update the Socially Disadvantaged Rate (SDR) interest rate for FSA loans from 

a static number (currently 5 percent) to be indexed to the prevailing rate and 

set a commensurate proportion of that rate, 50 percent of the standard rate. 

The current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest rate was in the 

double digits and should already have been revisited and revised. 

FSA Food Loan Authority 

• Under current program guidelines, there is some latitude for producers whose 

production will take a period to fully ramp up. Initial payments can be made 

at an 18-month mark rather than within the first year. This same methodology 

should be employed for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next 

step in the value chain. Keepseagle-Ciass Forgiveness 

• The Keepseagle litigation proved there was a systemic and deeply rooted history 

of discrimination at the USDA against Native and other producers. While Native Americans could avail themselves of the opportunity for debt settlement 

and a small monetary award to attempt to make them whole, some successful 

claimants also received a ‘‘clean slate’’ when dealing with the FSA in the future. 

With only 3,000 successful claimants of an anticipated 12,000 potential claimants, many Native producers, still feeling the disenfranchisement of decades of 

disparate treatment, did not take part in the claims process. Allowing the larger 

pool of potential Keepseagle claimants to experience a ‘‘clean slate’’ would be a 

98 

no-cost change that would improve future opportunities for many tribal producers. 

Remove tile Graduation Requirement for FSA programs 

• Due to the general lack of credit availability on and near Indian reservations, 

it is difficult to access viable credit rates for even experienced producers operating farms and ranches on trust lands. Removing the statutory requirement 

for producers on Indian reservations to have graduated from FSA programs 

would allow agriculture operations to be more stable and assist other producers 

who farm and ranch in areas where credit access is tenuous at best. 

Remove tile Requirement for Private Credit Denial 

• Explicitly exempt tribal producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining three 

denial letters from private credit sources in order to participate in an FSA loan 

program. The general lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders the requirement onerous and unduly burdensome. 

Create Common Definition of Land Owned by Indian Tribes across All USDA 

• Currently, there is no common definition of ‘‘land owned by Indian Tribes’’ 

across all USDA programs, creating inconsistent program access even within 

programs run by a single agency. 

Miscellaneous 

Fully Fund tile Office of Tribal Relations at USDA 

• Fund the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at a minimum of $1.5 million, because insufficient funding limits OTR’s ability to provide the programs, technical assistance, content, or even the basic communications to tribes and tribal 

producers regarding USDA’s education and training programs. Adequate funding is essential to carrying out OTR duties, including the oversight of all USDA 

tribal consultation. 

Authorize tile Establishment of an Office of Tribal Agriculture 

• Establish a broad reaching Office of Tribal Agriculture within the Office of the 

Secretary to coordinate all USDA programs as those programs apply to tribes, 

maximize the value of the programs, address issues in compliance and access 

of programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve as a liaison between 

the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian producers. Among other requirements, 

the Office of Tribal Agriculture should periodically report to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry at least once each fiscal year on the activities and progress in advancing tribal agriculture. The Office should also report annually to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs. The Office of Tribal Agriculture should receive an 

appropriation of $2 million for each fiscal year. 

Tax Credits or other Tax Incentives for Buying Indian Food and Agriculture Products 

• The 2018 Farm Bill should create a new ‘‘Buy Indian’’ tax credit or other tax 

incentives to encourage consumers and those within the food supply chain to 

buy American Indian and Alaska Native food products. This will not only help 

Native food products in the supply chain, it will also provide incentive for distributors, retailers, and related food purchasers to examine Native food product 

purchases to meet their food supply needs. 

Increase Cooperative Agreements between APHIS and Tribes 

• Enhanced authority for the livestock and plant disease agency of the USDA— 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—could dramatically increase the number of cooperative agreements it has with tribal governments 

and tribal organizations. Since tribal lands and individual Indian-owned land 

are among the most remote in the United States, it is important to ensure that 

animal and plant health is monitored closely and that animal and plant disease 

is dealt with properly and in ways that do not cripple Native agriculture and 

food production. Increasing the amount of funding of cooperative agreements is 

an important way to not only further the growth of agriculture management 

and governmental control at the tribal government level, but also meet the 

goals and concerns of APHIS. 

Recognize Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture 

• Permanently recognize and incorporate Tribal Departments charged with administration of Agriculture and Food Systems into the ongoing interface of all 

99 

agencies within USDA and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA 

with other offices of government. 

Country of Original Labeling and Beef Checkoff 

• Reinstate Country of Origin Labeling and create a set-aside within the Beef 

Check off funds that is devoted to the marketing and promotion of Native American Beef. Education, Training and Scholarship Programs to Support Native 

Producers and Scientists. 

• Develop a new program that focuses on educating and training the tribal agriculture labor force, provides key scholarships to Native producers, and encourages Native scholars and scientists to focus on food and agriculture. USDA currently has multiple internship, scholarship, mentoring, and other programs focused on increasing the diversity of American agriculture by educating the next 

generation of tribal leaders in food and agriculture. However, Native representation is low, and outreach to Native communities is weak. A Native scholarship 

program should be adequately funded and coordinated throughout the land 

grant system. A minimum of $10 million is needed to adequately endow a centralized scholarship fund for Native youth and scholars. This program should 

be managed by the Office of Tribal Relations and any new Office of Tribal Agriculture. 

Maintain and Fund the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network 

• Permanently maintain and fund the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network, 

which has been in place for more than five years through a cooperative agreement between USDA and the Intertribal Agriculture Council, through contributions from each of the agencies and offices of USDA. This effort should be funded at least $3 million annually, and it must continue to maintain regional offices in each of the 12 BIA regions to ensure access for all Native producers. 

interdepartmental Task Force 011 Indian Agriculture 

• Create an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian Agriculture with the Office 

of Tribal Relations, the Office of the Secretary, and representatives of each of 

the agencies and offices of USDA, along with the BIA. The purpose of the Task 

Force shall be to develop administrative efficiency and regulatory changes needed to ensure Native agriculture is supported and allowed to increase. The Task 

Force must report annually to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 

of Interior. 

OAO Outreach and Internships for Native Students 

• Require the USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) to fund internships 

for Native students at a level equal to the number of internships the office supports for any other socially disadvantaged group (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Asian American, women, etc.). The OAO has been inconsistent in funding 

these internships for Native students, and they should be required to do so if 

they fund members of other groups. The Tribal Liaison position within the OAO 

that focuses on the relationship between the American Indian Higher Education 

Consortium (AIHEC) and USDA (and staffs the joint leadership council of 

AIHEC and USDA officials) should be moved to the Office of Tribal Relations. 

Coordination with BIA on Agricultural Resource Management Plan 

• Require the BIA to coordinate with USDA in all aspects of supporting any tribe 

or individual Indian landowner that wishes to draft and implement (including 

receiving Secretary of Interior support) an Agricultural Resource Management 

Plan (ARMP), authorized under the American Indian Agricultural Resource 

Management Act of 1993 (AIARMA). This act has never been fully implemented, and only a few tribes and individual Indian landowners have placed 

a plan in motion. The BIA, working in concert with USDA, should prioritize 

finding resources to assist tribes (including technical assistance resources) in establishing plans authorized under the act. The BIA should be required to accept 

any conservation plan or forest management plan conducted by the NRCS or 

USFS agencies within USDA as equivalent to any environmental assessment 

deemed necessary in implementing the AIARMA. Tribes and individual Indian 

landowner should not be required to conduct a full NEPA analysis to conduct 

food and agriculture operations on their lands. The requirement is far more excessive than any applicable law, and this interpretation violates principles of 

rights to food, food access, environmental or food justice, and food sovereignty. 

An ARMP created pursuant to the AIARMA should be allowed as a fundable 

EQIP practice, and exempted from full NEPA analysis. 

100 

Increase FSMA Technical Assistance Funding for Tribal Producers 

• An increase in Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) training and technical 

assistance funding for tribal producers must occur. There are unique legal, jurisdictional, production, water, land use, and related issues and concerns regarding its implementation that will inhibit tribal food production if not addressed through enhanced food safety training and technical assistance. The 

Native American Outreach, Training, Technical Assistance, and Education cooperative agreement funded through the FDA attempts to reach the technical assistance and training needs of tribal producers, but USDA is not funding such 

efforts on a regular basis and FDA funding is not at the level necessary to cover 

the needs of producers in more than 30 states and with 567 tribes. The Farm 

Bill should require that the FDA and USDA double the amount of funding received by the Native outreach organization, since that organization is required 

to conduct activities that cover twice the land base that any other regional 

training center covers. The Farm Bill should also require that the USDA fund 

an additional equivalent amount of activities to ensure that tribal producers are 

reached with this information, which is vital to their compliance and their ability to reach markets for their products. USDA and FDA must conduct joint tribal consultation with regard to any current and future interpretations of the 

FSMA rules in order to determine potential continuing impacts on Indian Country producers and food businesses. Produce Safety Alliance (PSC) at Cornell 

University designs a]) approved curriculum on FDA FSMA implementation but 

the curriculum is not appropriate to the legal, jurisdictional, land, and water 

resources or food systems in Indian Country and appropriate curriculum and resources must be focused on the needs of Indian Country producers. 

Tribal Representation on All Federal Advisory Committees 

• Require USDA to recruit and appoint tribal citizens to each of the more than 

100 federal advisory committees it seats and supports. In addition, the Council 

for Native American Farming and Ranching should receive funding to support 

its work, and it should become a permanent FACA advising the Secretary and 

USDA. 

Weather Reporting Stations 

Energy 

Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program 

• Create a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program in the 2018 

Farm Bill to help spark economic development and energy infrastructure development in tribal communities, while providing low-cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding rural areas. This grant program for tribal governments 

and wholly owned tribal entities would operate much like a grant in lieu of tax 

credit, similar to the existing Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) 

Program. Further, the Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program 

should specify the eligibility of tribally chartered and federally chartered tribal 

corporations for rural development programs, including for grants and loan programs, as well as any technical assistance programs available. Since the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture has made a policy statement that it will recognize 

federally charted Section 17 Tribal Corporations as eligible entities for rural development programs, the program should codify this and clarify that tribally 

chartered tribal corporations are also eligible. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops 

Tribal Consultation on Fruit and Vegetable Programs 

• Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies primarily responsible for specialty crops to engage in ongoing tribal consultation concerning the 

impact and growth of the fruit and vegetable sector within Indian Country and 

the opportunities and challenges that can be positively impacted by changes in 

USDA regulations. 

Tribal Inclusion in tile Specialty Crop Block Grant Program 

• Change the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program to ensure that tribal departments of food and agriculture are eligible for funding under this important program and that tribal projects are not required to go through state funding 

mechanisms at state departments of agriculture to receive support. There are 

very few tribal projects that currently receive support and, at the same time, 

the number of tribal departments of agriculture is likely to continue to grow 

over time. This program is critical to the growth of this sector in Indian CounVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
101 

try, and tribal sovereignty must be respected by allowing these new departments to receive funding parity. 

Honey and Beekeeping Reports 

• Include the growth and increase in beekeeping and honey operations in Indian 

Country in any reports on honey or beekeeping 

Tribal Farmers, Markets 

• Require that a minimum of 10 percent of available funding in farmers’ market 

and local food promotion programs grant funding authorities go to tribal and 

tribal producer farmer’s markets and local food promotion activities. All definitions of farmers’ market and local food promotion activities must ensure that 

tribal food systems and producers are not excluded from participation based on 

the unique ways that such markets and activities iterate in Indian Country. 

Support for Tribal Organic Producers 

• Launch a special program in USDA designed to increase technical assistance to 

those within Indian Country who are interested and prepared to transition to 

organic production. 

Increased Support for FSMA Outreach 

• Ensure that tribes and tribal producers receive adequate technical assistance 

from USDA and/or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the Food Safety 

Modernization Act of2011 (FSMA) and that the ongoing implementation of 

FSMA does not inequitably or disproportionately negatively impact Indian 

Country food systems. The impact of FSMA implementation on tribal producers 

is different from the impact on any other U.S. producer due to the unique land 

base, legal jurisdiction, and production systems in Indian Country. At present, 

there is not enough funding to adequately reach tribal producers to ensure their 

knowledge of and compliance with FSMA requirements. In addition, the unique 

legal and political systems in Indian Country are not taken into consideration 

by USDA or FDA in fashioning approaches to FSMA compliance. 

Protecting Native Foods in the Marketplace 

• Require USDA to work with tribal governments, tribal organizations, and tribal 

producers to develop programs that are designed to protect the integrity of Native food products from fraudulent versions of their foods in the marketplace. 

The federal trust relationship requires that USDA work with tribal governments, tribal food companies, and tribal food producers to ensure that market 

regulatory mechanisms can be used to augment the ability and inherent legal 

authority of tribes to protect their unique food products. This can be done 

through geographic inteUectual property mechanisms put in place by tribal governments to protect unique tribal foods or other appropriate legal mechanisms 

that must receive recognition by the federal government. These processes for 

protection should be fully supported and recognized by USDA. 

Protect Tribal Seeds and Traditional Foods 

• Require USDA to take steps after tribal consultation to ensure that tribal seeds 

are given the maximum protection avai1able under federal law and not all owed 

to be accessed for commercialized purposes without the consent of tribal governments. Seeds of traditional foods are among the most sacred items to Indigenous peoples and the protection of those seeds, not only as food sources but as 

important cultural systems, must be required. 

Crop Insurance 

Parity for Indian Country And Production 

• With more than 50 percent of the $3.4 billion Indian Agriculture Industry being 

comprised of cattle, it is critical to design risk management products that meet 

the need. Currently there are few options available, and those that do exist require up-front premium payments (LFP, LRP). Simply changing the timing of 

premium payment to coincide with production would ease the burden of participation for Indian producers. Increasing the federal subsidy rate for this type of 

programs has also been demonstrated to incentivize participation and mitigate 

federal outlay in times of disaster. 

RMA Study on Crop Insurance in Indian Country 

• Require the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to conduct a study to ascertain 

the efficacy and applicability of the current crop insurance products as they relate to Indian Country agriculture production as indicated by the 2012 National 

102 

Agricultural Statistics Service And Census. If that study reveals that either the 

specific crop insurance products or the general guidance documents of RMA do 

not adequately consider unique tribal production issues, a separate administrative guidance or notice should be issued by RMA to solve these concerns, and 

unique crop insurance products and crop insurance administration systems 

should be pursued. 

Development of Crop Insurance for Traditional Foods and Livestock 

• Encourage RMA to develop a unique crop insurance policy product designed to 

cover the production systems associated with tribal food products, tribal livestock, and traditional food systems. The production systems associated with 

such products should be recognized as Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs), and 

tribal producers should also be afforded the same opportunity to pay premiums 

upon the sale of the crop or livestock instead of making an up-front payment. 

Tribal Producer Education Programs 

• Ensure that at least 10 percent of all projects funded through RMA’ s Risk 

Management Education Program are focused on tribal producer risk management training needs and tribal food production systems and the unique risks 

associated with those systems. 

Allow Tribal Insurance Companies to Insure Tribal Producers 

• Engage AMERIND Risk, a 100 percent tribally owned and operated insurance 

provider, to begin the process of offering crop insurance products in Indian 

Country because it has significant experience offering and underwriting insurance needs in Indian Country and serves a national intertribal audience. The 

current crop insurance research, product development, and policy sales areas 

are not developed for, and do not adequately reach, smaller tribal producers. 

Many of these unique problems can be addressed by working directly with 

AMERIND Risk. 

Appoint Tribal Producers to FCIC Board 

• Consider appointing tribal producers to fill future vacancies on the Federal 

Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board and thereby ensure that every FCIC 

Board has at least one, if not more, tribal producers on the board whose role 

will be to address the unique issues associated with tribal production systems. 

• Provide tribal set-asides and preferences within all non-FRTEP NIFA funding 

authorities while retaining the competitive nature of the funding, which is necessary to continue building capacity and strength. 

• Amend the agricultural legal funding authority contained in the 2014 Farm Bill 

to ensure that competition for the funds occurs and funding is set-aside to be 

provided to organizations and entities that have a proven specialty and primary 

focus on Indian Jaw issues that intersect with food and agriculture Jaw. 

• Require NIF A funding authorities to focus a portion of their work on building 

knowledge and capacity in business development unique to tribal lands and individual Indian owned land, and approach this work separately due to the 

unique complexities in tribal land use, law, regulatory burdens, and related 

issues. Since business training and the development of solid business planning 

tools are also necessary, funding would be best focused around risk management education programs and the funding authorities in this area. 

• Allow tribal governments and tribal organizations full access to all nutrition 

education programs at NIFA, including SNAP-Ed, and all research programs related to building knowledge in nutrition, health, obesity, and diabetes prevention. 

• Include a set-aside in Small Business Innovation Research projects funded 

through NIFA for tribal projects leading for commercialization of food products 

or food systems innovations. 

• Ensure that the federal formula funding authorities that support basic research, 

education, and extension funding for 1862 institutions is revisited to ensure 

that the institutions receiving such funds based on the federal formula actually 

provide research, education, and extension services to the tribal communities, 

farms, ranches, farmers, and rural citizens who are counted in the formula that 

establishes funding allocations. At present tribal interests are considered in establishing formula allocations but there is no follow through to determine if actual projects result in such funding allocations. 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program 

• Reauthorize the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program with 

a set-aside for tribal sustainable agriculture project funding. 

103 

Agricultural Research Service Projects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

• Launch and support a significant number of research projects within the Agricultural Research Service that focus on the important role that traditional 

knowledge plays in the environmental, natural resource, ecological, food science, 

nutrition, and health arenas. Funding provided in these unique content areas 

must be done with full consultation with tribal governments and full compliance 

with modem cultural practices and recognition. 

Multi-Tribal Funding for Research Title Programs 

• Develop a separate funding authority, like the Sun Grant or Sea Grant authorities, to allow multi-tribal, multi-state, and consortium approaches to meeting 

the research, education, and extension needs of Indian Country. 

Native Youth Grants 

• Include a provision of grants for youth-focused organizations in Indian Country 

that focus on developing food and agriculture leadership and scientific knowledge in all grants for youth organizations. 

TCU Center of Excellence 

• Encourage, allow, and include the Centers of Excellence approach to funding in 

the next Farm Bill Research Title. 

Forestry 

Improve the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) 

• Adopt the legislative text from the Sections 301 and 303 of the 114mCongress’s 

H.R. 2642 (Rep. Westerman) in the new Farm Bill. 

• Include the TFP A streamlining provisions to improve the timelines for review 

and implementation of forest restoration projects requested by tribes. 

• Allow for greater tribal participation in TFP A projects by authorizing, as a discretionary pilot program, the application of ‘‘638’’ contracting authority to TFPA 

projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. 

Cooperative Management of Adjacent Federal Lands 

• Since tribes continue to have legal, historic, and economic connections to adjacent federal forests, include a pilot program authorizing tribes and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) to conduct cooperative, discretionary forest restoration 

activities on Forest Service and BLM lands using existing regulations governing 

the management of Indian forests. Additional means and legal and financial arrangements that would support the cooperative management of forest lands 

with and through Tribes must be explored. 

Tribal Forestry Workforce Development 

• Authorize the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to fund a Native American forestry workforce coordination and development program through an 

intertribal organization familiar with Tribal forestry issues. The Indian Forest 

Management Assessment Team, an independent panel of scientists, has identified the need to recruit, train and retain a future forestry and fire workforce 

to address the growing shortage of trained workers for the management and operation of Indian forests. This shortage of forest workers constrains the ability 

of tribes and related federal agencies to effectively manage and protect tribal 

forests and forest-related natural resources and to participate in broader landscape-based forest management activities. 

McIntire-Stennis Parity 

• Allow Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) offering a bachelor’s degree in 

forestry or higher to perform tribally and state-relevant forestry research and 

develop a well-trained Native forestry workforce. The Mcintire-Stennis Act of 

1962 dedicates funds to states to pursue forestry research at state colleges and 

universities and to help train the next generation of forest scientists and professionals. All 1862land grant institutions and, since the 2008 Farm Bill, 1890 Historically Black Colleges and Universities have access to funding, yet the National Institute of Food and Agriculture made just under $32 million available 

under Mcintire-Stennis. While tribal trust lands are included in the formula 

that a11ocates funding to the individual states, the 1994 Land Grant TCUs remain ineligible to receive research funding. 

