OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEVERE FOOD 

DISTRIBUTION SHORTAGES IN TRIBAL AND 

ELDERLY COMMUNITIES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

AND A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

Part 2 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chairman 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana 

BEN CLINE, Virginia 

ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa 

JERRY L. CARL, Alabama 

SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, FOREIGN 

AGRICULTURE, AND HORTICULTURE 

Serial No. 118–25 

BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota, Chairman 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana 

TRACEY MANN, Kansas 

JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee 

MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York 

MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas 

NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York 

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin 

MAX L. MILLER, Ohio 

JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii 

JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas 

JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois 

GREG CASAR, Texas 

SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio 

ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon 

YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 

Agriculture 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEVERE FOOD 

DISTRIBUTION SHORTAGES IN TRIBAL AND 

ELDERLY COMMUNITIES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

AND A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

Part 2 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chairman 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana 

BEN CLINE, Virginia 

ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa 

JERRY L. CARL, Alabama 

SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, FOREIGN 

AGRICULTURE, AND HORTICULTURE 

Serial No. 118–25 

BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota, Chairman 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana 

TRACEY MANN, Kansas 

JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee 

MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York 

MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas 

NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York 

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin 

MAX L. MILLER, Ohio 

JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii 

JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas 

JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois 

GREG CASAR, Texas 

SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio 

ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon 

YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

56–684 WASHINGTON : 2024 
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

Chair Emeritus 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

Chair Emeritus 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

KEN CALVERT, California 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

BEN CLINE, Virginia 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

MIKE GARCIA, California 

ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa 

TONY GONZALES, Texas 

JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 

MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia 

JAKE LATURNER, Kansas 

JERRY L. CARL, Alabama 

STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma 

SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida 

JAKE ELLZEY, Texas 

JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona 

CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

STENY H. HOYER, Maryland 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, 

Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

GRACE MENG, New York 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

JOSH HARDER, California 

JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia 

DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland 

LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois 

SUSIE LEE, Nevada 

JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York 

SUSAN ROSS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, 

Vice Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana 

TRACEY MANN, Kansas 

RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa 

MARY E. MILLER, Illinois 

BARRY MOORE, Alabama 

KAT CAMMACK, Florida 

BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota 

JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee 

RONNY JACKSON, Texas 

MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York 

MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas 

NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York 

JOHN S. DUARTE, California 

ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa 

MARK ALFORD, Missouri 

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin 

LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Oregon 

MAX L. MILLER, Ohio 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, 

Ranking Minority Member 

JIM COSTA, California 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia 

JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut 

SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan 

YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado 

ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon 

MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 

Washington 

DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina, 

Vice Ranking Minority Member 

JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii 

NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois 

ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois 

GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico 

JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas 

JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois 

GREG CASAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

DARREN SOTO, Florida 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

PARISH BRADEN, Staff Director 

ANNE SIMMONS, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Bishop, Hon. Sanford D. Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia, opening statement ............................................................................ 2 

Cole, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

Finstad, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, opening statement ................................................................................... 3 

Harris, Hon. Andy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement 5 

Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES

Greene-Trottier, Mary, president, National Association of Food Distribution 

Programs on Indian Reservations, Spirit Lake Tribe, Fort Totten, ND .......... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Seki, Darrell G. Sr., chairman, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Red 

Lake, MN .............................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Wafford, Marty, Under Secretary of Support and Programs, Chickasaw Nation Department of Health, Ada, OK ................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Answers to submitted questions ............................................................................. 89 

(V)
(1) 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES, JOINT WITH AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE, AND HORTICULTURE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2024. 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEVERE FOOD DISTRIBUTION 

SHORTAGES IN TRIBAL AND ELDERLY COMMUNITIES 

WITNESSES 

MARY GREENE-TROTTIER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, FORT TROTTEN, ND 

HON. DARRELL G. SEKI, SR., CHAIRMAN, RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, RED LAKE, MN 

MARTY WAFFORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF SUPPORT AND PROGRAMS, 

CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ADA, OK 

HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY: CINDY LONG, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICE; BRUCE SUMMERS, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY HARRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. HARRIS. We will come to order. 

Good morning. I want to thank you all for being here today to 

discuss the severe food distribution shortages that are occurring in 

our tribal and elderly communities. 

This is a unique hearing as members from the House Appropriations Committee and House Agriculture Committee are coming together on this urgent and important topic. 

On the first panel, we will hear directly from tribal leaders who 

operate the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, 

FDPIR, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, 

and have been negatively impacted by the USDA’s poor decisions. 

On our second panel, we will hear from USDA Secretary Vilsack 

and USDA officials. This is a tragic situation that has been inflicted upon our Nation’s tribes and elderly communities by the 

Biden-Harris USDA. 

As is typical for this administration, when they create a catastrophe that could have been avoided, no one is held accountable, 
2 

no one is fired, and no one takes ownership for the egregious mistakes. 

To learn more about the impact, we are pleased to be joined by 

our first panel of witnesses, the Honorable Darrell G. Seki, who is 

a senior, and is the chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians from Red Lake, MN; Mrs. Marty Wafford, the Under Secretary of Support and Programs with the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health from Atta, OK; and Mrs. Mary Green-Trottier, 

president of the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations with the Spirit Lake tribe from Fort 

Totten, ND. 

We thank you all for being here today to share with us how your 

tribal communities have been affected by USDA’s unilateral decision to have only one vendor serve both the DPIR and the CSFP 

programs nationwide instead of the two, as has been the previous 

practice that has worked well. 

We are frustrated that you have all been needlessly subjected to 

food shortages, expired food, delivery delays, and cancellations. We 

commend all of you for your leadership and determination to help 

FDPIR and CSFP participants going above and beyond to provide 

food to vulnerable members of your tribal communities. 

We know our committee members are interested in this hearing, 

so I ask unanimous consent to allow members not on the subcommittees to participate in today’s hearing and be allowed to ask 

questions after all subcommittee members have been recognized. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Then I will brief and keep to the 3-minute opening statements, 

without objection, that chairs and ranking members of both committees have agreed to so that we can hear from our witnesses. 

Again, we appreciate all of you for taking the time to be with us 

today. 

Ranking Member Bishop, I will now yield to you for any opening 

remarks you would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

GEORGIA 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

To the tribal witnesses on the first panel, thank you so much for 

coming to talk with us today. And thank you to Secretary Vilsack 

and the witnesses from USDA for being here to talk about the 

background and the responses to this very, very serious crisis. 

I want to call our attention to Chairman Seki’s statement in his 

testimony. And I quote, ‘‘Red Lake knows we are not truly sovereign until we are food sovereign’’, end of quote. 

This is a powerful, eloquent, and unforgettable observation, and 

it should guide us in our deliberations today. Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations, FDPIR, has long been one of 

those Federal programs that seem to operate seamlessly, as has the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 

And so it is a shock to find ourselves with the problems that we 

are now confronting. It is so deeply personal for your members and 

those who participate in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and therefore, it is really painful for all of us today. 
3 

Your documentation of specific problems and your testimony here 

today is very helpful as it makes what you are going through more 

concrete and tangible. 

For Georgia, I am hearing that it is possible that there will be 

no CSFP boxes distributed in September and October. Unfortunately, service has been zero percent at worst and only 50 percent 

at best since May. 

The major food bank in Atlanta works with 80 nonprofit partners 

to distribute over 5,200 boxes a month throughout the metro area 

in north Georgia, while the largest rural food bank in Georgia, Second Harvest of South Georgia, works with 17 partner agencies to 

distribute close to 1,500 boxes a month. 

These deserving Americans, these deserving seniors must not be 

without meals. We look forward to Secretary Vilsack’s testimony. 

It appears that the Secretary was not made aware of this until August 3. But once again, once he was aware, I must say that he has 

done an amazing job in trying to remediate the problems and I 

thank him for that. 

While the USDA has found $47 million in commodity credit corporation funds to cover the tribe’s expenses and CSFP to help buy 

their own groceries, brought on FEMA and advisory capacity to address inefficiencies and allowed the use of declaration of distress, 

we must get regular programs back on that feed as soon as possible. 

I know it is difficult to get accurate information about the situation on the ground, so we look forward to hearing from you today. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the final FY 2024 appropriation for AG Marketing Service, the agency responsible for 

USDA contracting, was more than 12 percent lower than the request. Also, the final 2024 bill did not fund the 5.2 percent pay 

raise and didn’t fund two requests for a total of $4 million that 

were intended to improve ordering, procurement, and distribution 

processes for USDA food programs. 

I said this before, and I will remind my colleagues once again, 

Congress cannot meet 21st century needs and challenges with 20th 

century budgets. I hope you remember this as the 2025 process 

continues to unfold. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the extra 12 

seconds. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. 

I will now recognize the House AG Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. 

Finstad. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD FINSTAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. FINSTAD. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Cole. Thank 

you, Chairman Harris, for including the Committee on Agriculture 

and this important oversight hearing committee today. 