Fire Suppression Priorities 

• Any federal wildfire suppression efforts in the Farm Bill should ensure that Indian forests are properly prioritized in fire suppression activities and funding. 

104 

Current priorities place protection of private structures above protection of tribal forest assets held, managed and protected by the U.S. as trustee. As a result, 

in the 2015 fire season, suppression crews were removed from wildfires on Indian trust forests to protect private structures. The fires on Indian trust forests 

exploded, destroying hundreds of thousands of acres and millions of board feet 

of timber vitally important to tribal economies. These priorities, allowing federally protected trust assets essential to tribal communities to be sacrificed to protect private structures, needs review. 

Support Anchor Forests 

• Provide authority to develop more Anchor Forest initiatives. The Inter-Tribal 

Timber Council, its member Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service, and other forest resource stakeholders have recently completed a pilot study in Washington State 

and report on an ‘‘Anchor Forest’’ concept to foster landscape-scale forest collaboration and management projects intended to improve forest health while 

preserving local logging, milling, and other critical infrastructure. The pilot 

study was successful and many tribes in the Great Lakes states and Southwest 

are interested in developing Anchor Forest projects in their own regions. 

Protection of Sacred Places 

• Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian sacred places are maintained and strengthened, and that the responsibilities of USDA and other federal departments to consult with tribes on an ongoing basis concerning sacred 

places continually occurs. The Memorandum of Understanding among departments of the federal government must be kept in place indefinitely. 

Tribal Representatives on Forestry Advisory Bodies 

• Require tribal representation on all local, regional and national planning and 

implementation bodies which serve in advisory capacities to USDA and the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

Parity between Forest Services and NRCS Land Language 

• Create parity between Forest Service management agreement language and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service determination of land control language 

to preserve tribal sovereignty and rights to gather/manage traditional plant 

stands and enhance opportunities for tribes to leverage Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) assistance on traditional lands under Forest Service 

jurisdiction. 

• Credit Title or another a section having application broadly across the entire 

Department, is to place it within the Definitions section of the Conservation 

Title, where many problems associated with lack of common definition are most 

pronounced. Regardless of where such definition is placed, attention should be 

paid to consistency across the family of USDA programs and authorities. 

GAO Study on Credit Access in Indian Country 

• Conduct an in-depth analysis by the Government Accountability Office into the 

nature of credit in Indian Country; specifically examining compliance with the 

Community Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian reservations. 

Rural Development 

Implement SUTA Provisions Throughout all Rural Development Programs 

• Further broaden the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision 

across all RD programs. Currently, SUTA is only applied to a small segment 

of infrastructure programs, but more explicit guidance must be provided to 

allow the Secretary to exercise this discretion more broadly. This change will 

help ensure more equitable access to RD programs and authorities, and can be 

used to provide much-needed support to tribal citizens living in rural communities. The change would, among other things, allow the waiver of matching requirements for projects funded through RD, which can be a significant barrier 

to socially disadvantaged applicant participation in RD business and infrastructure projects. 

Rural Development Tribal Set-Aside 

• Provide a tribal set-aside in either terms of percentage of the funding portfolio 

or a specific funding level for tribal applications within each of the RD program 

authorities to address the inadequacy and general lack of rural infrastructure 

in Indian Country. The trust responsibility of the federal government to tribes 

provides the broad foundation for such set aside. Without dedicated funding for 

tribal rural development, the promise of these places will never be realized and 

105 

Indian Country’s infrastructure will continue to decline. In many areas around 

the country, tribal governments are the strongest remaining rural government 

entity. In some locations, tribal governments have taken over the management 

of key infrastructure (such as water systems, electric, and other utilities) because there is no other sound governmental or non-governmental entity that 

can handle these functions. 

Establish a Permanent Rural Development Tribal Technical Assistance Office 

• Establish a permanent office providing technical assistance across all RD funding authorities via a cooperative agreement with USDA for two reasons. First, 

the complexities of lending and infrastructure establishment in Indian Country 

-tied to the nature of the trust land base- call for the establishment of such an 

office that can prepare and monitor lessons learned, establish user-friendly application systems, and assist staff at the tribal or business level in preparing 

applications. This is a function the federal government cannot readily undertake. Such assistance will also provide needed insight to federal staff in the ongoing execution of their roles by providing a single point-of-contact for all concerned. Second, the trust responsibility of the federal government to tribes supports the need to establish such assistance interventions. This is not unheard 

of, as RD (particularly in the infrastructure arena) has field staff who assist 

agency staff and the applicant in analyzing financial viability, key engineering 

specifications, and related technical requirements for more complex infrastructure projects. 

Maintain the Under Secretary for Rural Development Position 

• Maintain an Under Secretary for Rural Development in the 2018 Farm Bill and 

all additional sequent legislation and appropriations packages. Having an 

Under Secretary whose primary duties are to focus on RD programs and funding is critical for Indian Country and rural America. Any changes that would 

impact the Under Secretary role for Rural Development must be the subject of 

tribal consultation. 

Uplift America by Supporting CDFIs Loan Authority 

• Develop a process to allow small, new and emerging Community Development 

Financial Institutions (CDFis) access to loan authority. The concept of hatching 

and obligating all loan guarantee authority annually is a game changer. The requirements put upon CDFis to participate in this endeavor are patently prohibitive. Only the largest CDFis could secure any meaningful funding levels, and 

some had threatened litigation to do that. 

Extend Rural Electric Loan and Grant Program Authority to CDFIs 

• Rural electric cooperatives are uniquely poised to be economic development drivers in their communities. Often, they choose not to avail themselves of this opportunity. In cases where a rural electric cooperative chooses not to participate 

in this program in the past, local CDFis should have the opportunity to carry 

out the function. 

Maintain Rural Water Program Funding 

• Rural water and wastewater systems are essential to community support and 

economic growth in Indian Country. The rural water and wastewater program 

funding in the RD Title should never be lost. Tribal governments, individual Indian producers. reservations, and remote and isolated communities will be severely undercut in the protection and growth of their food systems and their 

ability to access markets for their food production markets if access to funding 

for rural water systems is lost or diminished. This is a matter of food insecurity 

and economic and environmental justice. 

Research 

Parity in Funding for FRTEP 

• Increase funding for FRTEP to at least $10 million, and preferably increased 

to greater levels of funding. FRTEP supports farmers, natural resources managers, youth (via 4–H youth programs), and communities by providing an agent 

to liaise with other USDA programs, provide training in farm and ranch business management, supervise 4–H and youth development activities, and coordinate special training programs, including the application of new agricultural 

technologies, among many other vital activities. While there are more than 

3,100 extension offices available to farmers nationwide (through the institutions 

in the land grant system). the current $3 million funding level provides only 36 

FRTEP extension agents to serve more than 50 million acres of tribal lands, a 

106 

growing number of tribal food producers, and 567 federally recognized tribal 

reservations as well as many state-recognized tribal communities. Providing 

more than $10 million in funding would begin to address this persistent inequity by nearly doubling the FRTEP staff and the number of Native youth 

served by the program. Greater attention must be given to whether the land 

grant extension system funding is being used appropriately or in such a way 

that tribal communities and producers receive the resources they need in relation to the proportionate formula funding distributed. The current system of 

competitive funding is also in need of adjusting. as it results in long-standing 

and effective programs being cast aside in favor of new programs with no established track record and states like South Dakota, with nearly 19 percent of the 

land owned by Indians. not receiving funding at all. Consultative review of all 

FRTEP applications must be reinstated. 

Research Title Funding Mechanisms 

• Update funding systems to reflect the research and educational needs of tribal 

communities. The competitive and formula funding mechanisms within the Research Title can provide much-needed research and development, infrastructure 

development, education, and extension of knowledge, but the assumptions about 

the funding systems have outlived their usefulness. 

TCU Eligibility for all National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Funding 

• Make TCUs eligible for all USDA–NIFA funding authorities. TCU extension 

professionals are not present among enough tribes, and they are currently not 

provided with even the minimum level of funding to accomplish their work. 

However, FRTEP. due to its unique history and implementation. must be excluded from this requirement as the circumstances of the FRTEP program is 

entirely different. 

Additional Resources for Tribal College Extension, Research and Education Programs 

• Increase non-FRTEP funding considerably for Tribal College extension programs so they can effectively address the needs for tribal research and education related to tribal food systems and food producers. 

• Require extension programs funded at 1862 institutions to provide services to 

tribal food systems, so that there is not a gap in tribal educational scholarships, 

internships. and critical needs. The growth of Native food systems requires the 

improvement of access and parity within the Research Title. 

• Commission a comprehensive study to explore the potential ability of 1862 Land 

Grant Institutions to share administrative functions, classroom and faculty resources, and other related support mechanisms. 

Tribal Set-Aside, Preference, and Funding at NIFA 

• USDA should be required to work alongside other relevant federal departments 

to ensure that weather reporting systems and stations are located on tribal 

lands and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the U.S., because the gathering of that information is vital to predicting production yields and assessing 

disaster impacts, among other weather-related needs. Currently, very few 

weather reporting stations are located on tribal lands, and USDA should take 

the lead in working with other departments to ensure this is addressed. 

Buy Indian and Indian Preference for USDA Food Purchasing 

• Amend the language that controls USDA contracting and procurement, including the language that controls the procurement of food, to not only recognize 

and support a ‘‘Buy Indian’’ provision, but also allow an ‘‘Indian preference’’ 

particularly when USDA is purchasing any product, including food, being utilized by Native people within their communities (such as food in the commodity 

food programs, like the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations). 

Establish an Indian Agriculture Development Trust Fund 

• Production agriculture has the potential to provide a private sector economy for 

rural tribal governments. Some of the highest unemployment rates in the country are located on tribal lands- several with chronic unemployment rate as high 

as 80 percent. Many of these tribal communities have land bases that can support production. A secure and stable source of technical assistance and expertise 

in the development of their agriculture-related economies could improve the 

quality of life for Indian peoples living on those reservations. 

107 

Make the Indian Agriculture Trust Fund Available to All Tribes 

• Require that all funds used in the Indian Agriculture Trust Fund should also 

be available to tribes in other parts of the country and that a study be performed by USDA to find other similar sources of income to fund such a trust 

fund and report back to Congress as to the findings. The need for such a trust 

fund is pervasive throughout Indian Country, not just in the Midwest or Missouri River basins and watersheds. 

USDA and BIA Work Group on Farming and Ranching 

• Require USDA and the BIA to form a permanent working group that examines 

all aspects of the interface of farms and ranches on tribal lands and individual 

Indian owned lands, and reports annually to both the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Secretary of Interior concerning administrative changes that should be 

made to further the access of tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal 

food businesses to all programs and authorities of USDA. 

Tax Extenders 

• Extend the Indian Employment Tax Credit (26 U.S.C. a 45A) and the Accelerated Depreciation Tax Incentive for business property located on Indian reservations (26 U.S.C. a 168) because agriculture is increasingly dependent on financing and development tools. Both tax incentives expired at the end of 2012; 

however, many businesses operating on the reservation rely on these tax credits 

to help subsidize the cost of materials and workers. While these should be extended, the accelerated depreciation and Indian employment tax credits are inconsistent, because they continue to be renewed year after year instead of being 

made permanent or renewed for a longer duration (four to seven years). This 

uncertainty makes them unreliable as investment incentives to attract the 

multi-year, large-scale projects they were intended to attract. Making these incentives permanent does not increase costs on an annual basis, and would attract new businesses into Indian Country instead of only benefitting those nonIndian businesses already operating on the reservation. 

Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe. If you need further information please do not hesitate to 

contact us. Thank You. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLE M. PALMER, FOOD SYSTEMS SPECIALIST, COPE 

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

Working closely with community members throughout Navajo Nation, we write to 

submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to 

ensure that Indian Country is fully represented in the upcoming Farm Bill and included in all relevant discussions. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request that the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs consult with the Senate Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Navajo Nation contains nearly 15,000 farm sites, covering almost 17 million 

acres of land, but only a fraction of these are being farmed. Navajo farmers face 

challenges with regard to land and water access, and Navajo families face challenges accessing healthy, affordable, and traditional foods. Many advocates in Navajo Nation are working to pursue food sovereignty and the growth of a healthy, sustainable food system. This work occurs at all levels of government: federal, state, 

and tribal. 

Federal efforts to delineate and regulate Navajo lands have caused significant 

land access and land use issues. As a result, today it is incredibly challenging for 

new farmers to access land. Farmers of all ages and experience levels also contend 

with issues including livestock overgrazing and the trespass of cattle onto fertile 

cropland, soil degradation, and the lengthy and complex process required to obtain 

a grazing permit. Several programs contained in the Farm Bill have the potential 

to help alleviate these issues. 

Primary Goal: Support Training and Technical Assistance for Beginning 

Farmers 

With over 14,000 small producers and a growing number of small farms, it is crucial that Navajo Nation maintain a strong support system for tribe members seeking 

to transition into the agriculture sector. Programs such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BRFDP) can help Navajo Nation build support systems for new 

producers by providing loans and grants for organizations that provide technical asVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
108 

sistance and education to small and beginning farmers. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Navajo Nation advocates can encourage Congress to increase the set-aside funding for 

socially disadvantaged farmers in the BFRDP, and alter the terms of RMAP loans 

for minority and socially disadvantaged farmers, in order to improve the likelihood 

that farmers and organizations in Navajo Nation will benefit from these programs. 

Incentivize aging farmers to prioritize transition planning, and provide training and 

information for farmers and professionals about farm transition planning. 

According to the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture, the average age of a Navajo 

farmer/rancher is 58 years old. As Navajo’s almost 23,000 farmers and ranchers age, 

it is vital to ensure that their farmland will be protected for the next generation. 

Engaging younger generations and connecting retiring Navajo farmers to younger 

Navajo Nation members interested in farming can help to preserve traditional farming practices and provide younger Navajo farmers with access to farmland. Farm 

Bill programs such as the Transition Incentives Program can assist farmers with 

transitioning land to young and beginning farmers. This program provides retiring 

farmers with additional rental payments on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) if the farmers sell or rent that land to beginning and socially 

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers when the enrollment expires. Altering the 

terms of this program in the next farm bill to lower the experience level required 

for applicants, and to give priority consideration to tribal lands, could make this 

program more accessible to farmers in Navajo Nation. 

Additional Goals 

• Provide loans or grants for the purchase of agricultural equipment, tools, and 

infrastructure 

• Promote land transfers to Navajo farmers and beginning farmers 

• Restore tribal land soil quality in the face of environmental degradation. 

Especially as new and beginning farmers gain access to farmland, access to infrastructure such as equipment, tools, and training represents an important need. Agricultural infrastructure will also be critical as climate patterns shift and weather 

emergencies become more frequent and intense-enhanced agricultural resiliency and 

diversification of crops can help Navajo Nation ensure the future integrity of their 

agricultural sector as a cultural, economic, and ecological enterprise. The survival 

and continued use of traditional agricultural methods also represents a cultural priority. 

Getting local and healthy foods to markets within Navajo Nation remains a challenge, due to factors such as the vast and rural nature of the Nation. There are few 

grocery stores in Navajo Nation, and the grocery and convenience stores often do 

not carry healthy or traditional foods. To address these challenges, advocates in 

Navajo Nation are pursuing solutions that prioritize local food production, increase 

access to healthy food in Navajo Nation, and keep economic resources within the 

tribe. The next Farm Bill can support these local efforts by providing funding for 

the development of processing facilities, markets, and transportation in Navajo Nation. 

Primary Goals: Support the creation of value-added goods, the development of 

shared-use commercial kitchens and other food processing facilities. 

Access to food processing infrastructure can play a key role in building a sustainable local food system. Processing can allow for more local goods to be prepared, 

which can create local jobs while increasing access to local, traditional and less 

highly-processed foods. Yet critical processing infrastructure, such as certified kitchens and cold storage, is largely absent. Expanded availability of commercial kitchens 

and other infrastructure could increase local food processing capacity in the Navajo 

Nation. Existing farm bill programs such as Value-Added Producer Grants and the 

Community Foods Project program provide funding to support these initiatives. Advocates can push for maintenance of such programs in the 2018 Farm Bill, with 

modifications such as set-aside funding for socially disadvantaged producers or for 

projects in tribal communities, in order to increase access to these programs in Navajo Nation. 

Support the creation and operation of mobile slaughterhouse units. 

As of 2012, there were 23,082 farmers and ranchers in Navajo Nation and 71,605 

cattle and calves. However, many meat slaughter and processing facilities are far 

from the Navajo Nation, and no USDAinspected slaughterhouse on the Nation. Development of a slaughterhouse that complies with USDA and state requirements is 

extremely expensive. Mobile Slaughter Units (MSUs), while still expensive, are a 

potential solution for rural producers who want to process and sell their meat to 

109 

local consumers. MSUs can reduce transportation costs for farmers and could allow 

for the use of traditional slaughter and processing methods. Farm Bill programs 

such as Value-Added Producer Grants and the Rural Business Development Program can be used to study the feasibility of an MSU, and to cover planning and 

equipment costs. Advocating for expanded set-asides for socially disadvantaged or 

tribal applicants, and waiving matching requirements for these applicants, could increase the likelihood that a project in Navajo Nation could receive funding to develop an MSU. 

Additional Goals 

• Support the formation of agricultural cooperatives and food hubs in Navajo Nation. 

• Support livestock producers by improving access to risk management. 

• Modify the Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program to 

better support Navajo Nation. 

COPE gives its full support to tribal leadership and grassroots efforts on the Navajo Nation to address these critical issues. We appreciate your strong consideration 

of tribal perspectives as you move forward with this legislation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRANDON YELLOWBIRD STEVENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN, 

ONEIDA NATION

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Oneida Nation in the State of Wisconsin, we write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that 

Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this impmiant piece of legislation. 

The Oneida Nation is a federally recognized Indian Tribe with approximately 

17,000 Oneida citizens. Currently, there are 4,487 Oneida citizens living on the 

Oneida Reservation with the remainder living worldwide. The Oneida Indian Reservation was established in 1838 and covers nearly 65,400 acres. Although, we own 

approximately 26,000 of those acres, the boundaries of our reservation remain unchanged while seven local municipalities overlap onto the reservation. Our Nation 

is originally from upstate New York. After the Revolutionary War, we lost nearly 

5 million acres of our original homelands to the birth of the United States and the 

state ofNew York. Our people began to relocate to Wisconsin. In 1838, the Treaty 

with the Oneida established the 65,400-acre Oneida Indian Reservation along Duck 

Creek. For nearly 200 years, we have lived here, a place we now call home. 

The Oneida Nation Farms and Agriculture Center grows 5,000 acres of crops 

which includes traditional cash crops, our traditional white corn, raises 450–550 

head of feeders, 150 head of grazed cow-calf, and 177 head of grass-fed bison. Other 

lands in steep soils (slopes) are being used for 30 acres of non-cultivated apple crop 

productions without causing soil erosion and 10 acres are used for production of 

strawberries, raspberries, pumpkins, and squash. The Oneida Nation recently established an aquaponics system that will produce between 10–15,000 heads of lettuce 

and 800 fish. 

The Oneida Nation has utilized many USDA programs such as Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations, and Rural Development. Each of these programs has been 

extremely helpful in improving the quality oflife for reservation residents. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Oneida Nation requests 

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Govemments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill, including access to funding, technical assistance, and other 

programs. 

• Tribal Administration of Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and all 

Federal Food Assistance Programs through PL 93–638 self-determination contracts. 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural . Development programs. 

110 

In addition, the Oneida Nation supports the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Conservation Title 

• To provide base funding to Tribal Organizations that represent a geographic location that gives a voice to Tribes of Wisconsin on agriculture, food, and conservation issues that are important to Native Americans at the state and national levels like the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Council (WTCAC). 

Tribal Conservation Advisory Councils were first authorized in the 1995 Farm 

Bill as advisory bodies to NRCS and all of USDA on Tribal issues, and WTCAC 

was the first such council formed in the country 2001. These Tribal Advisory 

Councils bring in strong partnerships to the USDA’s agencies for reviewing policies, regulations, development new programing and standards. 

• Create a separate permanent Tribal Technical support fund to ensure that specialized technical assistance is made available to tribal entities, with priority 

given to organizations such as WTCAC which have an established record of providing technical assistance and the ability to successfully complete conservation 

programming on Tribal Land. 

Forestry Title 

• Forest Service (FS) and NRCS language needs parity language to preserve tribal sovereignty and rights to gather and manage traditional plant stands and enhance opportunities for tribes to leverage EQIP on traditional lands. 

• Under the Farm Bill, all Forestry languages, programs, regulations and standards should also reference the ‘‘Tribes’’ where ever refelTing to ‘‘states’’. This 

will improve and expand access to the U.S. Forest Service programming and 

services. 

Crop Insurance Title 

• Commodities and Crop Insurance: Improvements in recognizing Tribal Agricultural products such as traditional medicinal plants, maple syrup, honey, hazelnuts, white corn, fish, birch, deer, or other animals and ginseng (to name a few) 

to be included in all USDA agencies as commodities. Recognition of traditional 

Tribal products will provide equal opportunity to Tribal members, allowing for 

technical assistance, risk insurance for crop losses, and wanant low interest 

loans for tribal agriculture start-ups. 

Miscellaneous 

• The Farm Bill should enable additional research and pilot projects to help plow 

the path between USDA and US Drug Enforcement Agency to advance legal 

cultivation, harvest, and use and sale of industrial hemp (with low concentrations ofTHC), authorized at the federal, state, and local level. Through this action, Tribes can refine or offer products for a variety of commercial items including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, paint, insulation, biofuel, 

food, and animal feed. 

• Recommend a standardization of definition of language across USDA agencies. 

Standardization might include defined factors such as plant vigor, healthy 

plants, and healthy fish as examples. Language that defines the policies, procedures and regulations in the 2018 Farm Bill needs to provide equal opportunity 

to traditional native agricultural producers. For example: NRCS definition of a 

field is based on the concept of production, which does not consider Tribal 

Aquaponics projects, while Farm Services field does include Tribal Aquaponics 

projects and the Aquaponics growth area is considered a field. 

The Oneida Nation supports many of the recommendations provided by the Native Farm Bill Coalition. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the importance of the Farm Bill 

in Indian Country, where agriculture can have both economic impacts and cultural 

significance. We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to protect, 

expand, and enhance Indian Agriculture. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT VALENCIA, CHAIRMAN, PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, we write to submit testimony for 

the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian 

Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

111 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe is a sovereign nation located in Arizona. The Tribe has 

a reservation southwest ofTucson, with an on-reservation population of about fivethousand members. The total population of the Tribe is 22,000 enrolled members. 

In addition to the Reservation, which comprises 2,216 acres, the Tribe also has several predominantly Pascua Yaqui communities off of the reservation throughout 

southern and central Arizona. These communities predate the Tribe’s Federal Recognition in 1978, and the designation of the Reservation at that same time. While 

not trust lands, these Pascua Yaqui communities are home to tribal members for 

whom the Tribe provides services, including housing, health care, and various other 

costly services and programs. 

The importance ofthe Nutrition Title programs in Indian Country cannot be overstated. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides benefits 

to 24 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native households and that percentage 

is even higher at the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, with 49 percent of households receiving 

SNAP. This percentage is four times higher than other residents of the State of Arizona. Tribes’ higher participation rates in the nutrition programs hinge on limited 

meaningful employment opportunities, poor transportation options to food sources or 

food retail, lack of food retail locations in tribal communities, the age and population 

characteristics of the individuals in the communities, and the prevalence of chronic 

health problems, among other issues. Because the rates of obesity, diabetes, chronic 

heart disease, cancer, and other health problems are so high in so many communities in Indian Country, participation rates in the nutrition programs coupled with 

the prevalence of persistent poverty create a fragile system of food access across Indian Country. A consistent, comprehensive, and tribal-led approach that is tailored 

to Indian Country’s needs is paramount. 

Any cuts or changes to reduce direct participation in the programs diminish the 

food, and in some cases the only meals, available to Native children, pregnant 

women, elders, and veterans. No one, especially our most vulnerable tribal citizens, 

should ever have to go without food. Tribal governments have consistently sought 

the authority to take over the administration of federal food assistance programs 

like SNAP, which they currently cannot run, to not only improve food access and 

efficiency of the programs, but to further tribal self-governance and serve the unique 

needs of their citizens and communities. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the 

Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the 

Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill; 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts; and 

• Expansion ofthe Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across 

all Rural Development programs. 

In addition, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe supports the following recommendations to 

be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 

Conservation Title 

• Create a new section of the Conservation Title or in sections related to eligibility determinations to ensure that lands held in common, such as reservation 

lands that are controlled and farmed/ranched by groups of individuals, can participate in all Conservation Title programs and that special provisions are enacted in regulations to ensure that any tribal government-allowed entity is the 

recognized conservation program participant (as opposed to specific individuals). 

• Amend any reference to ‘‘state law’’ in the Conservation Title to say ‘‘state law 

or tribal law’’ and any reference to ‘‘state technical committee’’ to ‘‘state technical committee or tribal technical committee.’’ 

• Include a provision in all sections of the Conservation Title allowing tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal entities or organizations created for conservation and natural resource protection purposes to have full access to every 

program allowed under the Conservation Title. Wherever reference is made to 

‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producer, the terms ‘‘tribal’’ should 

be inserted into that section to ensure that inadvertent failure to list tribal governments, tribal producers, or tribal organizations does not preclude them from 

112 

participating or relegate them to a lesser importance or priority within the relevant section. 

Nutrition Title 

Tribal Administration of the SNAP and All Federal Food Assistance Programs 

• Provide tribal governments and tribal organizations the direct authority to administer SNAP and all other federal food assistance programs which they are 

currently not allowed to directly manage. This can be achieved by providing 

tribes with ‘‘638’’ selfgovernance contract authority for nutrition programs 

which exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health Service programs. Allowing tribes to take over these functions from the federal government 

will improve efficiency, reduce regulatory burdens, and support tribal self-governance and self-determination. 

Improvements to the FDPIR and Other Federal Feeding Programs 

• Since 2015, several tribal leaders have consulted with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) over significant improvements needed to FDPIR. While 

tribes have made some headway with USDA, significant legislative changes, including those listed below, still need to occur within the FDPIR program. 

—Eliminating the matching funds requirement for each of the FDPIR program 

sites to participate, or limiting the matching requirement to 5 percent. 

—Providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state counterpart programs by allowing them to engage in carryover of unspent funds from year to year. This 

unequal treatment is problematic to tribal feeding programs whose funding 

needs, particularly for food distribution infrastructure (e.g., warehouses), could 

be met by allowing carryover funding. 

—Requiring FNS to continue to engage in tribal consultation. 

—Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation concerning reasonable alternatives to the regulatory-approved practice of ‘‘tailgating’’ at FDPIR program 

sites. No FDPIR program site should be allowed to engage in this demeaning 

practice. 

—Requiring FNS to consult with tribes and develop a written, public contingency plan in the event of any lapses in funding, disasters, government closures, or related incidents that might interrupt or cause the stoppage of food 

delivery. 

—Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously participate 

in SNAP. Neither program provides enough food for participants in remote 

places; by allowing simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental 

feeding programs can be combined to actually result in addressing food insecurity. 

—Requiring FNS to hire at least one national tribal liaison located in its Washington, D.C., offices and one regional tribal liaison located in each regional FNS 

office subject to a federal Native American hiring preference or high levels of 

experience with tribal communities. 

—Increase nutrition education funding to at least $5 million per year and create 

an alternative to competitive funding so each tribal program receives support 

for nutrition education program materials through a coordinated approach. 

—Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice, salmon, blue 

com, and other products) to be a regular part of food package purchases and 

not require supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods. 

Rural Development Title 

• Ensure access to funds for feasibility studies, business plans, and strategic planning for energy development by amending the Rural Cooperative Development 

Grant Program to authorize rural tribes to apply. 

Energy Title 

• Amend the Rural Energy for America Program to authorize grants and loans 

to tribally owned enterprises for renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements. 

• Amend 6407 of the 2002 Farm Bill, 7 USC 81 07a, to include tribes as eligible 

entities for the rural energy savings program. 

• Amend the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program, authorized 

under 7 USC 1932, to include tribes as eligible intermediaries. 

113 

Miscellaneous 

Fully Fund the Office of Tribal Relations at USDA 

• Fund the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at a minimum of $1.5 million, because insufficient funding limits OTR’s ability to provide the programs, technical assistance, content, and even basic communications to tribes and tribal 

producers regarding USDA’s education and training programs. Adequate funding is essential to carrying out OTR duties, including the oversight of all USDA 

tribal consultation. 

Tax Credits or other Tax Incentives for Buying Indian Food and Agriculture Products 

• The 2018 Farm Bill should create a new ‘‘Buy Indian’’ tax credit or other tax 

incentive to encourage consumers and those within the food supply chain to buy 

American Indian and Alaska Native food products. This will not only help Native food products in the supply chain, it will also provide incentive for distributors, retailers, and related food purchasers to examine Native food product purchases to meet their food supply needs. 

Recognize Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture 

• Permanently recognize and incorporate Tribal Departments charged with administration of Agriculture and Food Systems into the ongoing interface of all 

agencies within USDA and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA 

with other offices of government. 

Country of Origin Labeling and Beef Checkoff 

• Reinstate Country of Origin Labeling and create a set-aside within the Beef 

Checkoff funds that is devoted to the marketing and promotion of Native American Beef. 

Education, Training and Scholarship Programs to Support Native Producers and 

Scientists 

• Develop a new program that focuses on educating and training the tribal agriculture labor force, provides key scholarships to Native producers, and encourages Native scholars and scientists to focus on food and agriculture. USDA currently has multiple internship, scholarship, mentoring, and other programs focused on increasing the diversity of American agriculture by educating the next 

generation of tribal leaders in food and agriculture. However, Native representation is low, and outreach to Native communities is weak. A Native scholarship 

program should be adequately funded and coordinated throughout the land 

grant system. A minimum of$10 million is needed to adequately endow a centralized scholarship fund for Native youth and scholars. This program should 

be managed by the Office of Tribal Relations and any new Office of Tribal Agriculture. 

Maintain and Fund the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network 

• Permanently maintain and fund the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network, 

which has been in place for more than five years through a cooperative agreement between USDA and the Intertribal Agriculture Council, through contributions from each of the agencies and offices of USDA. This effort should be funded at least $3 million annually, and it must continue to maintain regional offices in each of the 12 BIA regions to ensure access for all Native producers. 

OAO Outreaclt and Internships for Native Students 

• Require the USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) to fund internships 

for Native students at a level equal to the number of internships the office supports for any other socially disadvantaged group (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Asian American, women, etc.). The OAO has been inconsistent in funding 

these internships for Native students, and they should be required to do so if 

they fund members of other groups. The Tribal Liaison position within the OAO 

that focuses on the relationship between the American Indian Higher Education 

Consortium (AIHEC) and USDA (and staffs the joint leadership council of 

AIHEC and USDA officials) should be moved to the Office of Tribal Relations. 

Tribal Representation on All Federal Advisory Committees 

• Require USDA to recruit and appoint tribal citizens to each ofthe more than 

100 federal advisory committees it seats and supports. In addition, the Council 

for Native American Farming and Ranching should receive funding to support 

its work, and it should become a permanent F ACA advising the Secretary and 

USDA. 

114 

1 NASS has acknowledged that this data is substantially undercounted and the economic impact is likely much greater than $3.2 billion. 

Weather Reporting Stations 

• USDA should be required to work alongside other relevant federal departments 

to ensure that weather reporting systems and stations are located on tribal 

lands and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the U.S., because the gathering of that information is vital to predicting production yields and assessing 

disaster impacts, among other weatherrelated needs. Currently, very few weather reporting stations are located on tribal lands, and USDA should take the lead 

in working with other departments to ensure this is addressed. 

Buy Indian and Indian Preference for USDA Food Purchasing 

• Amend the language that controls USDA contracting and procurement, including the language that controls the procurement of food, to not only recognize 

and support a ‘‘Buy Indian’’ provision, but also allow an ‘‘Indian preference’’ 

particularly when USDA is purchasing any product, including food, being utilized by Native people within their communities (such as food in the commodity 

food programs, like the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations). 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has already demonstrated its ability to effectively manage businesses and federal programs. We run two successful casinos, run a business 

assisting tribes with developing their own Enhanced Tribal Identification Cards, 

and have run our own successful health clinic for more than two decades. The 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe, with its demonstrated history of good governance, should be 

provided an opportunity to administer the food benefits programs. We appreciate 

the opportunity to tell you about the provisions of the Farm Bill that are important 

to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, CHICKASAW NATION

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall: 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest, largest, and most representative organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 

tribal governments, we write to submit testimony requesting that the Committee on 

Indian Affairs work with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to 

include Indian Country’s priorities in the next Farm Bill. For far too long, tribal 

governments, tribal producers and Native people have been left out of the Farm Bill. 

Because of this, Indian Country’s agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry 

have not yet met their full potential. This Farm Bill is the perfect opportunity to 

include Indian Country so that all of America can benefit from this very important 

piece of legislation. 

Agriculture is a major economic factor for rural tribal communities. The 2012 

Census of Agriculture conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) 1 noted that Indian Country has: 

• 56,000 American Indian and Alaska Native Farmers and Ranchers; 

• Over $3.2 billion market value of products; and 

• $1.4 billion in crops and $1.8 billion in livestock and poultry. 

The Farm Bill reaches many aspects of life in rural America, and in Indian Country as well. Native farmers and ranchers are most directly impacted by this piece 

of legislation. Tribal governments have been left out of the Farm Bill, excluding 

them from critical programs that would improve their communities. In this Farm 

Bill, we ask Congress to ensure Indian Country has access to all USDA has to offer. 

This is the time for us to work together to ensure the Farm Bill helps all Americans. 

NCAI asks the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Agriculture, Nutrition and 

Forestry Committee to include the following principles in the next Farm Bill: 

• Recognizing Tribal Government Parity; 

• Allowing Tribes greater access to Rural Development Programs; 

• Improving Credit Access in Indian Country; 

• Promoting Traditional Native Foods and recognizing Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge; and 

• Improving Interdepartmental coordination between USDA and Interior. 

115 

These principles and the recommendations listed below do not create new costs 

to the Federal Government. In fact, many of the recommendations are simply allowing Tribes better access to USDA programs. 

Tribal Governmental Parity 

Tribal Nations are governments recognized by the United States Constitution. 

The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power ‘‘to regulate 

commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian 

tribes.’’ Tribes are governments, just as states and foreign nations are. To date, the 

Farm Bill has promoted agriculture and food production for the states (through all 

titles) and with foreign nations (through the Trade title). Now is the time to acknowledge Tribal Nation’s governmental parity in all titles of the Farm Bill. 

Congress can uphold tribal government parity by including ‘‘Tribal governments’’ 

in all references to ‘‘State and local governments.’’ By doing so, Congress will ensure 

that Tribal Governments have the same opportunities and engagement with USDA. 

Tribes have been left out of the agricultural progress that the rest of America has 

experienced. By including Tribal Governments in all lists of governments in the 

Farm Bill, Tribes can find self-determined outcomes to promote agriculture in their 

communities. Including Tribal Governments in the Farm Bill in this way will support local, smaller governments and remove bureaucratic hurdles for rural Americans. Specifically, we ask that Congress include the following provisions for tribal governmental parity in the Farm Bill: 

Recognize Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture. Tribal Departments 

charged with administration of agriculture and food systems by their Tribal government must have the authority to interface with all agencies within USDA and the 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA. This would include full treatment as 

a state for Tribal governments thus recognizing their tribal laws, authority, and jurisdiction. This would uphold the Government-to-Government relationship between 

tribal Nations and the federal government (USDA) Title: Across all Farm Bill titles/ 

miscellaneous 

Tribal Government Management of All Nutrition and Food Assistance Programs. 

Extend 638 contracting authority to USDA Food Assistance Programs, programs 

like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Food Distribution Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). 

Local tribal governments will be able to more efficiently and better serve their citizens. 638 authority through Health and Human Services and the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) have shown to be an extremely successful way to deliver federal programs in Indian Country. This successful model should be extended to USDA Nutrition programs. The devolution of federal funds and service delivery allows Tribal 

governments increased programmatic and administrative responsibility and minimizes federal reporting burdens, monitoring, and oversight. Smaller, more local solutions are needed in USDA Nutrition programs and Tribes know how to deliver 

those programs for the benefit of their communities. 

For years, NCAI has called on Congress to fully fund the Nutrition title and its 

programs. Native people utilize many Nutrition title programs including SNAP, the 

Restaurant Meals Program; Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program; the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); the Emergency Food Assistance Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; the 

Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program; the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program; 

the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program; the Healthy Food Financing Initiative; and the Agriculture Service Learning Program. Again, we ask that Congress 

fully fund these critical programs. Title: Nutrition 

Recognize Tribal Governments and Tribal Law in the Conservation Title. All sections of the Conservation Title should recognize that tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal entities or organizations created for conservation and natural resource protection purposes have full access to every program. Wherever there is a 

reference to ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producer, the terms ‘‘tribal’’ 

should be inserted into that section to ensure that any inadvertent failure to list 

tribal governments, tribal producers, or tribal organizations does not preclude them 

from participating or relegate them to a lesser importance or priority within the relevant section. Congress should ensure that any reference to ‘‘state law’’ in the Conservation Title reads ‘‘state law or tribal law.’’ This will acknowledge the conservation laws and codes of Tribal Governments and will allow Tribal Governments to 

enforce their laws over the lands which they have jurisdiction. Title: Conservation 

Governmental Parity within Forest Service Programs and Authorities. Extending 

the Good Neighbor Authority to include Tribal governments, just as it does to state 

government and specifically including Tribes in the title of the State and Private 

116 

2Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. https://www.fema.gov/blog/2013-01-31/changing-laws-better-recognizing-tribal-sovereignty 

Forestry Program will ensure that the Forest Service works with tribal governments. Partnering together, in a cooperative manner, to manage the nation’s forests 

and tribal forests alongside other state and local governments and private landowners is critical to helping our forestlands recover from wildfire and become 

healthier. Title: Forestry 

Recognize Tribal Law for Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs. Section 1501(a)(1)(B)(iv) should be amended to read: ‘‘a corporation, limited 

liability corporation, or other farm organizational structure organized under Federal, State law and Tribal law.’’ The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) acknowledges Tribal law by allowing Tribal Governments to issue Tribal 

Disaster Declarations, just as States do. 2 Agricultural Disaster Assistance should 

be consistent with other Federal disaster protocols in Indian Country, like FEMA. 

This addition creates parity for tribal governments and acknowledges the authority 

of entities organized under tribal law or under federal law such as Section 17 corporations. Update the livestock definition in Section 1501(a)(3) to include other commonly raised livestock like ‘‘reindeer,’’ ‘‘caribou,’’ ‘‘elk,’’ ‘‘horses,’’ or other animals 

raised or harvested in tribal communities. 

All of these animals must be further recognized as a livestock and eligible for full 

protection and program participation Department-wide. Title: Commodities 

Tribal Inclusion in the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. Change the Specialty 

Crop Block Grant Program to ensure that tribal departments of food and agriculture 

are eligible for funding under this important program and that tribal projects are 

not required to go through state funding mechanisms at state departments of agriculture to receive support. This program is critical to the growth of this sector in 

Indian Country, and tribal sovereignty should be respected by allowing these new 

departments to receive funding parity. Title: Horticulture and Specialty Crops 

Parity Between Forest Services and NRCS Land Language. Create parity between 

Forest Service management agreement language and Natural Resources Conservation Service determination of land control language to preserve tribal sovereignty 

and rights to gather/manage traditional plant stands and enhance opportunities for 

tribes to leverage Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) assistance on 

traditional lands under Forest Service jurisdiction. Title: Conservation and Forestry 

Rural Development 

Indian Country by nature is mostly rural and disproportionately lacks the infrastructure that more urban areas enjoy. The Rural Development title of the Farm 

Bill was intended to bring this much needed infrastructure to rural communities. 

Now is the time to bring the Rural Development title to Indian Country. 

With more than 100 million acres of tribal lands and individual Indian owned 

land, located in primarily rural areas across 34 states, Rural Development (RD) 

Title programs and funding are vitally important to tribal governments, communities, individual Indian producers, and tribal businesses. In fact, the RD grant and 

loan programs are sometimes the only option tribes and their neighboring communities have for building new infrastructure or updating antiquated systems essential 

to spur and sustain economic development and growth in their rural communities. 

However, there are still issues with accessing and funding RD programs. 