Special thank you to my fellow Minnesotan Chairman Seki of 

Red Lake for joining us in providing your testimony. We are here 

today because more than 770,000 individuals who rely on both 

USDA’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program were put in an avoidable 
4 

but devastating situation by unelected DC bureaucrats who decided 

they knew better than the communities they serve. 

What is worse is that this avoidable, devastating situation happened under Secretary Vilsack’s first go around at the helm. While 

2014 was not as egregious, one would certainly think the same mistake would not be made twice. 

Earlier this year, USDA met with tribal leaders to discuss the 

Department’s desire to pivot to a single warehouse. As testimony 

reveals, tribal leaders advocated against such a change, warning 

the Department of potential calamity. 

The Department ignored tribal leaders’ experience and advocacy 

efforts, and in April 2024, consolidated storage and distribution 

services to one contractor and one warehouse. 

Testimony reveals significant food shortages caused by delayed 

or canceled food deliveries or even deliveries of expired products 

dating back to April 2024. 

Yet, Secretary Vilsack has openly shared that he was not made 

aware until August 3, 2024. Coincidentally, this and a few other 

issues came to light directly after the departure of former department under deputy under secretary for Food and Nutrition Service 

Stacy Dean. 

While I would hope the former deputy was not complacent in this 

issue, I cannot help but wonder if this was a perverse means to 

demonstrate the utility of regional sourcing models and our food 

sovereignty. 

My immediate goal is to ensure that the department is held to 

crafting a long-term strategy that can be quickly executed so tribal 

communities and the elderly regain access to the foods that they 

have come to rely on. 

But today’s hearing is also an opportunity for the public to hear 

of yet another example of where the Biden-Harris administration 

ignored the pleas of many in exchange for the desires of a few. 

Finally, as a Member of Congress representing over 700,000 taxpayers across southern Minnesota and as a former USDA official, 

I am appalled at the level of ongoing incompetence by the Department under its current leadership. 

Since 2022, Congress has been engaged in oversight of the Feeding Our Future Fraud role that USDA and its partnering state 

agency, under the supervision of Governor Tim Walz, was looking 

over a $250 million in taxpayer funded program meant to feed hungry children during COVID-19 pandemic with inadequate oversight 

and cooperation from USDA. 

The many letters sent by my colleagues across House and Senate 

show how many questions have been gone unanswered since the 

Department’s first engagement with Congress on this issue. 

I can only hope that the Department has come prepared to answer our questions and talk openly about how they plan to regain 

public confidence in their implementation oversight of these programs. 

With that, my deep appreciation to members of the Chickasaw, 

Red Lake, and Spirit Lake for taking a stand and sharing your stories with us today. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 
5 

House Agriculture Subcommittee Ranking Member Mrs. Hayes, 

you are now recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAHANA HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. And thank you to our witnesses for testifying today. 

The Delivery and Food Aid by the program contractor, Paris 

Brothers Incorporated is deeply concerning and the inability of this 

contractor to live up to its commitment to provide food for vulnerable communities is unacceptable and we must ensure that this 

never happens again. 

As I listen to the opening statement of my ranking member on 

the Subcommittee of Nutrition, I remind him and you all that we 

have oversight over the Department of Agriculture and the fact 

that we had no hearings on this issue is a problem that we own 

as well. 

Preventable delays in the Commodity Supplemental Food program, CSFP, and the Food Distribution Program on tribal lands, 

FDPIR, have negatively impacted food access for tribal communities across the country for months. 

In my State of Connecticut, more than 2,600 seniors depend on 

CSFP to put food on their tables each month. Last week, our delivery did not arrive as scheduled. If this does not arrive in the next 

few weeks, Connecticut food banks will be very low or fully depleted of major food categories, including vegetables and proteins. 

Tribal communities across the country have felt the brunt of 

these disruptions. For the past six months, the Paris Brothers have 

not been able to resolve the issue. 

According to Move for Hunger, about one in four native people 

experience food insecurity compared to one in nine Americans overall. 

Through this hearing, I hope we can identify potential common 

sense, bipartisan solutions to ensure communities, especially our 

most vulnerable communities, do not go hungry. 

I look forward to hearing directly from the panelists about the 

impacts of this supply chain disruption on community members in 

affected areas and engaging in bipartisan efforts to address this 

shortfall. 

I am hopeful the perspectives and expertise of the panel today 

will contribute to a more productive and proactive conversation on 

how we solve this problem, not just point fingers. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize the chairman of the House Appropriations 

Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, and I appreciate your recognition. 

Chairman Harris, Chairman Thompson, Chairman Finstad, 

Ranking Member Bishop, Ranking Member Scott, Ranking Member 
6 

Hayes, Ranking Member McGovern, Ranking Member DeLauro. 

Quite an assembly that we have this morning. 

This is a dire issue that has evoked a genuine bipartisan and bicameral concern in Congress. And I appreciate, Mr. Harris, your 

work in calling this hearing. 

I sit at this dais and my role as chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee, but my voice echoes with those at the table before us. 

As a proud member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, I’m 

resolute in my commitment to ensuring tribes across the Nation 

are heard. And we are here today making certain that happens. 

The USDA is charged with providing critical food assistance for 

tribal members and vulnerable senior citizens, and it has failed in 

that duty. 

For months, people have been left without food and resources 

they rely on. Missed and delayed deliveries, empty shelves and 

bare warehouses have become commonplace. 

These are all dire consequences as a result of decisions made by 

the USDA, which have left communities hungry. Further, the Department has neglected to implement a permanent fix or establish 

a timeline for effective operations to resume. 

The short-term solutions proposed by the USDA are not sufficient and put additional burdens on tribes. I am extremely disturbed by these failures, which, as we have learned, were clearly 

preventable. 

The USDA knew there were concerns in opposition when they 

announced their decision to utilize a single contractor. Nevertheless, they did it anyway, causing the situation at hand. 

It is more than a mistake. It is gross negligence. Tribal consultation is not only a requirement, but a duty of the agency and should 

be taken seriously. 

It is critical that this contract or this crisis is resolved quickly 

and the changes are made in the contracting process to ensure 

nothing like this ever happens again. 

I have no doubt today’s testimony will emphasize needed action 

to rectify food shortages and the importance of upholding our Nation’s trust and treaty responsibilities. 

I think we will also hear that in the wake of this crisis, tribal 

leaders and community members have stepped in to help and to try 

and fill gaps where possible. That sense of unity and care is to be 

commended during this incredibly difficult time. 

And I am pleased that there is bipartisan and bicameral concern 

to address the situation. 

To our tribes and seniors, Congress hears you, sees you, and is 

acting on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to ensure accountability. 

To the USDA, there is no acceptable excuse, and these disruptions need to be fixed immediately. 

I am grateful to our witnesses for their time today and especially 

welcome our tribal leaders and representatives, including my fellow 

Oklahoman, Ms. Marty Wafford. Your assessments and testimony 

will be critical as we work to resolve this crisis and ensure nutrition is reaching those in need. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 
7 

Ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Ms. 

DeLauro, is now recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROSA L. DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recognize 

you and Ranking Member Bishop, full committee Chair Cole, 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, Subcommittee Chairman Finstad, and my colleague from Connecticut, Ranking Member 

Hayes. 

Also wanted to say a very big thank you to our tribal witnesses, 

our distinguished tribal witnesses, for joining us today. We thank 

you for your testimony. You are our first-hand witnesses, so I welcome you today, those witnesses, both for the Food Distribution on 

Indian Reservations Program and for the Commodity Supplemental 

Program. 

I also want to take a moment to say thank you to the witnesses 

who will be with us from the administration, Secretary Vilsack, 

Food and Nutrition Service Deputy Under Secretary Long, and Administrator Summers for appearing today to help us to understand 

how USDA is working to fix the issues with food deliveries to tribal 

communities and to low-income seniors, and how the Department 

is going to ensure this kind of disruption does not happen again. 

Combined with FDPIR and CSFP, they serve over 770,000 Americans. Disruptions to food deliveries facilitated by these programs 

began earlier this year, causing food insecurity for low-income 

Americans. 

In some cases, food distribution centers receive none of their allotted food support. It is incomprehensible how deliveries were interrupted for so long because of the use of a single contractor. 

And we need to understand what went wrong, how we can alleviate the struggle that is occurring while we speak. It must be 

among our government’s highest priorities that the most vulnerable 

communities among us do not suffer from hunger, but this disruption to food deliveries has risked exactly that. 

It is unacceptable that seniors and tribal communities would go 

without assistance for any length of time. I am pleased and impressed, however, by the actions taken by Secretary Vilsack since 

he was made aware of the issue in early August. 

He and his team deserve credit for finding and utilizing creative 

solutions. The Department has engaged FEMA and the Defense Logistics Agency, reflecting the urgency of mitigating this interruption, employing the Federal Government’s best experts at sourcing 

and moving goods to ensure that these communities receive the deliveries they need expediently. 

The Department has taken many steps, including bringing in an 

emergency contractor, providing direct aid for tribal communities 

and CSFP agencies to source food assistance directly to help bridge 

that gap. 

I underscore, however, that disruption is badly to badly needed 

food assistance is unacceptable, and we must learn and the Department must explain how exactly this occurred. 
8 

Those who have oversight in this area, this committee, ought to 

take a look at what they may have missed in regard to this effort 

as well. Let me just talk about what we need to do is to address 

this issue in a bipartisan way. 

Partisan games over government funding certainly cannot stand 

in the way of properly funding all of our nutrition programs. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

The House Agriculture Committee ranking member, Mr. Scott, is 

now recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

First of all, I am very concerned about how the supply chain disruptions caused by the program director, Paris Brothers, Inc., have 

impacted the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, 

the FDPIR, and Commodities Supplemental Fund Program, CSFP, 

and access to food for tribes and our senior citizens across our Nation. 

And I am asking that we also bring in the Paris Brothers, by 

subpoena if necessary, to get to the root of these issues affecting 

food for our tribes and our seniors in our Nation. 

Unfortunately, it is clear that the Paris Brothers submitted a bid 

for a contract that they were not prepared to fulfill. Unfortunately, 

it is clear that I have heard from my Atlanta community Food 

bank in Georgia that many of the Paris Brothers delivery dates 

have been missed or rescheduled since April of this year. 

The Paris Brothers are operating week-to-week, which puts a 

strain on the operations and creates uncertainty for our senior citizens and the tribes they serve. Nationally, I have heard that things 

have even been worse, missing and delaying deliveries began as 

early as April, and this past week, nine tribes are still missing entire categories of foods like vegetables and protein, and 18 SFP 

agencies are experiencing inventory concerns right now. 

This is a serious situation that they are still seeing these issues 

in September. It is not acceptable. So I was glad to hear that Secretary Vilsack and the USDA have entered into an emergency contract with Americo to provide additional receiving, storage, and distribution of badly needed food. 

However, still more must be done to eliminate these issues and 

prevent them from ever reoccurring again. I look forward to hearing more from our tribal leaders, our senior citizens for their recommendations for solutions. 

And I look forward to hearing from the USDA about how they 

addressed this issue so far to date and will do so moving forward. 

This is a critical national issue and all of us on this committee are 

prepared to tackle it and provide the proper leadership that our 

seniors and our tribes deserve. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

At this time, we will now turn to our witnesses, Chairman Seki, 

Ms. Wafford, and Ms. Green-Trottier. 

Without objection, all of our written testimony will be included 

in the record. 
9 

Chairman Seki, I now recognize you for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF DARRELL G. SEKI, SR., CHAIRMAN, RED LAKE 

BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, RED LAKE, MN 

Mr. SEKI. [Speaking native language.] Now, I will speak in my 

second language. My name is Darrell Seki, Sr. I am the chairman 

of Red Lake Nation. 

Red Lake serves 284 participants through FDPIR and 88 elders 

to CSFP. Red Lake has experienced problems every month since 

USDA decided to consolidate to one national warehouse. 

Whether it was delivery delays, missing items, or receiving additional items that we did not order, Red Lake’s ability to feed our 

people through these programs was jeopardized. 

I want to commend our Red Lake FDPIR and CSFP staff, specifically Cora Rosebear, Corey May, Sr., and their team, who fed our 

people during the troubling time. 

On USDA short-term solutions three of the four options do not 

work for Red Lake. 

First, Red Lake refuses to rob our LFPA funds to pay for USDA’s 

failure to address the rising cost of food. Our LFPA funds will provide access to buffalo, fish, maple products, wild rice and fresh 

produce to approximately 1,550 school-aged children and 300 elders. 

To ask us to spend this money to resolve USDA’s failure is unacceptable, especially since USDA told us they will not reimburse us. 

Second, Minnesota has not requested a situation of distress and 

therefore this option is not available to us. Third, only 10 tribes 

have been able to use emergency USDA/DoD Fresh Program, Red 

Lake is not one of them. 

The only short-term solution that provided Red Lake relief was 

the CCC funds. However, this funding only became available to us 

after Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community provided us with 

an emergency grant so we could purchase food needed to feed our 

people. 

On needed long-term solutions, Red Lake sees four options. First, 

USDA must implement a regional sourcing model. Second, USDA 

and Congress should invest in automatic tracking systems that allows tribes to know exactly where their orders are. 

Third, this is one that this committee already supports, tribes 

are not truly sovereign until we are food sovereign. We must make 

the 638 FDPIR Pilot Program permanent. 

Red Lake was not a 638 pilot, but we are ready. In 1917, we established a Red Lake Fishery to provide walleye to Americans suffering from the food shortages caused by World War I. 

Today, our fishery continues to support Americans who rely on 

Federal feeding programs. In FY 2023, USDA bought 1.3 million 

walleye. In FY 2024, USDA bought an additional 1.4 million of 

walleye. 

Red Lake has also cultivated wild rice for over 20 years, utilizing 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service programs. Red Lake sells wild 

rice domestically, but also exports to United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, and China. 
10 

We also operate Gitigaan, an 8-acre farm where we grow all sorts 

of berries and vegetables. And finally, we will begin to sell products 

from our buffalo ranch this fall. 

USDA cannot say we don’t have the capacity to procure food and 

feed ourselves. USDA relies on us for food. We feed people around 

the world. We need 638 now. 

Fourth, we also support the House Agriculture Committee’s efforts to expand 638 to CSFP. But given USDA’s failure, we wonder 

if a pilot’s necessary. We clearly know how to feed our people better 

than USDA. We urge you to support full 638 authority for CSFP 

as part of the next farm bill. 

In closing, Congress must enact fiscal years 2023 appropriations 

or pass CR. A government shutdown would make the current crisis 

worse. Here I am holding the United States Constitution of America, article VI, where the treaties are adopted, the supreme law of 

the land. The United States Government has been failure for decades. 

[Speaking native language.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seki follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DARRELL G. SEKI, SR., CHAIRMAN, RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member 

Bishop, and other distinguished members of your committees, Chi miigwetch (many 

thanks) for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians (Red Lake) on the food shortage crisis caused by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) consolidation of warehouses supporting the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and the Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program (CSFP). Red Lake is a federally recognized Tribe responsible for promoting 

the health and well-being of our 17,023 Band members who call our 840,000-acre 

Reservation in Northern Minnesota home. 

I. The Impact of the FDPIR and CSFP Consolidation on Red Lake. Due to our 

remote location and expansive geography, Red Lake Band member unemployment 

rates are high and access to healthy foods can be particularly difficult, especially 

in instances where Tribal members do not have access to reliable modes of transportation. While Red Lake is undertaking several efforts to promote our own food sovereignty and increase access to healthy, traditional foods through our fishery, buffalo ranch, farms, and wild rice production, Red Lake has long relied on FDPIR and 

CSFP to feed our members. Red Lake first began using FDPIR in October of 1996. 

With 28 years of FDPIR operation, we now serve 284 participants residing in 220 

households on our Reservation. Red Lake additionally became one of the few Tribes 

to operate CSFP in November of 2005 to support Red Lake elders. Red Lake now 

serves 88 elders through this program. 

Red Lake has experienced problems every month since USDA’s decision to consolidate. Whether it is delivery delays, missing items, or additional items that we did 

not order, Red Lake’s ability to feed our people through these programs is jeopardized. I want to recognize our Red Lake FDPIR and CSFP staff, including, but not 

limited to, Cora Rosebear and Corey May Sr. and their staff who work hard to feed 

our people. During this crisis, they have diligently tracked USDA’s failures. They 

have also had to make decisions they never should have to and I commend them 

for their work. With their help, we have pulled together a summary of the negative 

impacts USDA’s decision to consolidate the warehouse vendor has had in our community. • March 2024: Red Lake was informed that Paris Brothers was transitioning to 

be the sole vendor for FDPIR and CSFP. To prepare, Red Lake ordered more than 

our usual monthly amount. • April 2024: With delays in the delivery of food beginning, Red Lake was forced 

to make the food ordered in March last until May’s delivery arrived. • May 2024: Red Lake’s FDPIR program did not receive 50 units of five-pound 

bags of flour. Additionally, we did not receive four cases of macaroni. While macaroni may not seem like a staple item, Red Lake Band members use macaroni in 

many of their regular meals, including a local favorite called ‘‘Mac Soup’’, consisting 
11 

primarily of macaroni, tomatoes, and ground beef or buffalo. Not having access to 

macaroni was a crisis in its own for our Band members. • June 2024: For the Tribe’s CSFP program, we were shorted two cases of Corn 

Flakes cereal. For FDPIR we were shorted one case of diced tomatoes and two cases 

of Rice Crispy cereal. Additionally, the Tribe received one case of cream style corn, 

and one case of unsalted crackers that we did not ask for. Concerning to Red Lake, 

the driver who delivered the food cut the seal without consent. The FDPIR and 

CSFP staff knew not to accept the order if the seal was not cut in front of them. 

However, because of the shortages that all of the Tribes were having, Red Lake staff 

accepted the food and made the driver wait until the entire order was counted and 

verified. • July 2024: Red Lake did not receive any food for either FDPIR or CSFP. 

• August 2024: Our food order was late, but it did arrive on August 9. However, 

our CSFP order was short 10 cases of 1 percent milk and two cases of macaroni. 