Congress can improve Rural Development in Indian Country by including the following recommendations in the Farm Bill. 

Implement SUTA Provisions Throughout all Rural Development Programs. Further broaden the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

RD programs. Currently, SUTA is only applied to a small segment of infrastructure 

programs at the Rural Utility Service, but Congress must allow the Secretary to exercise this discretion more broadly. This change will help ensure more equitable access to RD programs and authorities, and can be used to provide much-needed support to tribal citizens living in rural communities. The change would, among other 

things, allow the waiver of matching requirements for projects funded through RD, 

which can be a significant barrier to socially disadvantaged applicant participation 

in RD business and infrastructure projects. Title: Rural Development 

Rural Development Tribal Set-Aside. Provide a tribal set-aside in either terms of 

percentage of the funding portfolio or a specific funding level for tribal applications 

within each of the RD program authorities to address the inadequacy and general 

lack of rural infrastructure in Indian Country. The trust responsibility of the federal 

government to tribes provides the broad foundation for such set-aside. In some locations, tribal governments have taken over the management of key infrastructure 

117 

(such as water systems, electric, and other utilities) because there is no other governmental entity that can handle these functions. Title: Rural Development 

Expand Tribal Access to the Rural Community Development Initiative Grants. 

Tribal Nations have been greatly underserved in rural development, and the Rural 

Community Development Initiative Grants are the gateway to all Rural Development funding. Tribal planning processes tend to be siloed into grant-driven programs for housing and transportation. Tribes need more resources to integrate planning for economic development and jobs, agriculture and natural resources, and 

broad-scale planning for the future needs of tribal communities. Rural Development 

planning is especially important currently, with the need to implement the Indian 

Trust Asset Management Reform Act, to plan water development, with the FirstNet 

broadband project, tribes need planning before they can access the benefits. The federal government last supported comprehensive planning in Indian Country in the 

1980’s, but those planning efforts must be updated for a new era. Title: Rural Development 

Establish a Permanent Rural Development Tribal Technical Assistance Office. Establish a permanent office providing technical assistance across all RD funding authorities via a cooperative agreement with USDA. The complexities of lending and 

infrastructure establishment in Indian Country call for the establishment of such 

an office that can prepare and monitor lessons learned, establish user friendly application systems, and assist staff at the tribal or business level in preparing applications. The trust responsibility of the federal government to tribes supports the need 

to establish such assistance interventions. RD has field staff that assist agency staff 

and the applicant in analyzing financial viability, key engineering specifications, 

and related technical requirements for more complex infrastructure projects. Title: 

Rural Development 

Maintain the Under Secretary for Rural Development Position. Maintain an Under 

Secretary for Rural Development in the 2018 Farm Bill and all additional sequent 

legislation and appropriations packages. Having an Under Secretary whose primary 

duties are to focus on RD programs and funding is critical for Indian Country and 

rural America. Any changes that would impact the Under Secretary role for Rural 

Development must be the subject of tribal consultation. Title: Rural Development 

Uplift America by Supporting CDFIs Loan Authority. Develop a process to allow 

small, new and emerging Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) 

access to loan authority. The concept of batching and obligating all loan guarantee 

authority annually is a game changer. The requirements put upon CDFIs to participate in this endeavor are patently prohibitive. Only the largest CDFIs could secure 

any meaningful funding levels, and some had threatened litigation to do that. Title: 

Rural Development 

Extend Rural Electric Loan and Grant Program Authority to CDFIs. Rural electric 

cooperatives are uniquely poised to be economic development drivers in their communities. Often, they choose not to avail themselves of this opportunity. In cases 

where a rural electric cooperative chooses not to participate in this program in the 

past, local CDFIs should have the opportunity to carry out the function. Title: Rural 

Development 

Maintain Rural Water Program Funding. Rural water and wastewater systems 

are essential to community support and economic growth in Indian Country. Tribal 

governments, individual Indian producers, reservations, and remote and isolated 

communities will be severely undercut in the protection and growth of their food 

systems and their ability to access markets for their food products if access to funding for rural water systems is lost or diminished. This is a matter of food insecurity 

and economic and environmental justice. Title: Rural Development 

Improving Credit Access in Indian Country 

Due to the capital-intense nature of farming and ranching and agribusiness in 

general, many titles work together to address the financial issues surrounding agriculture: credit, commodity, conservation, and crop insurance. Farming, ranching, 

and agribusiness are high-risk enterprises. Having access to a lending entity willing 

to understand these financial realities is critical. During turbulent times, Indian 

Country is always hit as hard or harder than most other areas of the country because of the remote and isolated nature of our farms, ranches, and agribusinesses 

and the reality that in most reservation communities a ‘‘credit desert’’ exists alongside food deserts. 

Congress can improve credit access in Indian Country by including the following 

recommendations in the Farm Bill. 

Structuring Loans to Suit the Business. Authorize several innovative loan structuring measures in the 2018 Farm Bill. For example, currently FSA will lend 100 

percent of the cost of bred livestock. It will then subordinate its lien position to a 

118 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Application by Service 

Scientists Fact Sheet- https://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/tek-fact-sheet.pdf 

local commercial lender for annual production costs, increasing the amount of debt 

secured by the same amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If the 

first year of operating expenses could be included in the original loan, and amortized over the life of the secured asset, producers would end the year with cash in 

the bank, allowing producers to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input 

materials, replacement stock, or expansion opportunities. Such an approach would 

incentivize operating from available resources, instead of what could be borrowed 

on an annual basis. Title: Credit 

Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices. When commodity price cycles run 

contrary to the mandated FSA Planning Prices, despite a producer’s inclination to 

plan conservatively, producers are often faced with choice of accepting a plan based 

on those planning prices or shutting down their operation. In cases that FSA planning prices are more than 20 percent higher than the actual prices, a producer 

should be able to restructure their debt in a way that will not count towards lifetime 

limits on loan servicing. Title: Credit 

Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rate. Update the Socially Disadvantaged Rate 

(SDR) interest rate for FSA loans from a static number (currently 5 percent) to be 

indexed to the prevailing rate and set a commensurate proportion of that rate, 50 

percent of the standard rate. The current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest rate was in the double digits and should already have been revisited 

and revised. Title: Credit 

FSA Food Loan Authority. Under current program guidelines there is some latitude for producers whose production will take a period to fully ramp up. Initial payments can be made at an 18-month mark rather than within the first year. This 

same methodology should be employed for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next step in the value chain. Title: Credit 

Remove the Requirement for Private Credit Denial. Explicitly exempt tribal producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining three denial letters from private credit sources in order to participate in an FSA loan program. The general lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders the requirement onerous and unduly burdensome. Title: Credit 

Parity for Indian Country Agriculture Production. With over 50 percent of the $3.4 

billion Indian Agriculture Industry being comprised of cattle, it is critical to ensure 

that risk management products be designed to meet the needs. Currently there are 

few options available; and those that do exist require up-front premium payments 

(LFP, LRP). Simply changing the timing of premium payment to coincide with production would ease the burden of participation for Indian Producers. Increasing the 

federal subsidy rate for this type of programs has also been demonstrated to incentive participation and mitigates federal outlay in times of disaster. Title: Crop Insurance 

Support Traditional Native Foods and Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

Native people have always put food on their tables. Native traditional foods have 

been a part of our culture for millennia. Returning to traditional Native foods will 

lead to healthier Native populations, leading to less healthcare costs and to more 

tribal self-determination through food sovereignty. Traditional foods also have the 

potential for breaking into new markets leading to further economic development in 

Indian Country. 

Native people have always been tied to their land. Native people were the first 

Americans to carry out conservation practices. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

defines Traditional Ecological Knowledge as ‘‘the evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. 3’’ USFWS continues ‘‘although the collection of TEK is 

not government-to-government consultation, TEK is one way federal employees can 

honor the federal trust responsibility to tribes with regard to resources of mutual 

interest.’’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge should be recognized in the Conservation title to allow tribal knowledge to better inform conservation practices. 

Supporting traditional foods and traditional ecological knowledge can take place 

in many titles of the Farm Bill: nutrition, research, horticulture, crop insurance, 

trade and, conservation. Congress can support Traditional Foods and recognize Traditional Ecological Knowledge by including the following recommendations in the 

Farm Bill. 

Require the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations to purchase traditional foods. Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice, salmon, 

blue corn, and other products) to be a regular part of food package purchases and 

119 

not require supplemental or special appropriations to purchase these foods. This will 

lead to healthier food distributions while also promoting business development 

through agriculture on tribal lands. Title: Nutrition 

Agricultural Research Service Projects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge. 

Launch and support a significant number of research projects within the Agricultural Research Service that focus on the important role that traditional knowledge 

plays in the environmental, natural resource, ecological, food science, nutrition, and 

health arenas. Funding provided in these unique content areas must be done with 

full consultation with tribal governments and full compliance with modern cultural 

practices and recognition. Title: Research 

Protecting Native Foods in the Marketplace. Require USDA to work with tribal 

governments, tribal organizations, and tribal producers to develop programs that 

are designed to protect the integrity of Native food products from fraudulent 

versions of their foods in the marketplace. The federal trust relationship requires 

that USDA work with tribal governments, tribal food companies, and tribal food 

producers to ensure that market regulatory mechanisms can be used to augment the 

ability and inherent legal authority of tribes to protect their unique food products. 

This can be done through geographic intellectual property mechanisms put in place 

by tribal governments to protect unique tribal foods or other appropriate legal mechanisms that must receive recognition by the federal government. These processes for 

protection should be fully supported and recognized by USDA. Title: Horticulture 

Protect Tribal Seeds and Traditional Foods. Require the USDA to take steps, after 

tribal consultation, to ensure that tribal seeds are given the maximum protection 

available under federal law and not allowed to be accessed for commercialized purposes without the consent of tribal governments. Seeds of traditional foods are 

among the most sacred items to Indigenous peoples and the protection of those 

seeds, not only as food sources but as important cultural systems, must be required. 

Title: Horticulture 

Development of Crop Insurance for Traditional Foods and Livestock. Encourage 

RMA to develop a unique crop insurance policy product designed to cover the production systems associated with tribal food product, tribal livestock, and traditional 

food systems. The production systems associated with such products should be recognized as Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs), and tribal producers should also be 

afforded the same opportunity to pay premiums upon the sale of the crop or livestock instead of making an upfront payment. Title: Crop Insurance 

Expand Market Access Program (MAP). Expand MAP by substantially increasing 

the funding available to the existing agreements that facilitate coordination and administration of the MAP program and result in increasing tribal food business participation in the program so that tribal audiences and more tribal food and agriculture businesses can benefit from the program. The impact of such engagement 

will further solidify local food economies and food businesses and stabilize tribal 

economies. Title: Trade 

Tribal Representatives on US Trade Missions. Include tribal governments, tribal 

food businesses, and individual tribal food producers on all foreign trade missions 

undertaken by the United States to further assist the access of tribal food products 

to such markets. Title: Trade 

Supporting Unique Tribal Foods and Fighting Native Food Fraud. Require the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to institute a system by which fraudulent 

foods that mimic tribal foods and tribal food businesses can be uncovered and prevented in the marketplace. Food fraud is on the rise throughout the world, and unscrupulous food business entities are already trying to mimic or replicate unique 

tribal food products. Those businesses should not be allowed to participate in programs that allow them to access markets with products that perpetrate frauds on 

tribal food producers or food businesses. Title: Trade 

Recognition of Traditional Ecological Knowledge-Based Conservation. Develop a 

new section of the Conservation Title to explicitly allow a tribe or a group of tribes 

within a state or region to develop traditional ecological knowledge-based technical 

standards that will control the implementation of all conservation projects allowed 

under the Farm Bill. This new section would codify current NRCS practices that encourage traditional ecological knowledge-based conservation and would further recognize the fact that tribal jurisdiction and use of traditional practices to improve 

conservation project implementation are decisions best left to the tribal governments 

and individual Indian producers who live on those lands. These traditional ecological knowledge-based standards already have a solid scientific basis and are acknowledged by various federal research organizations and agencies. Title: Conservation 

Tribal Technical Committee. Require each state conservationist to establish a separate tribal technical committee should any tribal headquarters exist within their 

state boundaries or any land under the jurisdiction of tribal governments or the 

120 

4These recommendations are supported by the Native Farm Bill Coalition which includes the 

Inter-Tribal Agriculture Council, the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative (research partner), The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Bear River Band of the Rohnerville 

Rancheria, Blackfeet Nation, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Chippewa Cree Tribe, Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Colusa Indian Community, Comanche Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Confederated Tribes of 

the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians, Fort Belknap Indian Community, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Hualapai Tribe, Kasigluk Traditional Elders Council, Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, Kiowa 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Native Village of White 

Mountain, Navajo Nation, Oneida Nation, Organized Village of Saxman, Pala Band of Mission 

Indians, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pauma Band of Mission Indians, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Potter Valley Tribe, Quapaw Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, 

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Indian Reservation, Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, All Pueblo Council of Governors and American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA). 

BIA. These tribal technical committees should be given the same respect and deference that is currently given to the state technical committee and each tribal technical committee shall be able to establish separate technical standards utilizing traditional ecological knowledge and, to the extent that they do so, such standards 

shall be the technical standards under which conservation programming can be deployed on tribal lands. Require establishment of state level inter-tribal, regional 

inter-tribal and national tribal advisory committees regarding conservation matters. 

Title: Conservation 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Consideration for Conservation Compliance. 

Consider traditional ecological knowledge whenever the Secretary determines the 

level of compliance of landowners who have lands or resources enrolled in any of 

the Conservation Title programs, particularly when determining whether a meaningful stewardship threshold has been reached. Title: Conservation 

Improving Interdepartmental Coordination between USDA and DOI 

Improving inter-agency efficiencies should be addressed in this Farm Bill. Because 

of the nature of Indian Country’s relationship with the Department of the Interior, 

specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee, coordination between DOI and USDA is needed to achieve the best outcomes for tribal 

producers. This will ensure that meaningful assistance is provided by those who 

have deep familiarity with tribal governments, tribal law, Native communities, and 

the challenges unique to Indian Country. 

Authorizing a USDA–DOI Technical Committee. Congress should authorize the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to develop a technical committee made up 

of tribal government representatives from each of the BIA regions to formulate a 

set of initiatives and programs that can be carried out under existing laws as well 

as a set of programs that may be needed under future conservation program authorities to improve the conditions of tribal lands and individual Indian-owned lands 

throughout the United States. Title: Miscellaneous 

Cooperative Management of Adjacent Federal Lands. Since tribes continue to have 

legal, historic, and economic connections to adjacent federal forests, include a pilot 

program authorizing tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to conduct cooperative, discretionary forest restoration activities on Forest Service and BLM lands 

using existing regulations governing the management of Indian forests. Additional 

means and legal and financial arrangements that would support the cooperative 

management of forest lands with and through Tribes must be explored. Title: Forestry 

Conclusion 

Congress must ensure that Indian Country’s $3.2 billion agriculture industry is 

included in this Farm Bill. This legislation is a chance to empower tribal governments to make decisions on the tribal level, which will ultimately lead to increased 

efficiency in program implementation, increased production from tribal producers, 

and better opportunities for tribal and surrounding rural communities. Indian Country’s agriculture industry is strong and can be made stronger by including the above 

recommendations in the next Farm Bill. 

NCAI and the Native Farm Bill Coalition 4 ask the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs to work on a bipartisan basis with the Senate Agriculture Committee to ensure Indian Country shares in the benefits of this vital legislation. 

121 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHERYL JACKSON LEWIS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, NUTRITION

PROMOTION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION

Recently several representatives of Native communities have inquired about serving traditional foods in Child Nutrition Programs (CNPs). In particular, Native communities are interested in knowing which traditional foods are allowed and how 

these foods may contribute towards a reimbursable meal. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) understands the importance of serving traditional foods and encourages Indian Tribal Organizations, along 

with all operators of CNPs, to source locally grown and raised foods. The purpose 

of this memorandum is to clarify that traditional foods may be served in CNPs and 

to provide examples of how several traditional foods may contribute towards a reimbursable meal. 

The Role of the Food Buying Guide (FBG) 

The FBG is an essential tool that provides information for: 1) planning and calculating the required quantities of food to purchase for school meals, and 2) determining the specific contribution each food makes toward the meal pattern requirements. The FBG enables school food authorities and other institutions participating 

in CNPs to comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and ensure that the 

meal pattern requirements are met for each component of a federally reimbursable 

meal http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Resources/foodbuyingguide.html. 

Currently, the Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs is being updated, 

in phases, to include resources for the new Nutrition Standards for School Meals. 

Updated meal pattern requirements for other CNPs such as Child and Adult Care 

Food Program and Summer Food Service Program are available on the FNS Web 

site at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs. 

Crediting Traditional Foods 

While the FBG provides a relatively comprehensive list of products commonly 

served in CNPs, it does not provide yield information on every possible food served 

in reimbursable meals. Foods not listed in the FBG may be served in CNPs. However, if a food is served as part of a reimbursable meal, but not listed in the FBG, 

the yield information of a similar food or in-house yield may be used to determine 

the contribution towards meal pattern requirements. When this is the case, traditional foods can credit like similar products found in the FBG, as demonstrated 

below: 

122 

When traditional foods that contribute towards the meal pattern requirements are 

not listed or do not have a similar comparison in the FBG; then in-house yields may 

be developed and used. Instructions for developing yields are available in the introduction section of the FBG, page I–3, at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ 

files/FBGlintroductionl0.pdf. 

Traditional Foods That Do Not Contribute Towards the Meal Pattern 

Requirements 

Not all traditional foods meet the nutrition standards and contribute towards a 

reimbursable meal. Please be aware, traditional foods that do not contribute to a 

specific meal pattern requirement (i.e., meats/meat alternatives, grains, fruits, or 

vegetables component) may be served, but will not credit toward a reimbursable 

meal. When served, these foods must be accounted for when assessing compliance 

in the weekly nutrient analysis and count toward dietary specifications (limits on 

calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat). For example, acorns do not credit due 

to their low protein content. The acorns may be served with a reimbursable meal, 

but will not contribute towards meal pattern requirements, and would be included 

in the nutrient analysis. 

Traditional foods may also be used during taste tests or other educational opportunities outside of the meal programs. To help children learn more about where 

their food comes from, USDA encourages schools to provide agriculture, agroforestry, and nutrition education. 

Game Meats 

Meat from cultivated game animals and wild game animals, including bison, venison and reindeer, may be served in CNPs; however, animals need to be slaughtered 

and inspected in a Federal inspected facility, State inspected program, or be from 

an approved source as established by the State and local regulatory authority that 

licenses and inspects food service operations. Please note that State and local authorities may have stricter regulations, preventing the service of cultivated and wild 

game animals. 


117a4.eps
123 

Additional Questions 

In keeping with our intent to encourage inclusion of traditional foods in USDA’s 

CNPs, we would like to hear about additional issues or concerns so that we may 

continue to provide technical assistance as necessary. For additional guidance concerning this memorandum, please contact your regional Farm to School Coordinator 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/usda-farm-school-staff or USDA’s Office of 

Tribal Relations for assistance. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ 

usdahome?contentid=contact-otr.xml 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. FLOYD, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, MUSCOGEE

(CREEK) NATION

On behalfof the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (‘‘MCN’’ or ‘‘Nation’’) of Oklahoma, I 

write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs (‘‘Committee’’) to ensure that tribal governments are an equally included 

stakeholder group in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

As Congress considers the Farm Bill reauthorization this session, I urge the Committee to work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (‘‘MCN’’ or ‘‘Nation’’) is the fourth largest tribe in 

the United States with more than 80,000 citizens across the United States. The Nation has a jurisdiction that covers more than 8 counties, including nearly 450,000 

acres of agricultural land operated by more than 2,000 American Indian and Alaska 

Native operators. MCN operates several agriculture and natural resource programs 

that rely on agency collaboration and support from within the commodities, nutrition, rural development, conservation, research and extension, specialty crops and 

horticulture, and crop insurance titles. 