Additionally, our FDPIR order was short two cases of apricots and we received 41 

cases of peaches that we did not order. • September 2024: Our September order, which was originally expected to arrive 

on August 27, was rescheduled to September 5. When we had not received our order 

by 5 p.m. CT, we reached out to our USDA contact. He asked us if we had talked 

to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (MLBO) FDPIR site to see if they received their 

order, as our order was likely next. MLBO confirmed they received their order. After 

6 p.m. CT, the truck did eventually arrive, and Red Lake’s staff were on the ground 

sorting the food around 8:30 p.m. CT. Unfortunately, we were shorted 20 cases of 

pears. 

II. USDA’s Short-Term Solutions Have Been Inadequate. After failing to uphold 

its trust obligations to Tribes across the country, USDA put forth four short-term 

solutions—(A) using Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) dollars to purchase 

emergency foods, (B) encouraging states that operate The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) to request situations of distress, (C) temporarily expanding 

the USDA Department of Defense (DoD) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and 

more recently, (D) providing at least $11 million in Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC) funds to purchase emergency foods. As described in more detail below, Red 

Lake has been unable to make use of three of these four options. 

A. Red Lake Cannot Steal Our Own LFPA Funds to Fix USDA’s Problem. Red 

Lake received $2.2 million as part of our LFPA agreement with USDA to distribute 

locally sourced traditional foods to approximately 1,550 school aged children and 

300 elders as a way to provide relief from rising food costs. Distribution boxes will 

be provided to school aged children at Red Lake School District locations each 

month and will contain traditional sources of protein such as buffalo and fish and 

will also include other locally harvested and produced items such as maple products, 

wild rice, and fresh produce as seasonally available. With roughly half of the Red 

Lake population under the age of 18, this effort is incredibly helpful to ensure the 

well-being of our people and not only does it increase access to culturally relevant 

foods, it allows us to buy food directly from our own fishery, buffalo ranch, farms, 

and wild rice production efforts. To ask us to pull this money away from this important effort to resolve USDA’s failure is not only insulting, its egregious. Red Lake 

refuses to rob our own programs to fix this failure, especially as USDA has told us 

that they will not reimburse us for the use of these funds. 

B. As of September 9, 2024, the State of Minnesota Has Not Requested a Situation of Distress. While Red Lake has a good relationship with our state, the fact 

that Minnesota has not requested a situation of distress means that this option provides no relief to the Red Lake Band. 

C. Red Lake is Not Benefiting from the USDA DoD Short-Term Solution. Outside of the FDPIR and CSFP crisis, Red Lake does utilize the DoD Fresh Fruits and 

Vegetable program to receive fresh produce every two weeks. However, only 10 

Tribes have been able to use the short-term expansion of the program—Red Lake 

is not one of them. 

D. The Only Short-Term Solution that Provided Red Lake Relief was the CCC 

Dollars. After realizing that the three initial solutions put forth by USDA did not 

actually provide any relief for the majority of Tribes administering FDPIR and/or 

CSFP, USDA provided at least $11 million in CCC funds of which Red Lake received $49,600. This should have been the first solution put forth by USDA, but it 

only provides temporary relief. We need a long-term solution. 

III. Red Lake Has Had to Rely on a Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 

(SMSC) Emergency Food Grant to Offset the Impacts of USDA’s Failure. As a result 

of three of the four USDA short-term solutions not applicable to Red Lake, we had 

to take advantage of the SMSC emergency food grant to purchase food for our 

FDPIR and CSFP programs. For those who may not know, upon hearing about the 
12 

FDPIR and CSFP crisis, SMSC, who also serves as one of the four co-founders of 

the Native Farm Bill Coalition, immediately provided up to $3 million for emergency food grants to Tribes in the State of Minnesota and to their Lakota, Dakota, 

and Nakota sister Tribes in other states. Red Lake is grateful for SMSC’s generosity 

and commitment to promoting the well-being of Indian Country by advocating for 

critical tools that promote food sovereignty. But SMSC should not be put in a position where they felt obligated to step in. SMSC does not have a trust obligation to 

Tribes, USDA does. 

IV. Long-Term Solutions that Should Be Implemented. The Red Lake Band has 

identified three long-term solutions that should be implemented as immediately as 

possible. These include—(A) moving to a regional sourcing model, (B) establishing 

an automatic tracking system for deliveries, (C) making the 638 FDPIR pilot program authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill permanent, and (D) expanding 638 to CSFP. 

A. Regional Sourcing Model. On February 16, 2024, the USDA held a Tribal consultation where it informed Indian Country of its plans to consolidate from two to 

one warehouse vendor. USDA’s own meeting notes show that Tribal leaders who 

were able to attend the consultation expressed concerns about existing delivery 

delays and that they preferred adding additional vendors who work on a regional 

basis rather than consolidating to one national warehouse. Tribal leaders cited lessons learned throughout the COVID-19 pandemic on the need to build redundancy 

in the supply chain and enhance regional sourcing. In April of this year, USDA 

moved forward with the consolidation promising it would provide adequate oversight, which it has clearly failed to do. It is offensive that USDA thinks it knows 

what is best for Tribal governments and that they completely ignored our requests. 

It is time to right this wrong by directing USDA to move towards regional warehouse sourcing either through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 appropriations process or 

the upcoming Farm Bill. Because the contract is up for renewal in 2025, Congress 

must issue this directive before we end up in this situation again. 

B. Establish an Automatic Tracking System that Alerts Tribes on Where Their 

Orders are in the Process. As noted in our timeline, for our recent September order, 

USDA could not confirm where our order was and whether other Tribes have been 

served. An automatic tracking system should be built to ensure transparency and 

reliability. 

C. Enact a Farm Bill that Makes Permanent the 638 FDPIR Pilot Program Authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill. Red Lake knows that we are not truly sovereign 

until we are food sovereign, and this is why we strongly support the efforts of the 

House Agriculture Committee to make the 638 FDPIR pilot program authorized by 

the 2018 Farm Bill permanent. While we were not able to take advantage of the 

638 pilot, Red Lake has long utilized the 638 to administer an array of critical services for our members, including, but not limited to health care, public safety, and 

much more. And we do so in the most cost efficient and effective manner. That is 

because 638 provides Tribal governments with the flexibility to make decisions 

based on Tribal priorities and community needs using the same dollars the Federal 

Government would have used to administer services. As evident by USDA’s recent 

decisions and blatant waste of Federal taxpayer dollars, the need for this authority 

is only further underscored. 

For the Committee’s awareness, Red Lake has long been committed to building 

our own agricultural production so that we can purchase local, traditional foods 

from our own operations in anticipation of this authority being made permanent. In 

1917, the State of Minnesota worked with the Tribe and Federal Government to establish the Red Lake commercial fishery within the boundaries of our Reservation. 

The initial purpose of the fishery was to provide a source of fresh fish to support 

Americans during food shortages caused by World War I. After the war ended, the 

Secretary of Interior promulgated regulations at 25 CFR Part 242 for continuance 

and operation of the fishery, making the Red Lake fishery the only Indian fishery 

codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Today, it remains the oldest and largest 

walleye commercial fishery in the United States with an annual harvest quota of 

about 1.1 million pounds of walleye, including subsistence fishing of nearly 100,000 

pounds. The direct economic impact has been estimated at over $2 million in payments and wages to local Band members. Red Lake walleye has been procured by 

USDA to support Federal child nutrition and other domestic food distribution programs. For FY 2023, USDA bought 108,000 pounds of walleye fillets for $1,335,600 

from Red Lake. For FY 2024, USDA bought another 108,000 pounds of walleye fillets for $1,427,400. 

Additionally, wild rice continues to be a critical cultural resource that keeps our 

community members healthy, but also promotes economic development. For more 

than 20 years, Red Lake has cultivated wild rice over more than 1,000 acres on the 

Reservation. Utilizing USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) programs, Red 
13 

Lake sells wild rice domestically but also exports to various countries, including, but 

not limited to, the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, 

and China. In 2021, Red Lake acquired KC’s Best, the Band’s first business operated outside of the Reservation. KC’s best sells wild rice both online and directly 

to grocery stores, restaurants, and gift shops. 

The Tribe also operates Gitigaan Acres, an eight-acre farm, where we grow strawberries, blueberries, rhubarb, apples, plums, apricots, cherries, potatoes, onions, celery, carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, squash, beans, corn, herbs - and other 

items that all Band members regularly consume. And finally, we are proud to operate the Red Lake Buffalo Ranch, which started with seven buffalo and has grown 

tremendously since. Today, the Band has 50 buffalo enclosed in 280 acres with an 

additional 300 acres to be fenced in the fall of 2024. Buffalo has been given out to 

elders and for Tribal ceremonies and feasts. We will begin to sell buffalo products 

in the fall of 2024. 

Throughout these efforts, Red Lake is seeing first-hand the benefits of building 

local food economies. Not only are our people able to access traditional foods, but 

they are becoming healthier and we are able to create more jobs for those living on 

our Reservation. Making the 638 FDPIR pilot program authority permanent will 

allow us to continue to build this local infrastructure, build our own regional food 

economy, and make our community stronger. 

D. Enact a Farm Bill that Expands 638 to CSFP. Additionally, Red Lake supports 

efforts of the House Agriculture Committee to establish a 638 CSFP pilot program. 

The 638 CSFP pilot is particularly important because under the current authority, 

we cannot procure traditional foods or fruits and vegetables desired by our elders. 

Expanding 638 to CSFP will therefore increase access for our elders to the same 

traditional foods that FDPIR participants are able to access. We do want to flag two 

recommended edits to the language passed by this Committee earlier this year. Red 

Lake knows that when too much discretion is provided to USDA, they will fail us 

just as they have done with this FDPIR and CSFP crisis. Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (HRD–78–59 and GAO–19–87) has found the Federal Government to implement unnecessary barriers. For this reason, as Congress works on 

finalizing the 2024 Farm Bill, we ask you to support the important changes redlined 

below to ensure that we are not subject to the changing winds of elections, new administrations, and new agencies heads who may not work in the best interests of 

Tribes. 

Sec. 4204(a)(1)(D—SELF-DETERMINATION CONTRACT.—The term ‘‘self-determination contract’’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304). 

Sec. 4204(a)(3)(B)—CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall select for participation in the 

demonstration project Tribal organizations that- (i) are successfully administering 

the food distribution program of the Tribal organization under section 4(b)(2)(B) of 

the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); and (ii) 

have the capacity to purchase agricultural commodities in accordance with paragraph (4) for the food distribution program of the Tribal organization. 

Chi miigwetch for taking the time to hear how this crisis has impacted Red Lake 

and Tribes throughout the country. We hope that this oversight hearing will result 

in an immediate, long-term solution and we appreciate the efforts your committees 

have taken to expand 638 in the Farm Bill for FDPIR and CSFP and provide meaningful funding to support the programs that my constituents rely on for their wellbeing. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Seki. 

Mrs. Wafford, you are now recognized for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARTY WAFFORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

SUPPORT AND PROGRAMS, CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ADA, OK 

Mrs. WAFFORD. [Speaking native language.] Hello. Chairman 

Cole and Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member DeLauro and 

Ranking Member Scott and members of the committees, thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

My name is Marty Wafford, and I am the under secretary of support and programs for the Chickasaw Nation Department of 

Health. 
14 

The mission of the Chickasaw Nation is to enhance the overall 

quality of life of the Chickasaw people. The Chickasaw Nation has 

administered the food distribution program on Indian reservations 

since 1984, 40 years. 

The Chickasaw Nation has five FTP stores in Oklahoma, including Ada, Ardmore, Tishomingo, Purcell, and Duncan, and one tailgate location still in Colbert, Oklahoma. 

Prior to the transition to one national warehouse, there were two 

warehouses. The purchasing of foods for the program occurred at 

the national level, and food was stored, delivered, and coordinated 

out of the two locations. 

In February 2024, during a tribal consultation, FNS officials announced the plan to consolidate national warehouse operations 

from two sites to one in Kansas City. 

Tribes advocated for a regional model because there was insufficient time to make the transition on a national scale. FNS proceeded with warehouse consolidation in April 2024. 

Since that time, having only one national vendor and one national warehouse for USDA Foods has proven insufficient. The inventory crisis, which is negatively impacting first Americans across 

the country, is unfortunate and does not fulfill the trust responsibility. 

Typically, the Chickasaw Nation receives numerous food orders 

each month. Currently, orders are delayed or have not arrived at 

all, contain partial orders, damaged or expired products. Examples 

include the Ada FDP store received a portion of an order on July 

12, nearly a month behind. The partial order contained products 

with the best by date of July 12. 

The Tishomingo FTP store received more than 100 units of 1- 

pound block cheese instead of the allowable 5-pound block cheese. 

This order was received just last month, August 14. 

The cheese had expired in December 2023. For these reasons, 

several items are low and out of stock. Inventory levels are monitored daily and due to insufficient deliveries, product is being 

transferred from one site to another when inventories reach critical 

levels. 

Per F&S Handbook 501 Regulations, a one-to-three-month inventory supply should be maintained. This situation results in a direct 

violation. 

Not only is this inventory crisis impacting clients, but it is also 

taking a toll on our staff, who spend countless hours trying to solidify the erratic delivery status of orders, apologizing to clients for 

the lack of available inventory, and answering phone calls. 

Have we forgotten that this program assists some of our most 

vulnerable first Americans? Throughout this period, USDA has not 

offered viable long-term strategy to get us back on track. 

Things such as requiring the national warehouse to meet scheduled deliveries immediately, utilize more than one national warehouse and vendor option, provide additional flexibilities in the 

short-term solutions that were put out in August. Many of those 

options don’t apply to all tribes. 

In 2018, Congress authorized USDA to establish the FDPIR Self 

Determination Demonstration Project, granting participating tribal 

nations more control over their program. 
15 

Although limited in scope and participation, the project has been 

highly successful. This inventory and warehousing crisis is an example of how the locally procured food system works. 

We have not experienced ordering or delivery issues with foods 

procured with the Self-Determination Demonstration Project, in 

which we currently supply a variety of beef, pecans, and dried 

hominy, which we use to make our traditional food pashofa. 

For years, tribal nations have worked to reestablish complex food 

systems and economies. Tribal nations are top producers of crops, 

cattle, and buffalo in some regions. They construct and operate 

meat processing facilities, run successful fish and shellfish hatcheries, and build regional food economies. 

USDA’s mismanagement of FDPIR inventory highlights the urgent need for Congress to expand tribal self-governance determination and self-governance authority to programs that serve tribal 

communities. 

For more than 40 years, USDA has been our partner. We are 

thankful for this partnership, and we simply want this food shortage and crisis fixed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wafford follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTY WAFFORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF

SUPPORT AND PROGRAMS CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH

Chairman Cole and Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member DeLauro and Ranking Member Scot, and Members of the Committees, thank you for holding this hearing. My name is Marty Wafford, and I am the Under Secretary of Support and Programs for the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health. 

The mission of the Chickasaw Nation is to enhance the overall quality of life of 

the Chickasaw people. The Chickasaw Nation has administered the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR or FDP) since 1984. In 1994, we entered into a self-governance compact to become a tribally operated health care system. In 2022, we entered into the Food Distribution Program P.L. 93-638, Self-Determination Food Procurement Project (Beef). 

FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

The Chickasaw Nation has five FDP locations (Ada, Ardmore, Duncan, Purcell, 

and Tishomingo) and one tailgate location (Colbert). In FY24, the Chickasaw Nation’s program served more than 2,400 First American families in south-central 

Oklahoma. 

INVENTORY ISSUE

Most food in the Food Distribution package comes from the USDA-contracted national warehouse (Fresh produce and shelled eggs are supplied from different vendors and 638 foods are procured locally). 

Prior to the transition to one national warehouse, there were two warehouses. The 

purchasing of foods for the program occurred at the national level and food was 

stored and delivery logistics coordinated out of these two locations. 

In February 2024, during an official Tribal consultation between elected leaders 

of Tribes who manage FDPIR and USDA’s FNS, Federal officials announced the 

plan to consolidate national warehouse operations from two sites to one in Kansas 

City. Tribes advocated for a regional model because there was insufficient time to 

make the transition on a national scale. FNS proceeded with warehouse consolidation in April 2024 and at the same time transitioned to a sole national vendor, Paris 

Brothers. Tribal leaders expressed concern as some programs were already being 

impacted by missed deliveries and supply shortages. 

Since April, having only one national vendor and one national warehouse for 

USDA foods has proven insufficient. The inventory crisis, which is negatively impacting First Americans across the country, is unfortunate and does not fulfill the 

trust responsibility. 
16 

EFFECTS ON CHICKASAW NATION

Typically, the Chickasaw Nation receives numerous food orders each month. Currently, orders are delayed or have not arrived at all, contain partial orders, damaged 

or expired products. Examples include: 

• The Ada FDP store received a portion of an order on July 12, nearly a month 

behind. The partial order contained products with the ‘‘Best By’’ date of July 12. 

• The Tishomingo FDP store received more than 100 units of 1-lb block cheese 

instead of the allowable 5-lbs block cheese. This order was received August 14, 2024. 

The cheese expired December 2023. 

Currently, the Chickasaw Nation outstanding food orders include: 

• JULY: behind three orders, and understand those likely will not arrive. 

• AUGUST: behind two orders 

• SEPTEMBER: behind two orders 

For these reasons, several items are low or out of stock including cereal, chicken 

breast, whole chicken, canned tuna, cheese, milk, juice, pasta, canned vegetables, 

canned fruit, beans, catfish, bison, pork chops, butter, oats, flour, cornmeal, and 

soups. 

Chickasaw Nation FDP inventory levels are monitored daily and due to insufficient deliveries, product is being transferred from one site to another when inventories reach critical levels. Often, clients do not have choices within specific food categories and are resorting to whatever product is available. Per FNS Handbook 501 

Regulations (Chapter VI & Chapter VII), a 1 to 3-month inventory supply should 

be maintained. This situation results in a direct violation. 