MCN operates farming and ranching enterprises within the jurisdiction. Combined the operation includes nearly 3,000 acres, a 200-head cowherd, 360 acres of 

dryland farm ground and 880 acres of hay production. Collaborative efforts are underway to reduce soil erosion and watersource contamination, protect riparian 

areas, comply with Food Safety Modernization Act protocols, mitigate invasive species such as the Eastern Red Cedar and feral swine, extend the growing season for 

specialty crops, and extend outreach and advocacy opportunities for Native agricultural producers. Additionally, the Nation provides critical access to healthy and nutritious food through operation of an elderly food distribution program and Women, 

Infants, and Children (WIC) program. These programs are supported by the Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and Supplemental Nutrition 

Program (SNAP), respectively. 

Collectively, the programs authorized under the Farm Bill make a significant difference in improving the health, wellness, and economic stability of the Nation’s citizenship. As such, we offer the following recommendations for the Committee to consider as the Senate proceeds in its development of the upcoming reauthorization legislation. 

Maintain current authorization levels for SNAP. Thirty percent (30 percent) of all 

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) households within the Nation’s jurisdiction have annual incomes less than $25,000. The assistance provided through 

SNAP and WIC provide critical funds to ensure that these households are able to 

access healthy foods during a crucial period of development. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JODE GOUDY, CHAIRMAN, YAKAMA NATION

Dear Senators Hoeven and Cantwell: 

I write on behalf of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

(‘‘Yakama Nation’’) to provide testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

regarding ‘‘Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country.’’ 

The Yakama Nation supports the committee’s work to pass legislation to alleviate 

difficulties experienced in our economy, gaps in education, and fulfillment of the 

United States’ trust responsibilities. To further that work, the Yakama Nation requests appropriation of funds to correct deferred maintenance on the Wapato Irrigation Project, increased funding for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and parity in agricultural funding for Native communities. 

The Yakama Nation has a reservation of over 1.2 million acres, with 140,000 irrigable acreage, that relies upon the dangerously antiquated Wapato Irrigation 

Project (WIP) for irrigation water. Agriculture is and has historically been an imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
124 

tant economic driver, employment provider, and nutrition sector for the Yakama Nation as we are located in a high agricultural production basin. 

Pursuant to Article 5 ofthe Treaty of 1855 (12 Stat. 951), the United States government has a trust responsibility to the Yakama Nation to support agricultural development within the Yakama Reservation. By advocating for legislation and funds 

to support Tribal agriculture, this committee has an opportunity to step back from 

hundreds of years of Euro-American doctrines that have left a legacy of dehumanization of Native nations and show that the word of the United States is meaningful. 

One of the greatest challenges facing agricultural development on the Yakama 

Reservation is WlP’s deferred maintenance at $138 million. This is by far the largest 

amount listed for an Indian irrigation project at 31 .5 percent of the $438 million 

in deferred maintenance nationwide. The deferred maintenance has led to certain 

members of WIP having to experience serious water shortages or to simply receive 

no water at all. This creates a domino effect of less lands leased, funding reductions 

for the Yakama Nation through missed leases, and reduced Operation and Maintenance fees collected by WlP—and adds to the levels of unemployment for both members and non-members on our Reservation. 

I hereby request authorization ofthe WIIN Act, Subtitle B funds outlined for Indian Irrigation Projects for Repair, Replacement, and Maintenance. I am aware that 

$35 million will be available, if appropriated, each year over the next 5 years totaling $175 million in funds for Indian Irrigation projects. Pursuant to section 3222 

of the WI IN Act, WIP clearly meets the eligibility criteria. Addressing the deferred 

maintenance will benefit not only Yakama Nation and its members, but also other 

agriculture throughout the Yakama Reservation. Furthennore, The Yakama Nation 

Engineering Program has successfully completed numerous federal contracts aimed 

at conserving water delivery in WIP and would be able to begin work on deferred 

maintenance immediately once funding becomes available. 

The USDA needs increased funding and staff within its fanning, forestry, and conservation programs. The Yakama Nation has been proactive in implementing and 

modernizing agricultural technologies and irrigation conservation within the WIP, 

recently through efforts such as the Yakima Basin Implementation Plan and USDA 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program. An increase in staff and funding is 

necessary to bolster and continue access to USDA programs and funding authorities. 

A majority of this work can be accomplished through the upcoming 2018 Farm 

Bill. Important concepts that should control Farm Bill discussions from Native Community perspectives include parity, opportunity and consistency. Parity requires 

that legislation and funding for USDA programs and services include Tribal Governments at the same level as states and counties in the delivery of meaningful food 

and agriculture, nutrition, health and education programs. 

The Fann Bill should provide opportunities to Native Communities through Tribal 

support and incentive programs as well as a statutory requirement to the USDA to 

focus the provision of all USDA services and program to Substantially Underserved 

Trust Area. Consistency is needed in programs and funding to ensure Tribal Governments can establish Iong-tenn plans and goals for their communities. Funding 

for some Tribal programs at USDA over the last few years has been reduced and 

then consolidated into broader, non-tribal specific programs. Given the expense and 

effort it takes to ensure tribes know about USDA programs and are taking advantage of them, this puts Tribal entities at a disadvantage. 

Programs at USDA span a wide range of areas that impact Native Communities, 

including food safety, housing, business development, telecommunications, water 

systems, crop insurance, nutrition, land conservation, forestry, research, and the 

programs designed to assist fanners. Most USDA programs haven’t yet been utilized 

by Tribes because, for the most part, we are invisible in those relevant Farm Bill 

sections authorizing the programs. It has not been until recently, that livestock producers have been included in Farm Bill discussions and programs despite over half 

of Tribal producers’ income being livestock-generated. Tribal Governments must be 

included in the existing intergovernmental approaches through which many of the 

USDA programs are delivered. 

I would again like to thank the Committee for holding the important hearing as 

well as accepting testimony on ways to continue to grow agriculture and agribusiness across Native communities and lands. By adjusting, developing, and improving the Fann Bill’s programs, we can build upon the already great work happening not just on the Yakama Reservation, but all Tribal communities surrounding 

food and agricultural. 

125 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARLAN BAKER, CHAIRMAN, THE CHIPPEWA CREE

TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY’S RESERVATION

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall, 

On behalf of The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation located in 

north central Montana, we write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the 

upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the: Senate Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Chippewa Cree live in north central Montana an estimated 45 miles south 

of the Canadian border. The Rocky Boy’s Reservation is 120,000 acres within a contiguous border and all lands are held in trust for the full membership with no allotments or private land holdings. The main agri-businesses are farming and ranching. 

The reservation is located in a rural area with the Bear’s Paw Mountains to the 

south and flat ground to the north, which make it suitable for farming and ranching. 

The Tribe’s main crops are cereal grains, forest resources, and livestock. The type 

of livestock consists of Angus and Herefords. Traditional foods consist of berries, 

fish, and wild game. Agriculture provides employment and is an important source 

of economic gain for the Chippewa Cree Tribe due to its rural setting of the reservation. 

NRCS with its different programs like EQIP and CRP have been beneficial to the 

Chippewa Cree Tribe. Their offices located on the Rocky Boy’s Reservation are beneficial to the Tribe in providing technical knowledge on farm and livestock issues, soil 

issues, and on our timber resources. The Farm Services Agency is another program 

that has proven to be helpful through the tribal liaison providing more information 

about FSA programs. 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, The Chippewa Cree of the 

Rocky Boy’s Reservation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the 

Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the 

Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments throughout the 

entire Farm Bill 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts and Self-Governance Compacts 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition, The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’ s Reservation supports 

the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this 

Congress. 

Commodities Title 

Federal procurement of tribal agriculture products at prices that align with nontribal producers or are based on the relative poverty levels existent on reservations. 

Ensure tribal producers’ eligibility for all disaster assistance programs in Title I, 

and increase payments to 90 percent of value to acknowledge their unique land and 

market issues along with the loss of investment opportunity due to historic underfunding. 

Create parity for tribal producers in Farm Service Agency Committees and decision-making. 

Conservation Title 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs must allow for the 

use of traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservation practices without undue 

scrutiny and research. 

Cross-agency coordination between the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs must be improved to ensure all tribal producers have access to conservation programs and other USDA programs that require 

an NRCS-approved conservation plan. 

Parity must be achieved throughout the Conservation title by explicitly including 

‘‘tribes’’ or ‘‘tribal’’ where ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘regional’’ agricultural producers are 

mentioned to ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs. 

126 

Trade Title 

Support and maintain tribal food and agriculture businesses’ entry into foreign 

markets by expanding Indian Country’s access to the Market Access Program (MAP) 

and protecting unique tribal foods against fraud. 

Improve interdepartmental coordination and tribal government and individual Indian producer inclusion on all U.S. trade missions. 

Nutrition Title 

Approximately 25 percent of Native Americans receive some type of federal food 

assistance, and in some tribal communities, participation is as high as 60–80 percent. Indian Country needs a consistent, comprehensive, and tribal-led approach to 

tailor federal food assistance programs to the specific needs of tribal communities 

and citizens. 

Allow tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination Contracts and/or SelfGovernance Compacts pursuant to P.L. 93–638 for administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all other federal feeding programs. 

Improve the funding, flexibility and infrastructure of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). 

Require a CBO or CRS inquiry into the impact of drastic cuts or elimination of 

food assistance programs on the overall agricultural economies of tribes. 

Credit Title 

Many tribal communities are located in ‘‘Credit Deserts,’’ where access to fair and 

reasonable credit terms is limited or non-existent. 

Improvements must continue to be made to Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs 

to address the availability, efficiency and application of credit programs in Indian 

Country. 

Rural Development Title 

The Rural Development (RD) programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) are essential for rural and reservation tribal communities to develop and 

improve declining infrastructure systems while spurring economic development and 

job creation in tribal communities. Many ready-to-go (‘‘shovel-ready’’) tribal infrastructure and community development projects have gone unfunded over the past 

several years, leaving promises to Indian Country and rural communities unrealized. RD must have dedicated funding and technical assistance for tribal governments as part of the federal trust responsibility and to ensure that tribal communities and the rural communities around them thrive. Tribes must be consulted during the restructuring of the USDA’s RD agency due to its unique impact on tribal 

economies and tribal economic development. Any budget shifts must also receive 

tribal consultation before changes occur. 

Research Title 

Research Title programs must allow for the development of tribal research, education, and Native youth in agriculture by making programs and funding more accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), support a tribally led focus on 

traditional knowledges and practices, and provide additional opportunities for education. Fund the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) at a minimum of $10 million to address the persistent inequity in educating and developing 

Native American extension resource programming and Native youth in food and agriculture programming. Provide dedicated funding and tribal preference at National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to build tribal research and educational 

capacity. Require all institutions (non-TCUs) that receive any funding for extension 

programming in states that have tribal lands and tribal producers to report and 

demonstrate their work with tribal governments, tribal communities, and tribal producers and their cooperative and respectful coordination with TCUs in close proximity. These institutions should be required to conduct a percentage of their overall 

work that is equal to the amount of land in the state held by Indians, the Indian 

farms in those states, and such extension programming must be done with Indian 

communities and done by staff experienced in and knowledgeable of issues important to Indian Country. Remove FRTEP from the Farm Bill requirements that all 

Smith-Lever programs be competitive and reinstate the consultative requirements 

for FRTEP implementation. 

Forestry Title 

Tribal forests and woodlands make up one third of all tribal lands held in trust, 

and provide resources, jobs, and economic development opportunities for many tribal 

governments. Many tribal forests and adjacent federal forests contain sacred places 

127 

and important trust and treaty-protected resources. Tribes must be provided parity 

throughout the Forestry Title to better access, manage and develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect tribal resources while providing jobs and economic development. 

Energy Title 

Tribal lands, individual Indian-owned land, and natural resources hold immense 

potential to develop bio-based energy economic development, energy infrastructure 

build-outs, and jobs in tribal communities and surrounding rural communities. Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program to help tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal business entities develop bio-energy businesses and production. 

Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title 

Many traditional Native foods fall under the designation of horticulture crops and 

are necessary to support food sovereignty and healthy food access in Indian Country. USDA programs which oversee horticulture crops must engage in tribal consultation to ensure the unique needs of tribal producers are being met. The Farm 

Bill needs to include provisions to protect Native foods in the marketplace, as well 

as Native seeds and traditional foods. 

Crop Insurance Title 

Due to the high risk of agriculture and food production, especially in Indian Country, crop insurance products must cover tribal producers in unique ways. In addition, livestock producers in Indian Country must be afforded the same risk protection as crop producers as well as the same payment options since livestock production makes up a significant percentage of tribal food production. 

Miscellaneous 

Covering a wide variety of topics, as well as issues which span multiple titles of 

the Farm Bill, the Miscellaneous Title is an important mechanism for Indian Country. Fully fund the Office of Tribal Relations and create a new Office of Tribal Agriculture to improve the service and coordination of USDA programs for tribes and 

tribal producers. The new Office of Tribal Agriculture should report to the Office of 

Tribal Relations and funding for both offices should be mandatory. Create a mandatory interdepartmental working group between agencies at USDA and the BlA to 

examine and determine solutions to areas where the two departments overlap, are 

requiring duplicative documentation or actions on the part of tribes and individual 

Indian landowners in order to access programs and services, or are generally lacking 

in coordination and efficiency for tribal agriculture. The identified barriers and problems must be addressed and resolved by sustained mandatory interdepartmental 

working groups. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETE WATCHMAN, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION SOIL AND

WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall. 

On behalf of the Navajo Nation Soil and Water Conservation District—Fort Defiance, Arizona and New Mexico, we write to submit testimony for the record urging 

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included 

in the upcoming Farm Bill. 

With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session. we request the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with the Senate Agriculture Committee 

to address Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation. 

The Navajo Nation five oil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) were established by the Navajo Tribal Council resolution CF–11–80 on February 07, 1980 

under the Title 3 Chapter of the Navajo Tribal Code; and Location is Window Rock 

Arizona, serving New Mexico. Arizona and Utah. 

Using the USDA assistance from Farm Bill are I. Commodities II. Conservation 

III. Trade IV. Nutrition V. Credit VI. Rural Development VII. Research VIII. Forestry IX. Energy X. Horticulture XL Crop Insurance XII. Miscellaneous 

Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Navajo Nation Soil and 

Water Conservation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation regarding the 

Farm Bill: 

• Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Government throughout the 

entire Farm Bill 

• Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food Assistance Programs 

through 638 Contracts 

128 

• Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all 

Rural Development programs 

In addition. the Navajo Nation Soil and Water supports the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this Congress. 


117a5.eps
129 


117a6.eps

a .. ..,...cb Title VII 

l. lnoreMO funding for FRTEP 

:l, Chonge -=ompe!iWoe •nd fonnuln funding mooh•nimiS 

3. Alf<lw TCU Elil\ibili!y fon!ll NIF A hlldinB' 

''· Adcli!ionul R'>l'O\lri:OS fo•TriOOI C<.>ll~g~E~tensionl'rugmrns 

S. Trlba!Sct·Mid~. Pro::kn>noo, ond Fundinl' ot NIFA 

Resean:~ on Dry Fnrming for 

F11rcstry Titk vm 

I, Stl'Q:tmllno Li.Jo Trlbol F""'st f>n>Lo::olicn 1\.C!'~ ptOVI;iom: 111 imprave !Ito timelinco for rooiew <m<l implomeor.otion 

Of funost reslo!'lltion projec,., 

l. il.ll<>w fo•Tl'ibol Co~p,,.,tiv<> Moolll!l"n•.,fof Aolj«<oU F«<cml L.;nd. 

J. Pri.,.;,m, pron:otion nfrrilml furo•Uos:;lll'; durin~ w:ildbnd lire sup!="'i<m. 

4. l'r<llo:OI =n::<l pla<os 011d Tribal Hl!fhs lor;:ruod uoo l'<:miSI Servi=~ l•nds. 

S_ 1'..-ill \>ct''"'"" F=« Servico!NRCS lond """troll"'8"•~elo preserve tribal sovereign!}' >nd ri[lh1S to Goth<I'IIOO>o"Jlol II'Jldition.til plmn. <W!d' ""donh<l<c'e.< OJ'I"'It!lnilics f<>rtribo' 10 l~!r'COlP o .. i.w.ce. 

6, Allow foomo ;I~ in tho foc=st Nntivc tnosc lnnds, special forNotiv .. olre.1d;· living there Hf<:. no =trittioru;. 

7. Allo" fru fl<lhing, Cllmping. use all orfodlities fmla<ol Tribo.s. 

En"'llY Tille IX 

L Dt,,·elopaTrihal En<rgyBio-Eosed EnoriD' Do,.,Jcpmem Gmn< Progrom 

Solot wlods on Fo""'' ..,d flll !1ontes 011 Notive lund• 

llunirultu"" und Spetinlty Crop~ Title X 

l. Tribal ~on&uhnllen on Fruit Md v-.;,~..,l~bloPro!"'IIS 

l. Tribo.l indusion in tb~ SpocioltyCrop Blool; GmmProgrom 

3. lnc=se- FSMA o~ob 

4. Pro!oct Noti•-c fo><>d> ;, lbe ffiO<kelplo.cc 

5. l'rmtct Nru.;,.., -~nnd tmdiclnnol roo& 6_ Hlf"'rcent •or·osl(L, lbr Noti"" r..,.,.,.morkots 

7_ SUJ>I><>rl Tribol orwmicp..-otiu<£<'$ 

8_ Dry fnrming•O<d;enn: 

Crap hmtrano~ Title XI 

!. Risk Mllnngcmcr~tAgomcy sludy en Crop lusurance In Indian CoW!try U> ensure current produclil do 

Not iniill''""'=nlly adversely atr..:tlribal food produclicm. 

2. Crop lusunwce forTradi1iomll Fe<><illlld Livestock. including loSl crops through catastrophic event.> 

Include~; dryland fulllling. 

3. Tribal prodUC<l:Tile<hJ<:~tion prngrnm_• 

4. Allow Tribal insru:aru:ecornpsnies 10 adminis·or producl< 

5. Tribal produo:no FC!C llo=l 

Mntdb-w Titk XII 

I. lndllStri~l Hellljll'rodw:tiou 

1. Educotion. Tmining ood Scllollmlhip Programs 10 Support N!lt:ivc l'roclm:cr nnd Sc!cntiSlS 

3. R.roo~Tribnl DCp11!UTU!lliSDfFood m1d Agrku!ture 

4. Mnintain nnd Fund the. Tcchnio:al Al!;;iililr~~:<: Netwo.-'« ·lAC tmd USDA pMU<:rShip 

S. Suppnn !be Offiu ofTribol Relftli<>nln~iti! odditionn1 funding-more consullotion and coordinati<Jn 

6. Create anew Ollke of Trlh!ll Agrleultll!'e to fi~CtlS specilic attcntiOD "" f<>Od pmduotiotl on !rib~! lands. 

7. Support or dey tru.d fnrroml), na1ive crol"l s<red1 
130 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

DIANE CULLO

USDA Reorganization and Tribal Consultation 

Question 1. In September, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue announced a USDA reorganization effort to ‘‘streamline the vast bureaucracy, improve its efficiency and 

make it more customer friendly.’’1 As part of this reorganization, the Secretary has 

proposed creating an ‘‘Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement’’ that would 

group together the Office of Tribal Relations with several other USDA Offices, including the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, the Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships staff, and the Military Veterans Liaison. What is the status of this reorganization? Please provide a description of all relevant tribal consultations undertaken by USDA to date on the reorganization plan. 

Answer. The reorganization was completed as of November 14, 2017 per the Secretary’s Memorandum Improving Customer Service and Efficiency. The purpose of 


117a7.eps
131 

the reorganization was to realign a number of offices within the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) to improve customer engagement, maximize efficiency, and 

improve agency collaboration. 

While the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) is now housed in Office of Partnerships 

and Public Engagement (OPPE), OTR has been delegated the authority to coordinate across multiple initiatives that benefit tribes (social disadvantaged, youth, etc.). 

OTR reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture involving all policy matters and 

serves as USDA’s point of contact in accessing Department-wide information regarding Tribal issues. 

One of the benefits of the reorganization was to increase OTR’s footprint across 

the Department. To accomplish that, the office works in collaboration with OPPE 

to improve customer engagement, maximize efficiency, and improve agency collaboration, while increasing its capacity to serve Tribal stakeholders. 

The tribal consultation on the reorganization took place on October 19, 2017, during the National Congress of the American Indian annual meeting. The Deputy Secretary of Agriculture served as the consulting official for USDA. 

USDA appreciates the feedback provided during the consultation and as a result, 

has ensured that OTR continues to report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture 

for all policy matters while at the same time utilizing the infrastructure and additional staff within OPPE. 

Question 1a. Please provide a detailed summary of all responses and comments 

received thus far from tribes. 

Answer. Tribal Leaders have applauded USDA’s initiative to better synthesize 

outreach and messaging across the Department. While USDA has generally received 

a positive response from tribes, we heard several concerns that USDA would take 

the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) out of the Office of the Secretary. Tribes commented that removing OTR from the immediate Office of the Secretary indicated a 

decrease in USDA’s commitment for a government-to-tribal government relationship, which was not intended. Because of this concern, within 10 days of Deputy 

Secretary Censky’s tenure, he invited Tribal Leaders to consult on the reorganization at the National Congress of American Indians Annual Conference. All comments and concerns were taken into consideration, and the reorganization was 

amended to clarify the continuation of OTR’s advisory role to the Secretary on all 

Tribal issues and the coordination with OPPE to improve department-wide collaboration. 

Question 1b When can we expect a final decision from your agency about whether 

or to what extent USDA will incorporate tribal comments and recommendations? 

Answewr. A final decision was made after the 30-day comment period. That decision incorporated comments and recommendations made by interested tribal representations at the consultation to have the Office of Tribal Relations continue to 

report to the Secretary directly on policy matters, as well as utilize the outreach 

and partnership staff within OPPE to expand their footprint to tribes throughout 

the country. 

Question 1c. What controls has USDA put in place to ensure that tribal input will 

be adequately weighed and responded to? 

Answer. USDA follows Departmental Regulation 1350–002 https:// 

www.ocio.usda.gov/document/departmental-regulation-1350-002) to ensure appropriate consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes. The importance of consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes was affirmed through Presidential Memoranda in 1994, 2004 and 2009, and in Executive Order ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ EO 13084, issued in 1998 and replaced by 

EO 13175 in 2000, as well as in numerous statutes and policies. The value of collaboration is fully recognized within the USDA for all constituents, including Tribes. 

This Departmental Regulation establishes over-arching Department-wide guidance upon which the USDA and its agencies rely. 

Moreover, under the leadership and vision of Secretary Perdue, USDA’s priority 

is to become the most effective, efficient, and customer friendly Department in the 

Federal government. 

Notwithstanding our government-to-government trust responsibility, tribal input 

is always adequately weighed, considered, and responded to. 

Question 1d. Will tribes have additional opportunities to comment as the reorganization advances towards final? 

Answer. There are no further changes proposed. Tribes and tribal citizens have 

benefitted from Secretary Perdue’s commitment to all USDA customers by having 

open and ongoing access to the Office of Tribal Relations and its staff. Additionally, 

OPPE incorporates tribal relations in every other aspect of its mission and coordiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
132 

nates with every USDA agency to continually improve access to all USDA programs 

and services. 

Market Access Program (MAP) and Tribal Access to International Markets 

Question 2. In your written testimony, you point to USDA’s work with the Intertribal Agricultural Council through the Market Access Program (MAP) as evidence 

that USDA is engaging with tribal agribusiness on export issues. However, the 

Council received less than 0.5 percent of the funding available under MAP, and it 

is unclear whether there were any tribal grantees. Has USDA ever included a tribal 

representative on any of its trade missions? 

Answer. The Intertribal Agriculture Council is invited to every agribusiness trade 

mission. Trade mission announcements are also posted on the Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS) website and broadcast via the FAS Twitter account. Agribusiness 

trade mission application forms do not specifically include a category to account for 

intertribal representation, so any such participants would be entirely self-reported. 

At least two previous agribusiness trade missions included self-identified intertribal 

representatives (China in 2012 and China in 2014). FAS would welcome additional 

intertribal representation on future trade missions. 

Question 2a. What is the number of tribal products included in those missions? 

Answer. As referenced above, at least two previous agribusiness trade missions 

included self-identified intertribal representatives (China in 2012 and China in 

2014) and in both instances the single featured product was seafood. 

Question 2b. Please provide a detailed list of tribal inclusion in the Market Access 

Program. 

Answer. The Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC), a Market Access Program 

(MAP) participant since 1998, includes 72-member tribes and works with tribal 

businesses and individual Native American-owned businesses. IAC has historically 

focused on training Native American-owned companies and business to become exporters and introduces them to targeted markets through 

international promotions. The export activities of IAC promote and secure sales 

of Native American agriculture and food products through trade shows, cooking 

demonstrations, and promotions (grocery stories, hotels, restaurants). IAC continues 

to work on developing new markets in Asia, Australia, North America, and Europe. 

In 2017, IAC companies had on-site sales of $3.2 million and estimated 12-month 

sales of $20.9 million at trade shows. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, IAC received 

$737,270 in MAP funds. 

MAP funding levels provided to IAC for five years: 

2018: $737,270 

2017: $750,250 

2016: $788,371 

2015: $788,723 

2014: $728,723 

Emerging Markets Program (EMP): 

2016: $98,624 for China and Thailand 

Question 2c. How does USDA and the Foreign Agricultural Service seek out and 

make resources available for tribal producers with an interest in international expansion? 

Answer. As outlined in the previous response, USDA works with the IAC to further these efforts through both the MAP and EMP programs and conducts regular 

outreach to Tribal stakeholders regarding trade missions and other opportunities. 

133 

ROUNDTABLE 

ADVANCING NATIVE FOOD TRADITIONS IN INDIAN COUNTRY

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2018 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 628, Dirksen Senate 

Building, the Hon. Tom Udall, Vice Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Udall, Heitkamp, Cortez Masto, Smith. 

Senator UDALL. Good morning, everybody. Thank you so much for being here. I 

am Tom Udall, the Vice Chair. 

I don’t know if we have all of our participants here, but we are getting pretty 

close. We have two wonderful Senators who have joined us, Tina Smith is here and 

Heidi Heitkamp, so we are all ready to roll. 

I thought in order to really keep this roundtable going, with the number of participants and the number of Senators going in and out, we are going to have a real 

challenge to cover this whole field in an hour and a half. If you just look at the 

time and the subjects to be covered and how many people are here, it is clear that 

we want you to be really concise and try to, more than anything, connect your ideas 

that you may have into policy. 

Because the thing that is really facing us, we titled this Advancing Native Food 

Traditions in Indian Country, but the policy part of this is dealing with the Farm 

Bill, because we have a Farm Bill coming up this year. I think Senator Heitkamp 

is on the Farm Committee, in addition to Indian Affairs. And so is Tina. 

So there is a real great overlap here that really, really makes a difference for us 

executing policy, both doing it in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and also 

doing it with the Agriculture Committee. 

So just in the most general way, what we want to be looking at is a comprehensive approach to Indian Country needs in the Farm Bill. So any ideas that you have 

on connecting those ideas to policy is where we really want to go. 

With that, I am going to open it up. You all see, you each have name tags here. 

I am going to ask you to go around, and tell us what organization you are with. 

We are just opening it up for folks to start talking. Please focus on that connection 

between a great idea and then what is good policy when it comes to the Farm Bill. 

My sense is, listening to Heidi and listening to Tina and the hearing we had in 

the last couple of days is, there are so many good ideas in every single title of the 

Farm Bill in order to advance this whole discussion in terms of the Native foods 

and Native traditions and where to go there. 

Jackie, why don’t we start with you? Tell us who you are with and then we will 

jump into the whole thing. 

Ms. PATA. Hi, I’m Jackie Pata. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. I am also the fourth Vice President of the Tlingit Haida 

Tribes of Alaska. 

Ms. BOHLEN. Good afternoon. My name is Stacy Bohlen. My native name is 

[phrase in native tongue], which is Turtle Woman, the Responsibility of Speaking 

the Truth for all the People. I am the Executive Director of the National Indian 

Health Board. We serve all 567 federally-recognized tribes for the advancement of 

health care and health status for all Native people in the U.S. 

Mr. MATTESON. Mr. Vice President, I am Gary Matteson. I work for the Trade Administration for the Farm Credit System here in Washington, the Farm Credit 

Council. As such, I am active in programs for young, beginning, small farmers, and 

in particular, outreach to minorities. That would include the work that I have been 

doing in Indian Country. 

Ms. HIPP. Hello, my name is Janie Hipp, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. I am 

the Director of the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of 

Arkansas School of Law. We work on policy and strategic issues around food and 

agriculture across all of Indian Country. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Good afternoon. My name is Zach Ducheneaux. I am a member 

of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota and I am the Secretary of the 

Board of Directors for the InterTribal Agriculture Council. 

Mr. RACINE. Good afternoon. My name is Ross Racine. I am the Executive Director of the InterTribal Agriculture Council, based in Billings, Montana. We work for 

every federally-recognized tribe. We have been involved in every Farm Bill since 

1990, so we kind of have a history. Thank you for the invite. 

134 

Senator UDALL. Thanks, Ross. Carrie will come in and say a few words. Mariah, 

go ahead. 

Ms. GLADSTONE. My name is Mariah Gladstone. I am the founder of an online 

cooking show called IndigiKitchen, which is dedicated to revitalizing traditional 

foods, as well as on the board of the Native Youth Food Sovereignty Alliance, and 

a champion for change through the Center for Native American Youth. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for being here. Lionel? 

Mr. HASKIE. Good afternoon. My name is Lionel Haskie. I am very honored to be 

here with everyone and to contribute some ideas. 

I work with the Navajo Agriculture Products Industry. I am a professional engineer there. My responsibilities include business development, infrastructure and the 

infamous Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Keith, before you say anything about Shakopee and 

your responsibilities, I am going to let Tina give a little bit of an introduction for 

you. 

Senator SMITH. I am taking Senator’s prerogative to introduce my friend, Keith 

Anderson, who is Vice Chairman of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. 

Keith and I have been friends for a long time and I greatly appreciate his being 

here. 

The Shakopee Mdewakanton people pride themselves on their generosity and 

their strong commitment to giving back, not only to the geographic community that 

they live nearby, but to the entire Native American community. So it is very wonderful to have you here with us today. I am especially grateful for the work that 

you have been doing, and your community has been doing, on the Seas of Native 

Health program, and really looking at how a connection to indigenous food not only 

is a way of improving economic development with the tribe, but also a way of improving health and connection to your traditions. 

I think you will bring a lot to this conversation, and I am very happy to be able 

to be a part of it. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator. It is a thrill to have you here, and to be here. 

I thank you very much. I hope I can help. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention 

that I am working also with Ross, as Ross Racine is co-chair of the Native American 

Farm Bill Coalition. We have over 40 tribes now, I think 41 coming on board as 

of today to identify and hold on to what we have with the Farm Bill, but identify 

more opportunities and stand as one in that voice. Zach and Janie as well. So thank 

you for that. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Keith. You kind of hit it on the head there, trying 

to figure it out. I think that is what this roundtable is all about, what are our opportunities in terms of the Farm Bill. 

So with that, Ross, go ahead. That is the spirit I like, we will get this thing rolling. 

Mr. RACINE. Thank you. When we look at advancing Native food traditions in Indian Country, I have to remind everybody that agriculture is the tradition on our 

reservations, not the product. We have to think about it in that frame of mind. In 

1998, we testified before a joint Senate Ag and House Ag hearing. We said, we realize our future will come from the Indian use of Indian resources. There has never 

been a society in the history of the world that has survived without the ability to 

feed itself. 

A return to our proud stature will come through the ability to sustain ourselves 

on what we have left of our homelands. To me, that sets the tone for where we 

should be going with this Farm Bill. We have 72,196 Indian operators. We have 

56,092 farms. We generate $3.3 billion annually with our products. 

So when we start talking about feeding ourselves through the use of this Farm 

Bill, we have to look at specifically those programs, one, that we believe this committee can help us with. One of those is access to rural development programs. The 

second is access to credit. I will address the rural development programs and I will 

turn it over to the brains of the outfit, Zach, to talk about the credit part. 

When we look at what is being produced out there in Indian Country, we are pretty close to about 50 percent livestock and 50 percent grain or intensified agriculture 

products. 

To bring about the ability to feed ourselves and use food as an economic tool, to 

use food processing as an economic development tool, we firmly believe that that 

would provide the much-needed employment on our reservations. It would provide 

for healthier diets and reduce health care costs. It would reduce our investment in 

social programs and social rehabilitation programs. It would lessen the carbon footprint of food production. And we firmly believe that not only will it help our reservation, but it would be a template to rejuvenate rural America. 

135 

But to bring food processing ability to success relies heavily on rural development 

programs. Within their infrastructure development programs, within their valueadded programs, within their cooperative development programs. Those are muchneeded to assist groups of producers and their tribes to bring about bricks and mortar that is needed to accomplish this. 

We have asked, and our Farm Bill asks, that the SUTA language, basically it is 

from the Rural Electrification Act, be applied to all rural development programs. 

SUTA stands for substantially underserved trust areas and allows the Secretary of 

Agriculture to use broad discretion authority to waive policies and procedures and 

in turn, enables the underserved area’s program participation. So we are asking 

that SUTA be applied across the board to all rural development programs. 

When we look at eligibility, we truly believe that school districts, not counties, 

should be looked at in determining eligibility and the ability to repay some of these 

programs. That gives you a much closer look at those community demographics. I 

use Blackfeet often as the example. Eighty percent of Glacier County is Blackfeet 

Reservation, average household income $14,000. You look at the county average 

household income, it is $26,000. A school district look at that community would enable the agency to better determine the ability to repay our eligibility for programs. 

Senator UDALL. Let me just interrupt you there. Carrie just came in, Carrie Billy 

did, and let her just tell us who she is working with and why she is here today 

wanting to participate in this roundtable. 

Ms. BILLY. Thank you very much, sorry to interrupt you. I am Carrie Billy, the 

President and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, which is 

the Nation’s 36 tribal colleges and universities. Thirty-four of our institutions are 

1994 land grants. So our tribal colleges have a great stake in the Farm Bill reauthorization and in agriculture issues in general. 

So thank you very much for inviting us to be here today. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Carrie. 

One of the things I am going to do, because we want the ideas that are put on 

the table, people to react to them, I wish I had a little gong here. In about two minutes, we are going to try to move this along so you can react to each other and have 

a roundtable. So I don’t mean to be impolite to any body but when you hit the two 

minutes, I am going to say, let’s give somebody else a chance to either float another 

idea or interact with you, if that’s okay, Ross. And you hit two minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Turn it over to Zach, that is good. 

Mr. RACINE. I will turn it over to Zach, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Thank you, Mr. Racine, and thank you, Senator Udall. 

The other tenet of what the Intertribal Ag Council and the Native Farm Bill Coalition are seeking in the development of the Farm Bill to improve agriculture in Indian Country is access to credit. I can be pretty brief in my comments, because they 

can all be summed up by one question that I would have liked to have been a Senator for once in my life to ask Chairman Berrey and our good friend from NAPI. 

For Chairman Berrey, I would have asked, if you didn’t have a casino in Interstate 

44 to generate the revenue, to fund your operation, how far along would you be in 

having the first Native American-owned slaughter facility and how much food would 

you be distributing out of your goodwill to your community? And where does a reservation like the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota or the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe in North Dakota go to access that resource? 

We have to develop fair access to credit to address the credit deserts that exist 

on every Indian reservation. We have quite a list of requests attached to Chairman 

Berrey’s testimony from yesterday. We will submit some comments for the record, 

but I would like to just leave that hanging out there, Senator, and pass it on to 

the next person, so we can get a discussion going about that. 

Senator UDALL. That is very, very important. What you have hit on is the capital 

and the ability. So some tribes are in a situation where they can get that capital 

going and do something really significant. That is why, Gary, you are here, to talk 

about farm credit a little bit and what we could do. 

Mr. MATTESON. All right, I think I got a cue there. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. MATTESON. I would like to point out the difference between what Zach was 

just referring to, which is the tribe having access to credit, and individual producers 

having access to credit. That is really the larger problem in saying that individuals 

lack access. I see it is a larger problem for having sustainable and pervasive Indian 

agriculture throughout Indian ag country where it can be done, whether it is livestock or whether there is water that something else can be grown. 

The problems, as a private sector lender, trying to deal with securing a mortgage, 

Farm Credit has a requirement that we must have a first mortgage for a land loan. 

136 

That puts us right into the process of dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

being able to get a certification from them that the land can be in fact mortgaged 

by either, whether it is individually held trust land or tribal trust land. It is a mixture of lands, as you know, on reservations. It makes that credit, the delivery of 

credit, subject to, a piece may be fee simple, a piece may be under a trust in some 

way. It has been a source of confusion that has allowed the whole, I will take it 

on all of us that lend money, a lot of us to just plain say no, it is too complicated, 

we can’t do it. 

Where I would like to move the conversation to, which we are doing with the 

Intertribal Ag Council’s creation of a community development financial institution 

is, so how can we get around that problem. I am not here to ask you for something 

in the Farm Bill, Senator. Sorry to not give you something for your list. We do think 

that with concerted effort we can address a lot of problems outside of that. I will 

let Zach or someone else who can better talk to the problems of dealing with the 

BIA speak to that issue. 

Senator UDALL. Anybody else? Jackie? 

Ms. PATA. Not on that particular issue. But I think it would be good, I would like 

to put some context to the more universal issues. Because there are a lot of specifics 

that people will bring out from their own interest areas. NCAI also is a proud partner in this Farm Bill Coalition. So it has been really good for us to have these conversations. 

But when I look at overall, some of the overarching pieces that we need to be very 

aware of, one of those overarching pieces is a just a very simple thing we say all 

the time, when you talk about local governments and State and tribes. So think 

about that context all the time. When we looked at previous Farm Bills, one of the 

biggest issues was the ‘‘and tribes’’ was left out. That created a lot of the problems 

that you will hear about from some of those that have specific ideas and recommendations to put forward. 

Another overarching principle is remembering the importance of self-governance 

and self-determination. Looking at the principle of 638, what a great principle that 

has been in bringing up the capacity of tribes when we are dealing with governance 

issues and governance responsibilities. So when we look at the SNAP program, a 

food distribution program and model that is critical, thinking about that local government and how that can be empowered by a 638 principle behind that. So that 

is another universal kind of thing I would like to put on the table. 

Then I support the recognition of underserved areas. Looking at consistent, 

throughout the bill, throughout the programs, particularly in the rural programs, 

so we don’t have to decide when we are included and when we are not included. 

Just make sure that that is covered. 

Then one of the other issues I think that is important is understanding the inconsistencies of definitions and what does that really mean. So how do we apply these 

programs with inconsistent definitions, whether it be with how we determine the 

status of Native lands or programmatic definitions. It would just make it a lot easier 

for implementing and understanding, even for the lenders, to be able to make sure 

that we have comparable. 

You think about overall, the things that we have been talking to you about all 

year and all last year, which was government parity. So what we are asking for 

again is government parity through the lens of the Farm Bill. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you, Jackie, that was great. That was right on two 

minutes there. You are going to get a gold star. 

Stacy, and Janie, both of you, there has been a lot of talk about health in the 

areas you work in. Do you have anything you want to react to? Mariah, I am going 

to expect you to jump in here in a minute, too. 

Ms. BOHLEN. Well, Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak 

to this. In the 2002 Indigenous Peoples Global Consultation on the Right to Food, 

activists described how the denial of the right to food for indigenous people not only 

denies us our physical survival, but it also denies us our social organization. It denies our culture, traditions, languages, spirituality, sovereignty, our total identity. 

It is the denial of our collective indigenous existence. 

In the space that we fill at the National Indian Health Board, I would add health, 

that is a fundamental right to be a healthy person, to have access to the traditional 

cultural foods that are part of defining who we are culturally. We find that the 

intersection of public policy and health outcomes for Indian Country has a very profound, often unintended negative consequence for American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

I will use an example of the Pima Indian Tribe in Arizona. The tribe is a border 

tribe. When the boundaries of the United States were formed, half of that tribe 

ended up in Mexico, half of it ended up in the United States. The tribal members 

137 

who reside in Mexico, there was recently a study done on this, they were able to 

still have access to their Native food ways, their cultural practices and their nutrition practices. They have experience better health, lower incidence and prevalence 

of diabetes, which is really diabetes, cardiovascular, obesity, those are like 

foundational health challenges that are directly tied to food and other factors as 

well. 