Not only is this inventory crisis impacting clients, but it is also taking a toll on 

staff who spend countless hours trying to solidify the erratic delivery status of orders, apologizing to clients for the lack of available inventory or answering calls 

about what foods are in stock. 

It is unacceptable for clients to find empty shelves and limited food options they 

are promised. There is nearly an hour drive between any of our locations. Clients 

should be able to shop for items their family needs and not be limited to whatever 

food is left on the shelves. Have we forgotten this program assists some of our most 

vulnerable First Americans? 

Throughout this dark period in the FDP, USDA has not offered a viable long-term 

strategy to get back on track. Some possible solutions tribes have suggested include: 

1. Require national warehouse to meet scheduled deliveries immediately! 

2. Utilize more than one national warehouse and vendor option. 

3. Provide additional flexibilities in the short-term solutions provided by USDA 

in August since options do not apply to all tribes. 

• Temporary Expansion of USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit & Vegetable 

Program (USDA DoD Fresh): Initially this option is only available to three tribes. 

• Activate the Emergency Feeding Network with Situations of Distress through 

TEFAP state agencies: This option only applies if States choose to participate. 

States should not make the determination. 

• Leveraging the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program 

(LFPA) for tribes currently receiving LFPA funding: This impacts how tribes utilize 

LFPA funds, if funds are obligated for other food programs, no additional LFPA 

funding or flexibility are allowed. 

• Formula-based interim solution through the Commodity Credit Corporation for 

emergency food purchases: Although appreciated, this does not supply adequate 

funding for all food supply challenges. 

4. Allow tribes to exercise self-governance by expanding FDP Self-Governance. 

EXPANSION OF SELF-GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY

In 2018, Congress authorized USDA to establish the FDPIR Self-Determination 

Demonstration Project, granting participating Tribal nations more control over their 

FDP. Although limited in scope and participation, the project has been highly successful. 

This inventory and warehousing crisis is an example of how the locally or regionally procured food system works. The Chickasaw Nation has not experienced ordering or delivery issues with foods procured through the Self-Determination Demonstration Project in which we currently supply a variety of beef products, pecans, 

and dried hominy (used to make traditional food, pashofa). USDA recently increased 

the guide take rate for FDP clients, but even with this increase, the Self-Determination Demonstration has been able to successfully sustain product and continue to 

offer participants protein and traditional foods. 
17 

The benefits of Self-Determination and Self-Governance authority may be best 

demonstrated when comparing Federal administration to Tribal administration. 

Currently, Tribal communities that rely on USDA to procure food for their distribution programs are facing critical shortages and uncertainty. In contrast, tribally administered programs authorized under the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Project have those products available and are thriving. A permanent expansion 

of FDPIR Self-Determination and Self-Governance authority in the next Farm Bill 

would give tribes more flexibility to adapt and respond to food supply disruptions 

and keep our communities fed. 

For years, Tribal Nations have worked to reestablish complex food systems and 

economies. Tribal Nations are top producers of crops, cattle, and buffalo in some regions; they construct and operate meat processing facilities, run successful fish and 

shellfish hatcheries, and build regional food economies. USDA’s mismanagement of 

FDPIR inventory highlights the urgent need for Congress to expand Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance authority to programs that serve Tribal communities. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Green-Trottier, you are now recognized for your opening 

statement and then we will proceed with questions. 

STATEMENT OF MARY GREENE-TROTTIER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS 

ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Chairman Cole and Thompson and members of the committee my name is Mary Green-Trottier. I am a 

member of the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe, and I serve as president 

of the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations. 

I serve as the director for my food distribution and CSFP program in Fort Totten, ND. This program is a critical part of our food 

security safety net in my community, and I would like to thank the 

committee for asking me to testify about this important program 

that is a vital source of food for our community members. 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations serves 

around 55,000 people across Indian country each month. The program employs local community tribal members in over 100 tribal 

organizations who administer the program locally for approximately 276 different tribes. 

While over half of FDPIR participants are working men and 

women, many of them have young children at home. FDPIR also 

services a significant number of elders. Nearly half of our FDPIR 

households have members over the age of 60 who rely on our programs for delivery services. 

The ITO managers who administer this program across Indian 

country have been working with their tribal leadership for decades. 

This program began in the 1970s. 

The original purpose of this program has never changed, namely, 

to improve the quality and nutrition of the products offered in this 

critical feeding program within tribal communities. 

The program began in 1970s because of the predecessor program, 

is what we call SNAP, was found to be inadequate to reach our 

communities, most of which are located in food deserts and SNAP 

vendors within any reasonable distance to our communities. 

SNAP is an important tool in the feeding program toolbox but is 

not meaningful if you lack meaningful access to a full-service grocery store or even a convenience store with a full array of food options on its shelves. 
18 

Because that structural reality still exists in most tribal communities, having FDPIR is a critical stopgap and a lifeline to provide 

food to those with limited or no access to stores or transportation. 

The other important tool that FDPIR incorporates into its delivery is nutrition education opportunities for participants. To the extent that we are able to be given very limited nutrition education 

funding, we offer year-round fresh fruits and vegetables in the food 

package and a growing variety of traditional and culturally appropriate foods including wild rice, bison, salmon, blue cornmeal, catfish, and more. 

These foods are scientifically and nutritionally culturally sound 

and offer a deep connection to our tribal participants within their 

own cultures. 

I wish I could report today that the problems we are experiencing are over. They are not. I also wish we could report that the 

problems we are experiencing were black swan events, events no 

one saw coming that no one could have prevented. 

For me, both as a director of my tribe’s program, but also as a 

national president, we saw this coming, and we have talked openly 

about this possibility for over ten years through three administrations. 

NAFDPIR started meeting regularly with USDA in tribal consultations since the last 2 years of the Obama administration. Secretary Vilsack and his team were instrumental in putting those 

consultation meetings on the schedule and were committed to 

launching these meetings. 

Prior to his administration, those meetings and officially recognized consultations were nonexistent. The only way we got changes 

into the FDPIR program were to continually bring up the problems 

and never give up discussion on the path forward to meaningful 

changes. 

To their credit, multiple presidents have kept the conversations 

going. In fact, we have an emergency consultation meeting tomorrow on these same issues. 

What brings us here today is a set of events that the NAFDPIR 

organization warned about all the way back to the Obama years 

and throughout the Trump years. And recently we requested a contingency plan over ten years ago. 

Our request for a contingency plan was grounded in our own experience that periodically this program suffers from uneven delivery systems, transmittal of expired foods, lack of funding necessary 

to improve our tribal warehouses, lack of funding to bring our 

FDPIR sites into the program, and lack of appropriation levels of 

funding to keep addressing the amount and types of food our participants need. 

I am not going to sit here and tell you that money will solve all 

these problems, or that money will fix the current problem we have 

before us, but I will tell you that money is the chronic problem that 

faces this program. 

Until we are honest about that and work together to improve and 

properly resource FDPIR, we will keep running into these types of 

problems. 
19 

The FDPIR funding levels, adjusted for inflation, have been flat 

into the 1970s. Everyone in this room knows that the cost of food 

has changed substantially since the 1970s. 

We should all think about that situation long and hard. A dozen 

eggs in 1970 cost 60 cents versus $4 and up to $18 during the pandemic. The average box of food and FDPIR recipient receives is 

around $70. 

That is the equivalent of 35 cans of soup. Nobody can feed their 

families for that much. It is impossible. Food inflation is real, yet 

FDPIR program managers and the participants they serve make it 

work month after month, year after year. 

We have program sites that have been waiting to come on to become sites for years, and we can’t bring them on because there is 

not enough resources to bring these places to fruition. 

The NAFDPIR program managers from day one of our tribal consultation events with USDA have asked USDA or FNS for a contingency plan to have on the shelves that would kick in the minute 

we experience shortages or disasters or some other emergencies 

calling for modification and delivery, transportation, food purchases, or program participation levels. 

We have never been granted a contingency plan. This current situation brings home to me that we need this immediately. God help 

us if we ever need to use it, but at least we would have it in place. 

The current problem, we saw it coming. As early as February, 

NAFDPIR program managers were notified that the Paris Brothers 

was going to be the sole source of delivery service. 

We were alarmed and we alerted FNS that the transition should 

roll out slowly. We were told not to order any food in April to accommodate this transition. It didn’t matter. We still had problems 

in the delivery system. 

Paris Brothers has been as transparent as we could hope for in 

alerting the program sites as the problems were deteriorating day 

by day. But we had no idea what hope we had at that point. 

All we know is we pass that information on to our frontline FNS 

people. Somewhere along the line the problems deepened and now 

here we are. What I can tell you is that I do not believe Secretary 

Vilsack knew of this problem until late July or early July. 

But by then we had at least four or five months of problems that 

were already happening. My question is, why was anyone down the 

chain at FNS? Why did they not alert the Secretary as to what was 

happening? 

We believe, at NAFDPIR, that if the Secretary and his immediate team knew, he would have done something. Because the 

minute he found out he was aware of the problem we saw him immediately jump into the middle and start offering solutions. 