But on the American side, they have some of the worst diabetes numbers in the 

world. They have been removed from their ability to produce traditional foods, and 

to be able to access the ways that they would traditionally live. That is duplicated 

throughout the United States. For example, another tribe, the Pima Maricopa Indian Tribe, relies on the Gila River traditionally for irrigation, to have fishing and 

all of the traditional practices that they would have to bring food in for their traditional ways of being healthy. They even, the river is so sacred they even have songs 

as part of their traditions to honor the river. 

But through the last 100 years, the damming of the river, which originates in 

New Mexico, has resulted in it being almost a trickle most of the year. There has 

been some recent movement on getting some of their water rights back. But this 

is foundational to the ability of that tribe to feed itself, and to have healthy ways 

to practice indigenous food ways and honor health. 

I want to mention two things. I know there will be an other opportunity, so I am 

not trying to be a two-minute burner. I want to mention first, and really support 

the comments that Jackie made about sovereignty and about self-governance. In the 

health arena, there has been a tremendous growth and in the abilities of tribes to 

run their own health systems and implement the health care systems for their peoples. It has been tremendously successful. 

This can also be tremendously successful in the area of agriculture. When you 

talk about the SNAP program or the FEED, a Federal distribution program on Indian reservations, these programs can be run by the tribes. Even the States have 

difficulty implementing them effectively. The States have tremendous resources that 

the tribes do not have. 

So with proper investment, again, not quite the way that it was mentioned earlier, but another form of investment to bolster administrative ability and bring technical assistance to the tribes, tribes have proven that left to their own devices, their 

own traditions, cultures and practices, and the support in the trust responsibility, 

they can do tremendously excellent work in administering not just health, but all 

programs. 

The last thing I want to mention, and I will bring it up later, is the special diabetes program for Indians. Probably the most successful public health program ever 

seen in Indian Country and perhaps elsewhere. Through this program, tribes have 

been able to bring hemoglobin A1C levels down an entire percentage point. We are 

very disappointed that the reauthorization that was promised us yesterday in the 

House, through the CR, did not occur. We must get this program done. I know it 

is not an Agriculture Bill program, but it dovetails with health, access to health and 

Native foods, and healthy Native ways of implementing programs that work. 

Senator UDALL. Absolutely. We got it in the last CR, we were pushing very, very 

hard on that. We are going to do everything we can to get it in this one. 

Senator Heitkamp? 

Senator HEITKAMP. First off, I want to thank Keith and the Shakopee for the wonderful work that you guys did. Just be happenstance, I was at an Indian gaming 

meeting and I think your report, Janie, had just come out. You had a copy of it and 

we were able to get a copy of it. 

There is a number of things within the Farm Bill that is not just exclusively dedicated to food and food security. There is a number of housing things I think are 

also significant. I think you did a great job highlighting where we have fallen down, 

maybe, on some of the housing programs as well. I want to focus on that, since food 

is a critical piece of what we are talking about today. But probably in follow-up, talk 

about some of the housing ideas you have for the Farm Bill. 

Mr. Vice Chairman, if I could just run through some of the things that we are 

planning on doing. What I asked my staff to do is take the Shakopee report and 

identify things that we think we could introduce in a separate bill to lay down a 

marker for the Farm Bill. So I want to run through some of these, but I want maybe 

in response, Janie, you to tell me if I have hit the right priorities, if there are other 

things we need to look at. Because the report is pretty complete, and I think it 

would be difficult to get everything that is recommended in the report. 

So we are looking at introducing a bill probably next week that will establish a 

permanent rural development tribal technical assistance office. So there is automatically built-in collaboration that recognizes the sovereignty of the tribes. 

138 

We are eliminating the matching funds requirement for food distribution programs on Indian Reservations, which I think is critical. Sometimes those matching 

programs make it inaccessible. 

Make Native community development financial institutions, this again goes to the 

housing program, eligible borrowers for new lenders under USDA’s 502 direct home 

loan program. Make tribes and tribally-designated housing entities eligible as borrowers under 502. And then establish a 5 percent set-aside for tribes in the triballydesignated housing entities in the rural development housing programs. So this 

would not be dependent on going through housing finance agencies. 

Now, I have been around long enough, I did a housing conference. I can tell you 

that some States do it pretty well, some States don’t want. Kind of ironically, because we always think we do things better than South Dakota, South Dakota has 

been particularly engaged in housing issues, through their housing finance agency. 

It is something we should encourage all our counterparts in State government to 

look to. 

But I think when you cull through some of the stuff that you did, and you realize 

how comprehensive and extensive it is, I think we got lost in some of the minutiae. 

It would be really valuable for either of you to give us ideas from that report, where 

you see the top priorities. Maybe Keith, you can start out, or Janie, I don’t care who 

looks at it. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Heidi. I know you will be fighting for all those ideas 

on the Ag Committee. 

Keith, please. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to step back for a second. I would be remiss, I needed 

to credit, Jackie reminded me that her support and NCAI’s goes along with Zach, 

and us, and Janie as well. I didn’t mean to leave you out. I apologize. 

I don’t know if I am the best to prioritize that list. I do certainly emulate the 

areas that you have identified. I also have some things to add to that. But I think 

you guys might be better aware of how that would prioritize, as far as our report 

goes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, Keith, one of the things Zach raised, which is which is 

value-added agriculture and meat processing, one of the challenges we know we are 

going to have in Standing Rock, if we ever get that project off, is training. There 

is a real opportunity to benefit training and other tribal meat processing facilities 

cross training. There are some really great things we can do. But value-added agriculture is a critical part of this as well, especially as it relates to buffalo and beef. 

Mr. ANDERSON. There is technical assistance available too, and other areas are 

available, and other bills as well that could apply. We were talking about those this 

morning. That is definitely on a priority, I don’t know where exactly, but it ranks 

right up there with the technical assistance with the bill, technical assistance beyond that. 

Ms. HIPP. And also, when you talk about value-added, remember when you are 

talking about value-added, some of the other things in our recommendations that 

we have talked about together was just being able to be part of the whole marketing 

scheme of agriculture and products. So when we talk about the meat slaughter 

plants, one of the big pieces is going to be able to make sure that we will be able 

to deal with export issues and all the other kinds of food production pieces that 

tribes are on a level playing field in those areas. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Janie? 

Ms. HIPP. I realize there is a lot of minutiae in that report. As I told the Vice 

Chairman, when they commissioned it from us, I said, I may only get one shot at 

this to get in the weeds. To me, there is a lot in there that can be worked on for 

future Farm Bills as well. What I have seen in my experience, over and over and 

over again at USDA is a disconnect with the definitions of who is eligible and how 

tribes do their business. 

A general, because there are really no specialized tribal-only programs, really, to 

speak of, throughout the department, it leads to this misunderstanding of how, like 

for instance, when a tribe creates an authority of some ilk, like a State does, to do 

economic development or any other service delivery, that sometimes is seen by the 

rank and file folks at USDA as being non-tribal. It is not a part of the tribal government any more. Does that make sense? 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes, you aren’t dealing directly with the council. 

Ms. HIPP. Right. So to me, those things can be fixed. It literally is almost, yes, 

we need technical assistance on the tribal entry into USDA. But we also need USDA 

technical assistance back to us to really get a sense of how modern tribes do their 

work, how they do it through their governments, how they do it through their businesses. That to me is one of the areas that I think the department is right to be 

139 

in those conversations. I really do. I think they are ready to be in those conversations. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Do you think that establishing a permanent rural development tribal technical assistance office, is that the first step toward that identification and that awareness of sovereignty and that these are entities that need to be 

dealt with directly? 

Ms. HIPP. I believe it is for rural development. Particularly if you think about the 

value-added producer grant program, that thing is so technically written by Congress, because they are very keen. The folks in Congress are very keen on making 

sure whoever applies for that is actually the owner of the crop, and not some broker 

out there. 

So convincing the folks who actually manage those programs, that they are actually looking at someone who owns the crop, that is an important piece. We actually, 

when I was back there, we actually did a year and a half of background work with 

the Office of General Counsel to explain how tribes do their business in food. So 

that it led to an administrative notice that was sent out throughout the entire department to actually explain to the rank and file people, all the way down, how 

tribes did food. That kind of technical assistance office would help. 

Senator UDALL. Ross, just before we go to you, Janie, I am working on legislation 

in terms of 638 of USDA programs. How does that fit into what you are talking 

about right there? 

Ms. HIPP. It is the same piece of the puzzle. 

Senator UDALL. Of being able to take it over and do it, right? 

Ms. HIPP. Okay, Ross, go ahead. 

Mr. RACINE. I wanted to address Senator Heitkamp’s question about housing. One 

of the primary problems as we attempt to take tribal housing groups, whether they 

are recognized by the tribe or an association, what have you, there is a direct conflict in the regulations of rural development housing development and HUD. One 

of the things this committee could take a very close look at is how can we align 

those two housing programs to benefit, to remove some of those barriers and allow 

tribes to make regular use of rural development housing programs. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So more harmonization between HUD and USDA. 

Mr. RACINE. There you go. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Zach, could you comment a little bit on value-Added and the 

set challenges you have had in Cheyenne River? I know you are familiar with the 

challenges at Standing Rock also. 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Yes, Senator Heitkamp, I sure will. We got a lot of requests 

with regard to credit and access to credit. They are all tied back to having access 

to capital that will let us take that $3.3 billion a year and turn it into something 

on the order of $15 billion a year for Indian Country. Because the $3.3 billion a year 

represents the producers’ share of the food dollar, which is anywhere from 11 to 14 

cents. So there is some math to be done there. 

It doesn’t take a lot of impact before you realize that if we take $15 billion and 

spread it throughout Indian Country that is more than the BIA budget, that is more 

than the Indian Health Service budget. We can take care of our own things if we 

have the resource to develop the infrastructure to get the value-added agriculture, 

so we are selling food instead of selling food products into the commodity cycle. 

Senator UDALL. One of the other parts of this has to do with Native food traditions and education, so that people understand what those traditions are. Mariah, 

you have, I think, something to say on that, and Carrie, you do also in terms of 

coming from the education perspective and the work you are doing there at colleges 

and universities. Mariah, why don’t you kick it off? 

Ms. GLADSTONE. Yes. Tying this back into the whole nutrition discussion and policy from the nutrition side is the underlying statistic that 25 percent of Native people are receiving some type of Federal food assistance. Obviously indigenous histories in the U.S. are marred with Federal food assistance that has severely disrupted our traditional foods and caused us to lose a lot of that traditional knowledge. 

Looking at that from the policy side, the real things that we need to be promoting 

in those food programs are more flexibility for tribes to be able to tailor Federal food 

assistance programs to their own needs and their own traditions. That includes consultation with tribes from the USDA side, it includes regional partnerships for the 

Federal distribution program on Indian reservations. It would additionally, I think, 

require the Federal distribution program on Indian reservations to purchase traditional foods, including bison, wild rice, blue corn, salmon, things that are known to 

the community and have been eaten over thousands of years. 

140 

Not only is there a nutritional benefit to the recipients of that, but there is an 

additional benefit of promoting the Indian producers. I think that is key as well to 

revitalizing a lot of those traditional food ways. 

Then of course, allowing participation in both the FDPIR as well as SNAP. That 

is my brief summary. 

Senator UDALL. People can find that on your videos, right? All of that? 

Ms. GLADSTONE. My videos are much faster than that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Carrie, then Tina, I will come to you. 

Ms. BILLY. First, before I speak to that issue, let me just throw out one idea with 

the rural development and community facilities funds. What would be really useful 

I think for Indian Country, I definitely know for tribal colleges, is if there was sort 

of a, these are loan programs. But if after a time they could be turned into grants, 

so there could be a loan forgiveness after five or ten years, that would be extremely 

helpful to tribal entities that are trying to build tribal community facilities. 

But related to this, we have been talking about food. But research is critically important. By 2020, we are going to have ten billion people on this planet. Right now, 

we only have the ability to feed half of them. So this is a huge global challenge, 

in addition to being a challenge for us as Native people. 

Tribal colleges are doing research to try to address these issues, big global challenges. But in a way that is place-based, that is related to our land and water and 

our people. For example, at Nueta Hidatsa College in North Dakota, they are doing 

research on June berries, and trying to find native pollinators to restore the habitat 

for native pollinators, so we can export June berries. June berries are an ancient 

plant that has incredible levels of protein, calcium, antioxidants, and they sustained 

generations of people until westward expansion practically eliminated them. 

So tribal colleges are doing research in that area through specialty crop research. 

That is one thing we really need to strengthen and make sure we maintain throughout the Farm Bill, specialty crop research. But there is also a huge inequity in the 

research funding. So right now, the State institutions, the 1862s, get $263 million 

a year in formula funding for research, $263 million. Nineteen HBCUs get $51 million a year, formula-driven. Thirty-four 1994 land grants get $1.8 million in research funding that is competitive every year. So we have an idea to use Commodity Credit Corporation funding, $17.5 million 

a year from Commodity Credit Corporation to establish additional funding to support research in Indian Country for native plants and place-based research. That 

is how historically Hispanic-serving institutions were funded in the last Farm Bill. 

There was legislation to increase funding for the 1890s that has been introduced in 

the House. So we think that we Native people need legislation similar to that that 

could really help spur the research that we need in Indian Country to exploit and 

to do more value-added crop production. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Smith, please. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. I have a question, first, on the food side of this. We 

have had some of our tribes in Minnesota that have had some success with developing international markets for their food products, like wild rice, for example. But 

I would be really interested to hear from any of you about what we could do in the 

Farm Bill to try to expand opportunities for building those markets. 

Mr. RACINE. Honestly, I am not trying to hog the show. But IAC holds the contract with Foreign Ag Service for the market access program. We are the entity that 

took Red Lake, Leech Lake, all overseas to market those products. 

We have been basically flat-lined since 1997, when we first entered into this 

agreement with Foreign Ag Service. It is a wonderful program in that what we have 

found, when you talk to experts, they tell you you first need a local market, a regional market, then a U.S. market before you ever think about going overseas. Because of the way MAP is set up to where we can pay those Native producers, food 

product producers, pay their way, pay their sample product’s way to these international food shows, the contracts they secure at those often become the first infusion of cash into their business, which is totally contrary to the traditional export. 

We sold about $150 million worth of Indian products overseas. Red Lake was selling wild rice for 60 cents a pound when they got into our program. Right now they 

are selling those for $8 for about a quarter of a pound of wild rice. So it has been 

great benefit to our producer. What we need in market access program is to enhance 

our ability to deliver that program out there on the ground, to take more Indian 

food products overseas. 

The greatest thing about that program is there is a lot of Europe and the Pacific 

Rim countries that know more about us as Indians than we know about ourselves. 

So the first thing they look at is that Indian motif, and that is the people we want 

to buy from. There is a ready-made market, just let us get more products over there. 

141 

Mr. ANDERSON. To add to that, what Ross is saying is there is an opportunity to 

promote that international trade opportunity and find ways to send Zach overseas 

and—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ANDERSON. But it had happened before. It needs to happen again. Just adding 

on, everybody has a little piece of what I have to say, IHS and Interior use a Buy 

Indian Act requirement that could be applied to USDA so its purchases of food affirmatively seek out the Native producers and the Native products. Promoting that 

international trade and requiring USDA to purchase a higher portion of food from 

the local and regional sources, and supply those, and not try to send Bison to Southern California or wild rice to Alaska, but keep it regionally appropriate or culturally 

appropriate to fit with our traditional customary diets. 

I think I am just going to throw this out here as well, you mandate that P.L. 93– 

638 statutes and regulations apply to all aspects of it. I think we are hearing those 

pieces. That is what I took out of what Jackie had to say. You apply, get HUD and 

rural development married, you get access to those funds. You buy Native American 

products and regionally support those where appropriate, and not try to, unless 

Zach is going overseas with it, but find ways to apply that comprehensive use of 

Buy Indian and apply it to the USDA. 

I can’t help but think about something you said about private financing on trust 

land. I don’t know if I understand it fully enough to like it or not, but I don’t know 

what that would encompass, encumbering trust property. We have a portfolio, a significant portfolio of loans to other tribes. We have found ways to use depository 

agreements and so forth. Through the BIA, and that is an aspect of the BIA, I think 

that is flexible, I don’t think they want to see themselves doing a lot of extra accounting and so forth. If you can get it in front of those depositories, it is probably 

not as solid as garnering a piece of asset, such as land. But I don’t know if I am 

hearing it right. 

Mr. MATTESON. Yes, and no. But I will accentuate the positive and say one of the 

things we have talked about with IAC is the idea of a first loss loan fund, so essentially the depository agreement, but a source of capital would be put up by tribe 

or tribes that would allow any private lender, Farm Credit or whoever else, to do 

lending in Indian Country, no matter what the ownership of that land was. If we 

could make that ownership irrelevant, because in the first place the issue is that 

securing a mortgage, and then in the second place it would be recovery. 

Where that lending could essentially be brought to Indian ag country through contractual arrangements, to allow the tribe to have full control over what happens on 

tribal lands, but the lender is secured so as to be able to encourage, to actually show 

up and do business there. The CDFI that the Intertribal Ag Council is setting up 

now can serve that sort of introductory function for the very small producer, to get 

them credit-worthy, so that they have access to credit from a tribal source that is 

easy to access and then that relationship can be the stepping stone, the basis for 

larger credit, if that is what that producer needs. 

Mr. ANDERSON. And a way to get in front of those USDA loans, turn them into 

grants and get that depository security that way. I think that starts to branch off 

the Farm Bill. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, I agree. Lionel, when I was in the House in 2006, I took a 

trip with your general manager, the general manager of NAPI, down to Cuba. There 

were a lot of governors who were taking trips like this, it was an agricultural trip. 

The whole idea was, they have 11 million people, and we ought to be able to open 

up markets to sell. I remember there was a wonderful discussion down there with 

the general manager and the head of the Cuban government that buys food for the 

Cuban government. 

I would like to expand this discussion a little about international, since you are 

producing significant amounts of food. Have you had barriers, have you had problems? Have you tried to market internationally? I just raise that as one question, 

but you may want to comment on some of the other things you have heard also. 

Mr. HASKIE. Thank you, Vice Chair. Some of the recent barriers that come to 

mind regarding moving our table stock potatoes into Mexico, there is a regulatory 

issue with regard to food safety to prevent certain diseases from entering the Mexican producers. We find that one of the barriers of moving our potatoes. We have 

a significant amount of potatoes, our volumes change each year. 

Then just to add to the point of the potatoes, one of the challenges that we have 

experienced on the production side related to a section in the Farm Bill, 507–51, 

it is a limitation on land eligibility for the producers who own farm land. We own 

about 75 acres of farm land. 

The language in this particular regulation states that some of our acreages that 

are under sub-lease, they are not eligible for us to receive CSP conservation funds 

142 

for cover crop growth. Since potatoes is one of the crops that we typically need to 

use a cover crop after the season is over, it has been a challenge on us. We initially, 

in 2008, for CSP, we have been funded a full acreage for cover crop. But recently 

it has been changed. 

Going back to the international market, we moved beans into the international 

markets and also do our sub-lease, the contractors, they move a lot of alfalfa into 

the Asian markets. What we understand is that the product quality is very good. 

I think some of the programs that are related to MAP, my understanding is that 

our invites to some of these conferences, some of the challenge is that the buyers 

want a price at that moment. 

Just based on our internal procurement process with our business, we have to develop contracts and develop the right pricing by going prior, or after we go to these 

conferences, to make sure that we validate the prices that we are going to give. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. Janie, please. Janie, just before you start. 

Senator Cortez Masto is coming, Tina is still here. We will keep the roundtable discussion going. All of you should know that this is part of the record. Janie was a 

witness yesterday, we have made this whole roundtable a part of the record. So if 

you would like to submit additional things after we are finished, please feel free to 

do so. That will be part of the record. 

It will really help us in terms of working with all of you in improving the Farm 

Bill. Go ahead, Janie, and Tina, I am going to give you the gavel. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SMITH. [Presiding.] I feel like I have just made a rapid rise to power. 

Senator UDALL. Don’t let it go to your head. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Go ahead, Janie. 

Ms. HIPP. I want to pick up on one thing that Lionel was just saying and another 

thing that Carrie was talking about as well. 

With regard to food safety, the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed. It is 

having significant changes in a lot of areas, produce, new rules. Animal feed, new 

rules. International movement of foods, new rules. 

Our initiative was selected in a competitive round to be basically the Native center for outreach, training technical assistance and education in food safety. We received the smallest amount, we cover over 30 some odd, likely 40, States. And all 

the other centers have small regions. Granted, they are west, south. It just gives 

you an example. 

And the types of questions that we receive from tribes when we actually go out 

and do the training, which we are being pulled and taxed in many very complicated 

ways, because we received the lowest amount of funding. And our funding goes 

down every year, three years, while everybody else’s remains stable. Why? I have 

no idea. 

Look, if the money is out there, I am going to go for it to actually do the work. 

But why? Why was that built in in that way? 

But when we go out and get questions, we don’t get questions about microbiological issues related to bugs and parasites on food. We get issues directly related 

to enforcement, jurisdiction, land tenure, interrelationships between tribal producers 

and other Federal relationships that they have that no one can give us the answer 

to. 

So that gives you an example that, as Lionel said, the food safety regulatory scenario is difficult enough as it is domestically, and that is changing. But it is even 

more challenging when you are dealing with an international component, and that 

is built into the export-readiness piece that IAC does. 

The other thing I will share just briefly, and I can write a book on it, which I 

think I will later, is this whole issue of research, education and extension is so critical. It is absolutely critical. All the tribal colleges are underfunded. Carrie just 

shared with you why. The extension is even worse, absolutely worse. There is not 

near enough money that is allocated. The entities that receive the largest amount 

of extension funding, if you actually trace the plans of work and the reports on the 

plans of work, there is no match-up with the audience that the formula is based 

on with the actual use of the funds. 

So it affects the federally-recognized tribal extension program, makes it fight for 

funding every year, it has been flat since creation, basically. And it makes the tribal 

colleges fight for their piece of the puzzle. You can’t actually get this sort of technical assistance done like on a food safety piece unless you have access to some sort 

of formula money or the competitive overlay that literally allocates specifically a setaside or whatever you want to call it into those pots that allow us to have access 

to that critical information. 

Senator SMITH. Jackie? 

143 

Ms. PATA. Thanks, I would like to add to this conversation around food. Also, 

some simple things is trying to make sure the definitions are reflective of the traditional foods that should be included. For example, in livestock, to include reindeer 

and elk, caribou, horses, those kinds of things are important. Otherwise, it excludes 

certain Native food products from being able to be included. We want to be able to 

make sure that that doesn’t happen. 

Another thing that hasn’t been in our coalition conversation, so don’t throw stones 

at me right now, okay? I’m looking over at the guys here. One of the things that 

has been a big issue, particularly for certain areas of the Country, and even in the 

Protect Native Seeds conversation, is this protection and marketing of authentic Native food products, being able to make sure that they have the proper labeling, that 

that labeling isn’t utilized by those who are not necessarily from an authentic Native food source or authentic foods or traditional foods. Not any different from genetically engineered versus not, genetically engineered food products. 

I think that is going to be really important as Indian Country moves more into 

the distribution models, that we actually are able to take credit for those foods that 

come from our communities. So I wanted to bring that up too. 

Senator SMITH. Yes. Zach? 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Thank you, Senator Smith. I just wanted to go back to the 

trust land and the mortgage of trust land thing, just to provide a point of clarification. Since 1956, an individual Indian has had the capacity and ability to mortgage 

their trust land, and encumber it and properly effect a mortgage, with the approval 

of the Secretary of Interior. Tribes have prohibitions on encumbrance of trust land, 

their land, tribal land, in their constitutions. 

So that prohibition is a tribal, that is a community-based decision. The individual’s right to mortgage trust land is something that since 1956 we have had the 

ability to do it, but banks still will not do it in Indian Country. They are hiding 

behind the myth and we need to make sure that we shed light on that. That is one 

of the reasons that the GAO report, that we are requesting to examine. Commercial 

credit’s lending in Indian Country agriculture is so important and it underlies all 

the other credit asks that we have. 

Senator SMITH. So just so I understand, you are saying there is a standard business practice among lenders to sort of ignore this right that people have to mortgage 

their trust land? 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. One example that we have on Cheyenne River, there was a 

young fellow that wanted to purchase trust land. He went to the bank to get a loan 

and the bank gave him a six-year note on the land. Instead of a 30 to 40 year mortgage to pay that back, they gave him six years to pay back the loan that he got 

to secure that land. 

That is what we talk about when we mention our credit desert. That is not fair 

and equitable and that bank is likely getting discount money from the Fed to serve 

their community. So it is in effect red-lining, and we have banks that will flat tell 

you, we are not going to loan on your individually-held trust land. 

Ms. PATA. If I could follow up on that a little bit. 

Senator SMITH. Please. 

Ms. PATA. In housing, we have done things where tribes have actually created 

their own loan secure fund, what you were talking about earlier, for agriculture, basically bearing the right of first refusal if there is a default. But really, if you look 

at the default rate in Indian Country, it is significantly low. So it almost contradicts 

the rationale from a lender for why they aren’t willing to expose themselves to that 

type of risk. 

I think partially it is the expense of managing the loan and actually dealing with 

some of the initial loan papers, putting those pieces together sometimes creates a 

difficulty in the cost of actually managing the loan process. But we have used things 

like, we have created government guarantees, and those are a significant incentive. 

Even with government guarantees, it is difficult to get certain lending institutions 

to come to the table, partially because I think that once again, you have to have 

a general understanding of the tribes, the business processes, the community. 

And this element of confidence, and that is why the CDFIs end up being such a 

good vehicle, because there is this lack of financial institutions. Being able to have 

the CDFIs with greater ability to provide the services, which are a gap, would be 

an important, it is important in the discussion. I guess I don’t want to say that lenders should be off the table, I feel like there needs to be more pressure. Recently, 

there hasn’t been enough pressure on providing on-reservation loans versus off-reservation loans for these kinds of services. 

Senator SMITH. So this reminds me of, one other thing, lots of things I want to 

ask about. We had a little bit of a conversation yesterday about the needs to help 

sustain beginning farmers. This relates directly to issues of credit and access to capVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:51 Nov 27, 2018 Jkt 032783 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\32783.TXT JACK
144 

ital. But I would be really interested to know what your advice to us would be on 

that issue, as we think about helping beginning farmers in Indian Country. 

Mr. MATTESON. Well, if I had read my title, please, may I be the first to call you 

Madam Chairman? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MATTESON. I am working on that power thing you have going. 

That is in my job title. I spent a lot of time and have done it on tribal lands with 

Janie and many different groups of small producers in many different tribes, doing 

financial skills education. Although there are lots of USDA programs, I will bring 

up the one that everybody likes to talk about, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher 

Development Program, to assure that there are financial skills components that are 

required for any of those training programs that typically smaller non-profits or others get grants in order to do farmer training. 

There needs to be a very consistent requirement for financial skills, because those 

skills are not just for, you are going to be a farmer some day on your own, they 

are really a social skill, they are a life skill. An employee with financial skills is 

a better employee. They may never get to be an employer. I think that is something 

we really need to track, that business-mindedness. 

And I would point out that that is really the basis of the Indian Ag Youth Summit, that we have been involved with, with the IAC and the University of Arkansas 

for the three years of its existence, is really entrepreneurship training. It is getting 

people ready to have a business-minded approach to helping their communities succeed. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Does anyone else want to comment on that? Yes, 

Carrie. 

Ms. BILLY. I would like to say something about that, thank you very much. We 

actually, AIHEC has a small grant from FSA and USDA to develop an agri-business 

course, set up agri-business courses at tribal colleges that could then be used 

throughout the tribal college system and in other rural communities. But it is specifically to get at that purpose, to try to help train local beginning farmers, young 

farmers and ranchers. 

But also, the FSA loan officers, where we are finding a huge disconnect between 

Indian Country, they are out there, the centers, but really not understanding or 

working with Indian Country, as people have said. So we are hoping, through this 

program, we can begin developing American Indian and Native Alaskan loan officers 

who have more sensibility and the cultural awareness so they can work with their 

communities. But it is a very small program, it is a one-time initiative that was actually funded by Congress last year. 

But those kinds of training programs need to be continued. We are developing, 

a component of it is going to be an apprenticeship program, which we think will 

be very useful. So these young students will be able to get the academic programs 

and that baseline knowledge, but also working in the centers, with the centers, so 

there will be that kind of give and take. So they will be training USDA while they 

are learning the USDA methods. Those kinds of programs that develop those relationships really need to be continued in some statutory or sustained way. 

Senator SMITH. That is great, thank you. 

Mr. HASKIE. I would like to add, Madam Chair. So when we look at our Native 

American crop program as a small business unit, it really has a tough time making 

the revenue. So it is usually subsidized by the regular business of our conventional 

crops. 

Some of the crops that we look for in terms of grant funding are along the lines 

of efficient growing techniques to grow these Native American types of crops. Then 

on the education component, the education component would assist in developing 

the menu that we would basically supply the food. Locally, we are not set up for 

distributing to provide product in a Federal bid or 638 system to feed the local programs. 

But some of the areas that would help is in the efficient growing techniques, the 

assistance to help traditional Native foods pass some of the regulatory inspections 

that we have to inspect with our other products. Then also just to address the ready 

to serve menus. As a producer, we can pretty much grow any crop. It is just a matter of growing it efficiently and then knowing what to grow in terms of what would 

fill that gap for an area that would assist our diabetes plague, what foods would 

we grow. Then how do we get that food through that program. 

One of the programs that comes to mind is the COPE program. I think it is a 

good source to maybe not guarantee that we will fill that gap, but to get the menu 

circulated to us as a producer, and try to fill it with the Native traditional foods. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. So I have been passed a note saying I am going to 

have to leave. I am going to turn to Senator Udall’s staff. I want to thank you all 

145 

so much. It has been so interesting, and I think we have gotten lots of good food 

for thought, no pun intended. There are so many more things I would love to hear 

your comments on, especial as we think about conservation programs in the Ag Bill. 

Certainly we have hade a good conversation about how some of the nutrition programs need to be adapted and how we really need to think about treating tribal 

governments like government governments, as we work to do the implementation 

that happens with so many of the programs and strategies that are in the Farm 

Bill. 

So thank you so much. It was really a treat to have a chance to hear all of you. 

I look forward to continuing this conversation as we work on this big bill. Thank 

you. 

Ms. ROMERO. Thank you, Senator Smith. Thank you, panelists, for your indulgence. Mike and I will fill in for Senator Cortez Masto, who I understand is on her 

way. But we do have a hard stop at 4:00 o’clock, so that gives us a little over 10 

minutes. 

I thought that I would pivot a little bit, and I think Senator Udall has a great 

interest in hearing from folks about really just expanding opportunities for Native 

youth in farming, bringing Native youth back to their homelands to really not just 

cultivate and harvest their foods, but pass on Native food traditions to the next generation. 

So I understand that NAPI has a scholarship program that really trains Native 

farmers, has a scholars program that I think has been pretty successful. I know 

NIHB, through your SDPI work, perhaps you can speak to this generally. 

Also I know that there is a Native culinary institute, or Ms. Billy, you may speak 

to this, about how our Native youth are being trained to also prepare these foods 

and reach a larger audience. With that, I will kick it off. 

Ms. GLADSTONE. All right. Janie, as well as the IAC, does some really cool work 

with the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Leadership Summit. It is a really cool 10- 

day intensive program at the university of Arkansas, which helps Native youth gain 

a lot of the skills that they need in order to enter the agriculture community. That 

includes everything from training for applying to micro-grants to marketability of 

the products, writing marketing plans. So a very, very intensive program. I think 

there is incredible work that is being done there as well as the newly-created Native 

Youth Food Sovereignty Alliance, which is a branch off the IAC, but also works on 

similar things and promoting the same training and values within Native youth and 

agriculture. So I think those are a couple examples of programs that are doing that. 

But of course, for Native youth, it is always important to expand upon that training, create more opportunities, especially with the early college age students or the 

new college graduates. There is work being done at the high school level that I have 

been lucky to be a part of, but I think there is also potential for expansion beyond 

that. 

And then of course, access to capital, both micro grants for young Native people 

as well as the ability to use trust lands as leverage and gain access to some of those 

things, so parity within the world of capital. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I did want to get in one quick question. Is there a role for Treasury 

with CDFIs and lending for USDA? If so, could you tell us in two minutes kind of 

tell us what your thoughts on that are? 

Mr. MATTESON. I will give you less than two minutes. Treasury charters CDFIs 

and can provide some grant money to direct their activity, so that Treasury actually 

charters the CDFI. That is the process that Zach and Ross have been going through. 

I think Zach is more appropriate to answer. 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Beyond chartering the entity, Treasury will also provide technical assistance funding to set up the policies and the loan products and the governance structure of those CDFIs. Once certified, those entities can apply for Treasury 

funds to seed their loan fund. That is absolutely critical in Indian Country, to have 

access, affordable access to the loan fund to get out in your community. That is what 

hamstrings most of our Native CDFIs, is they spend more of their time trying to 

raise loan funds than they can out there putting the loan to work in Indian Country. 

Treasury absolutely has a role. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. [Presiding.] Thank you, and thank you all for being here 

and being part of this roundtable. I apologize, I have had other committee hearings 

that I had to get to. So I apologize for being late. 

I know we have started this conversation in Indian Affairs, and I am going to continue it. I think it is important for all of us, as we come to address many of these 

issues. 

One of the things that has been a focus for me as well and the tribal communities 

in Nevada, and I talk to them about this, and we I brought it up a little bit at our 

hearing, is this idea of how traditional foods can really address diabetes, obesity, 

146 

that we see in our tribal communities. There was a report that just came out that 

talked about how SNAP is a benefit, and really, if they are looking at foods and 

how they can not only reduce costs but have health benefits to our communities. 

So I am curious about your thoughts on that subject, and if there is anything that 

we can do here in Congress also to continue this discussion and address this as well 

and support tribal communities in this matter. I will open it up to whoever wants 

to comment. 

Ms. BOHLEN. I am Stacy Bohlen, a Sioux Ste. Marie Chippewa Member and the 

Executive Director of the National Health Board. I am so glad that you asked this 

question, because we find ourselves in the midst of a challenge to ensure that the 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians continues. 

I would say that 80 percent of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer 

from obesity. The chronic disease processes that we face that are totally preventable 

are due to a number of factors, including social determinants of health, poverty, adverse childhood experiences. But no less important is the lack of access to healthy 

foods, healthy Native foods and food sovereignty being present in our communities. 

There are over 300 tribal grantees in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

It is one of the most successful public health programs in the United States. And 

they have actually proven that through these programs, run by the tribes, using 

tribal tradition and the best that western medicine has to offer, they have brought 

down kidney rate failure in tribal communities by 54 percent. That saves the Federal Government $85,000 per patient per year out of Medicaid alone. The program 

pays for itself. 

There has been a 1 point drop in the mean hemoglobin A1C blood level for our 

diabetic folks. One of the most important aspects of this is nutritious food, access 

to Native food, access to nutritious Native foods. It has proven to work over time. 

I mentioned earlier, it is not unique to the Pima Indians. Throughout Indian Country, the historical trauma and historical interference we have had with access to our 

Native food supply has led to this crisis in completely preventable diseases. Having 

foods that are not wild rice, that are not bison, that are not juniper berries and the 

variety of foods that we as Native people, we have salmon, that we rely upon, has 

led to the incidence and prevalence of diabetes in our communities. 

In the 1970s, there was no diabetes among Alaska Natives. It did not exist. And 

60 years ago, it didn’t exist in Indian Country. The high sugar, high fat, high gluten 

foods that are offered to us as part of the western diet have completely contributed 

to the health crisis that we now face. 

But we certainly have the capacity to bring those numbers down, when we are 

supportive, when we have the ability to direct our own programs and rely upon our 

own sovereignty and traditions to meet those health challenges through the food. 

I wanted to mention one other thing, if I may. We were just talking about Native 

youth. I wanted to mention that the National Indian Health Board has a year-long 

fellowship with all American Indian and Alaska Native tribal youth 18 to 22 years 

old. It is a brand new program, it is part of our First Kids First, generously funded 

through the Kellogg Foundation. We share with the program with the National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Education Association, and National Indian Child Welfare Association. 

Our part of this is that as part of what we are doing is creating this fellowship 

with policy. We believe that if you are born Native you are born into politics. So 

it is very important to understand and respect tribal government, Federal government, Congressional actions and how they interplay with us as Native people. 

Our people are having to fight to the Supreme Court for the right to our fish. That 

should give some weight to how profoundly important access to our Native foods is. 

We had 22 kids in our last cohort. They put two resolutions forward that could be 

anything they chose to bring to the board of directors of the National Indian Health 

Board for consideration for advancement. And one of them is funding for Native food 

sovereignty. The youth themselves had two, one was the opioid epidemic and behavioral health. And one was Native food sovereignty, which I would love to submit. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Please, I was just going to ask. We will submit it for the 

record and I will make sure all my colleagues have it. 

Ms. BOHLEN. But the findings are that our tribes throughout the United States 

oversee successful food sovereignty programs. We need to have increased funding to 

support tribal capacity to develop and sustain food sovereignty initiatives throughout Indian Country, which this group collectively is looking to do. So thank you for 

letting me share that. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Sure, thank you. Yes, please. 

Ms. PATA. Let me quickly just add. Overall, part of the Coalition that many of 

us are part of, this Farm Bill Coalition from tribal governments, and we have the 

co-chairs here with us right now, one of the recommendations is that we look into 

147 

the SNAP program through a 638 lens, and that we see the success through HHS 

and DOI with 638. Having the funds going to the local level, having that flexibility 

in that local decision-making will make all the difference, because of the identity 

of tribes and the interest areas that we are in. 

Speaking to that report that you talked about, which I also looked at, it showed 

us that there is 25 percent less medical cost to those adults who are participating 

in the SNAP program. I think even with the addition of traditional foods that are 

more aligned to those who will choose to actually eat those foods, I think we will 

get a greater success rate. Having that local determination to 638 could really help 

us with access to the kinds of foods regionally that we could utilize better. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Yes, please. 

Mr. DUCHENEAUX. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. A couple of things, with regard to the youth. At our last membership meeting in December, our membership 

took the action of installing on our board of directors a voting member that is represented by the Native Youth Food Sovereignty Initiative that Mariah is on the 

board of directors for. We feel it is that important, and we have that much trust 

in that next generation to provide guidance that can steer the entire organization. 

With respect to the 638, I am all about tribal self-determination. Fast forward five 

years from now, if we hit full 638 self-determination for SNAP and food distribution 

programs on Indian reservations, we are going to be here wondering why is there 

no Native American food here. We don’t have enough to fulfill the need. That ties 

directly back to the access to credit, the lack of commercial credit in Indian Country 

and the need for Federal rural development programs to develop the infrastructure 

to get us there. 

Because I am pro-tribal choice, grow whatever you want, we are going to help you. 

We have to make sure that the resources are there, so we can make those better 

choices. Thank you. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Ms. HIPP. I just want to briefly say that the Native youth are there. Every group 

that you gather that are Native youth will have food as a primary topic. Maybe 

there are two or three others, but they will be talking about food. When we talk 

to the national FFA, they talk with us all the time. There are 12,000 Native youth 

in 200 chapters all across the U.S. If you actually dig into the data that you can 

get hold of in the 4-H, there are 60,000 Native 4-Hers, and about the same number 

of chapters. 

What are we doing to actually do a pipeline in support for them? They are selfpresenting. And that is just in those two organizations, and a lot of kids don’t have 

access to either one of those. So they go where they can to present themselves 

around food. 

So what are we doing to build that pipeline? Because that is the pipeline that is 

going to be our producers, that is going to stay in the same, that are going to stay 

at home, that are going to make sure we have the foods. 

But they are also going to be the ones who become the scientists and go into the 

higher education system. We have to build it out for them. They are there, and they 

are hungry for this. They want it to happen, because they know it will benefit their 

communities. At the end of the day, something is leading them into food, because 

they know that it is the lifeline for their communities to stay in place and stay 

healthy and move forward. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I think we were only going until 4:00 o’clock, is that right? Okay, I get to close 

it out. First, let me say thank you. Thank you for being here today and accommodating everybody’s schedules. I know some of you have traveled long distances. This 

is so important. Every single member of the committee is there because they want 

to be there and they want to address the issues. We can’t do it without all your 

help and support. 

Please know that we are committed to working on this issue, committed to continuing the dialogue and discussion with all of you. We cannot thank you enough 

for being here and participating with us. Thank you again, and I will close out the 

hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the roundtable was concluded.] 

Æ