At one point, we took pictures of totally empty shelves in our 

FDPIR program sites. The entire system fell apart. While I am 

sure there is enough blame to go around for everyone to take a 

piece of the blame, what I also want to know is that won’t help the 

participants in my community that I must look in the eye and tell 

them we have to wait a bit more for food. 

I also know that we still have problems. There are still gaps in 

deliveries, and we still have program sites that are without ade-
20 

quate food on their shelves. After the Secretary became aware and 

options were identified for us to fill the gaps—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Ms. Green-Trottier, if I could ask you to summarize, 

and you will be able to make those points, I am sure, in response 

to questions, but you are a little bit over. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. OK. I just wanted to finish that. We still 

have gaps and we need to get back to normal. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greene-Trottier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY GREENE-TROTTIER, PRESIDENT, NA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS ON IN- DIAN RESERVATIONS, SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, FORT TROTTEN, ND 

Chairman Cole and members of the Committee, my name is Mary Greene 

Trottier. I am a member of the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation and President of the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations 

(NAFDPIR). I also serve as the Director for my Food Distribution & CSFP program 

in Fort Totten, North Dakota, where we regularly serve approximately 850 people 

through FDPIR each month. This program is a critical part of our food security safety net in my community, and I would like to thank the Committee for asking me 

to testify about this important program that is a vital source of food for our community members. 

ABOUT FDPIR 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) provides both 

food assistance and nutrition education to nearly 100,000 people across Indian 

Country each month. The program employs Tribal and local community members 

in over 100 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) who administer the program locally 

for citizens of 276 different Tribes. While over half of FDPIR participants are working men and women, many of whom have young children at home, FDPIR also services a significant number of elders—nearly half of FDPIR households have members 

over the age sixty who rely on our program for delivery services. 

The ITO program managers who administer this program across Indian Country 

have been working with their Tribal leadership for decades. This program began in 

the 1970s. The original purpose of the program has never changed—namely, to improve the quality and nutrition of the products offered in this critical feeding program within Tribal communities. 

The program began in the 1970s because the predecessor program to what we now 

call SNAP was found to be inadequate to reach our communities, many of which 

still, to this day, suffer from not having SNAP vendors within any reasonable distance to our communities. SNAP is an important tool in the feeding program toolbox, but it is not meaningful if you lack meaningful access to a full-service grocery 

store or even a convenience store with the full array of food options on its shelves. 

Because that structural reality still exists in most Tribal communities, having 

FDPIR is a critical stopgap and lifeline to provide food to those with limited or no 

access to stores or transportation. The other important tool that FDPIR incorporates 

into its delivery is nutrition education opportunitiesfor participants to the extent we 

are able given our very limited nutrition education funding. 

We offer year-round fresh fruits and vegetables in the food package and a growing 

variety of traditional and culturally appropriate foods, including wild rice, bison, 

salmon, blue cornmeal, lamb and mutton, catfish and more. These foods are scientifically and nutritionally and culturally sound and offer a deep connection to our Tribal participants with their own cultures. In addition, to the extent we can access 

these culturally appropriate foods from Tribal food producers, we then can in turn 

support Tribal food economies and those food producers who also have challenges 

in accessing remote marketplaces. 

CURRENT PROBLEMS

I wish I could report today that the problems we are experiencing are over. They 

are not. I also wish I could report today that the problems we are experiencing were 

‘‘black swan’’ events—events no one saw coming that no one could have prevented. 

For me, both as the director of my Tribe’s program but also as the national president of the NAFDPIR organization, we saw this coming and have talked openly 

about this possibility for over 10 years, through three administrations. 
21 

NAFDPIR started meeting regularly with USDA in Tribal consultation since the 

last two years of the Obama administration. Secretary Vilsack and his team were 

instrumental in putting those consultation meetings on the schedule and were committed to launching those meetings. Prior to his administration, those meetings— 

in officially recognized consultation—were non-existent. The only way we got 

changes in the FDPIR program were to continually bring up problems and never 

give up in discussion of the path forward to meaningful changes. 

To their credit multiple presidents have kept the conversations going. In fact, we 

have an emergency consultation meeting about the issues we are talking with you 

about today—it is scheduled for tomorrow. I will be there. 

What brings us here today is a set of events that the NAFDPIR organization 

warned about all the way back in the Obama years—and throughout the Trump 

years—and recently. We requested a ‘‘contingency plan’’ over 10 years ago. Our request for a contingency plan was grounded in our own experience that periodically 

this program suffers from uneven delivery systems, transmittal of expired foods, 

lack of funding necessary to improve our Tribal warehouses, lack of funding to bring 

new FDPIR program sites into the program, and lack of appropriate levels of funding to keep addressing the amount and types of foods our program participants 

need. 

I am not going to sit here and tell you that money will solve all these problems 

or that money will fix the current problem we have before us. But I will tell you 

that money is the chronic problem that faces this program and until we are honest 

about that and truly work together to improve and properly resource FDPIR, we 

will likely keep running into these types of problems. 

This situation, in my humble opinion, was caused by a series of events that could 

have been avoided. Let me explain why I say that: 

• The FDPIR program funding levels, adjusted for inflation, have been flat since 

the 1970s. Everyone in this room knows that the cost of food has changed substantially since the 1970s. 

o We should all think about that situation long and hard—a dozen eggs in 1970 

cost 60 cents vs. $4+ in 2024. 

o A can of soup cost 12 cents; in 2024 it can cost almost $2 

o And on and on... 

o The average cost of a box of food for FDPIR program participants in 2024 hovers around $70 which is the equivalent of 35 cans of soup...monthly. 

o Nobody can feed their families for that much. It is impossible. 

o Food inflation is real. 

o Yet—FDPIR program managers and the participants they serve, make it 

work—month after month and year after year. 

• We have program sites that have been waiting to become sites for years and 

years, but we can’t bring them on as new sites—even though the people need access 

tothe foods—because there isn’t enough money to bring the sites on. 

• The NAFDPIR program managers, from day one of our Tribal consultation 

events with USDA, have asked FNS for a contingency plan to have on the shelves 

that would ‘‘kick in’’ the minute we experienced shortages or disasters, or some 

other emergencies calling for modifications in delivery, transportation, food purchases, or program participation levels. We have never been granted a contingency 

plan. This current situation brings home to me that we need a contingency plan. 

God help us if we ever need to use it—but at least we (all of us) would have it in 

place as a starting point to make sure our people are fed. 

• The current problem—we saw it coming 

o As early as February or May of 2024, NAFDPIR program managers began seeing problems in delivery of food. We were alerted by Paris Brothers and we, in turn, 

alerted the FNS. 

o We were told to not order food in April. We didn’t. It didn’t matter. We still 

had problems in the delivery system. 

o Paris Brothers has been as transparent as we could hope for in alerting the 

program sites to the problems they were seeing—but we have no idea what FNS 

did with that information. All we know is that we passed that information on to 

our front-line FNS program people. 

o Somewhere along the way, the problems deepened. And now here we are. 

What I can tell you is that I do not believe that Secretary Vilsack knew of this 

problem until late June or even early July—but by then we had at least 4-5 months 

of problems that were already happening. My question is this: why anyone down 

the chain at FNS didn’t alert the Secretary as to what was happening. We believe 

at NAFDPIR that if the Secretary and his immediate team knew, he would have 
22 

done something because the minute we found out that he was aware of the problem, 

we saw him immediately jump into the middle and start offering solutions. 

o At one point, we took pictures of totally empty shelves in several of our FDPIR 

program sites—no meat, no other protein, no grains, no fish, no bison, no rice, no 

canned goods. 

o The entire system fell apart. 

• While I am sure there is enough blame to go around for everyone to take a piece 

of the blame, what I also know is that won’t help the participants in my community 

that I must look in the eye and tell them they will just have to wait a bit more 

for food. • What I also know is that we still have problems—there are still gaps in deliveries and we still have program sites that are without adequate food on their 

shelves. After the Secretary became aware and options were identified for us to ‘‘fill 

the gaps’’ we still have gaps, and I think it will likely take months to get us all 

fully back on track and back to ‘‘normal’’. 

QUESTIONS REMAIN

I’m not here today to rehash the problems that led us to where we are today— 

or to play a blame game with anyone. I think there is enough blame to go around 

for everyone. What I am here today to ask you to do is to look long and hard at 

this program and ask yourselves a few questions: 

• Why is FDPIR at flat funding levels and has been for decades? 

• Why are we having program sites we cannot bring on because there isn’t enough 

money to bring them on? These are people—our elders and our families and children—who need to be fed in some of the most remote locations in the country. • Why is there no contingency plan in place for food shortages not caused by 

FDPIR program sites or Tribes or the participants themselves? When can NAFDPIR 

expect to have the first meeting with FNS to start crafting a contingency plan, so 

we never have to be here again? 

o We didn’t cause this problem we are here discussing today—but the contingency plan we asked for over 10 years ago would have allowed all of us here today 

to be more prepared to deal with this emergency. • Why is there no plan to make sure that FDPIR has full visibility all the way 

into the Secretary’s office so that never again do we get buried under other programs when we are unique among all feeding programs? • Can I rely on everyone in this room to help NAFDPIR get the program changes 

in place we have been asking for, for over a decade—like being able to use FDPIR 

and SNAP simultaneously? Like being able to use our warehouses to house other 

donated foods or foods from our communities so that we can have dual purpose locations to stage food—we have asked for that for over 10 years and have yet to have 

it approved? • Can someone help me understand why Tribal governments are not listed among 

the eligible TEFAP program sites? States are and food banks are, but Tribal governments are not. That is wrong. That needs to be fixed. 

I’m not here today to talk about 638. What my personal opinions are about 638 

are mine. I cannot speak to what other FDPIR program sites feel about 638. I do 

know one thing. That CBO—in a process that I don’t truly understand—has determined that the number of participants in FDPIR will go down to 40,000 and the 

cost of food will go dramatically up if Congress moves to 638 of FDPIR. I can tell 

you that any move that diminishes the number of people served (when we already 

know that we don’t even serve the full number of people who need our program) 

or that drives up the cost of food (when we already know that food costs too much), 

needs a lot more examination into the money. Or we will be right back here again. 

MY 2021 TESTIMONY

Not too long ago—in 2021—I was here testifying about the pandemic impacts on 

FDPIR. I talked at length about supply chains and the overall US food system and 

how FDPIR felt those impacts as well. During the pandemic we saw rising numbers 

of participants and related strains on inventory. The food deliveries impacted 

canned goods, proteins, and fresh produce. Delivery companies could no longer fill 

trucks or justify expenses to go to our sites. 

During the pandemic, USDA moved into a Farmers to Families Food Box program 

and FDPIR recognized that program right away—why? Because NAFDPIR had been 

asking forthat type of program for years. I was able to remind everyone during that 

testimony that to move to a disbursed warehouse and delivery system—with multiple warehouses regionally located around the country in closer proximity to our 
23 

Tribal participants and our remote locations—was a win for the Federal Government (lowering the cost of delivery) while also being a win for our participants. Food 

would travel shorter distances, we could augment food deliveries with locally purchased food product, we could simultaneously open new markets for Native producers, and food would arrive in fresher condition and not expired. Why can’t we 

talk about that now? 

CONCLUSION

Let me again remind everyone here. 

Our program sites are among the most remote sites in the United States. We feed 

some of the most vulnerable people in the United States who have, in most cases, 

extreme limitations on their ability to access food. 

NAFDPIR predicted that at some point we would find ourselves here—experiencing food shortages. We never wanted it to happen—but we also knew that our 

supply chains and our communities we feed are impoverished and remote. 

Let us all decide here today that we will work together to solve these problems— 

right the ship—and fix the long-standing concerns that NAFDPIR has warned FNS 

of for years and years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify today. I am happy to take 

any questions you might have. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. You made a lot of good 

points. 

As we begin questions, I will remind Members that we will follow 

the 5-minute rule. I am going to ask all members to adhere to. Remember, we have two panels today. We have a lot of members on 

the committees. And you may hear a tap, a single tap from my 

gavel in the last 30 seconds that would remind you to wrap it up. 

We will be rotating back and forth between majority and minority members of the Appropriation and Agriculture Subcommittees. 

I will forego my questions till the end, and I will recognize Mr. 

Finstad to begin. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our testifiers for being here. Very compelling to hear your stories and to 

hear your firsthand experience of this devastating mismanagement. 

I want to learn a little bit more about the tribal consultations. 

And so, on February 16, 2024, USDA held the tribal consultation, 

where USDA informed tribal leaders and FDPIR program directors 

of its plan to consolidate to one vendor. 

USDA clearly did not listen to you, nor based on their decision, 

did not think tribes know what is best for their communities. So 

to any of our witnesses here today, would you say that the USDA’s 

consultation practices are meaningful, and if any of you want to 

take a shot at it? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes, they are meaningful. And consultation works when both parties listen. We were informed the contract 

had already taken place, so it was past the point of listening at 

that time when we were informed, the contract was already signed 

and the transition was already in process, and we were not privy 

to any of the details of the contract. 

Mr. SEKI. OK. Red Lake was not able to participate in the travel 

consultation on February 16. We were disappointed to hear USDA 

ignored the request of tribes to move towards a regional sourcing 

model. 

Did we not learn anything from the pandemic? We need more redundancy, not less. I am concerned about our consultation today. 

Hopefully everything is to do the right thing for 638, FDPIR and 

CSFP. [Speaking native language.] 
24 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Thank you. And I will just add that what you’ve 

heard is that is not tribal consultation. Making a decision prior to 

a tribal consultation is not government to government and tribal 

consultation. 

Once those comments were made and that it was brought up 

during that February consultation, even then, tribes urged and 

there is not enough time, there is not enough months, there is not 

enough infrastructure to make this change across the country. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you for sharing that. So it is crystal clear. 

February 16, 2024, was not a consultation—the goose was cooked. 

Your opportunity for advice and feedback was—the horse had left 

the barn already. The decision was made. So, thank you for making 

that clear. 

So, with another consultation coming up, I think it’s tomorrow, 

what—after your experience that you’ve been through the last several months, do you have faith that the USD will be responsive to 

your asks? What do you expect out of this next consultation? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I hope for solutions. I hope that we never 

have to experience this again. It put distrust in our community in 

the program. 

Mr. SEKI. The question—you know, the Federal program is a failure. Consultation is supposed to be their face to face with tribes, 

but that’s not happening. We need more consultation with tribes, 

because we are the first Americans here. 

We should be the priority because of the treaties that was adopted under the United States Constitution. I’ll keep bringing that up. 

It’s time to do the right thing. 

Mr. FINSTAD. All right. I have about 50 seconds here, so I want 

to get to one more question. Today’s testimony reveals a suite of 

suggested long term solutions, so I thank you for providing those. 

Some of which can be seen in the committee’s past farm bill related to self-determination, and as you know, the bill makes permanent the FDPIR pilot programs, and introduced a CSFP pilot. To 

any of you beyond that, is there anything else that—anything else 

that the department should consider, that we should consider in 

the farm bill to avoid future disruptions like this? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I would like to see authorization for dual 

participation in SNAP and FDPIR. 

Mr. SEKI. We need more authority to feed our people because of 

food—because USDA is failing. We know how to feed our people. 

We know how to do it, but USDA has got to listen to tribes, the 

problems we are facing when something goes wrong. It’s time. Time 

and time again, I’ll keep saying do the right thing. We are the first 

Americans of this United States. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you all. My time is over, Mr. Chair. I yield 

back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I now recognize the ranking 

member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got a couple of questions. Madame Under Secretary, I was very struck by 

your observation that only States can declare situations of distress, 

which leaves the tribes out in the cold. Chief Seki made a similar 

point regarding his State. I want you to know that I raised that 
25 

with Secretary Vilsack later today, and see if he can find any flexibility to allow tribes to make declarations. 

You and Chief Seki both mentioned leveraging the local food purchase assistance program, but you note that funds spent towards 

the current crisis cannot be replaced. Again, I will ask the secretary about that. 

And Chief Seki, you raised the issue of having an automatic 

tracking system so that we know the exact status of food deliveries. 

I think you are right on target there. It’s a massive program that 

operates in often remote areas across the country, and it cries out 

for a more systematic tracking system. 

So, I’ll take the secretary’s temperature on that, and see if he 

has any plans to include a proposal in the fiscal year 2026 budget 

for that. Can I ask you to briefly describe how you have used the 

USDA CCC funding to get all food types on your shelves for your 

tribal participants, and what challenges have you encountered, and 

what successes you’ve had in making that tool work. 

And Ms. Wafford, you suggested expanding the FDPIR self-governance as a solution. Can you give some insight as to how your 

tribe operates the self-governance pilot program, and how much additional capacity you anticipate being able to take on? And that 

will probably cover my time. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Absolutely, thank you. So, being part of the demonstration project has proven that we can work locally with suppliers, and many of the ones that we have chosen to work with in 

the Chickasaw Nation are Chickasaw. So, there are multiple facets 

of this program that we are able to leverage locally, regionally, to 

procure food. 

Now, even during this crisis, those inventory levels availability 

have not been—have not suffered. They’ve actually increased. The 

capacity is there, and as Chairman Seki said, we know how to feed 

our people. We know how to procure and how to get what our people need to keep them fed. 

Mr. BISHOP. Chief? All right, Chairman Seki, in your testimony 

you state that Red Lake received nearly 50,000 in CC funds. Can 

you tell us about the experience signing the agreement with USDA 

and receiving the funds? Have you had an opportunity to spend 

those CC dollars year, and if so, what channels did your tribe go 

through to procure food? 

Mr. SEKI. We just received the funds. We haven’t spent it yet. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, and I understand that you—Red Lake operates 

both the FDPIR and the commodities supplemental food program. 

Can you tell us about the challenges that are unique to each of 

those programs, and similarly, can you tell me about the challenges 

and solutions that apply to both of them? 

Mr. SEKI. OK. I would say this—direct the USDA to employ a regional sourcing model, direct USDA to reimburse tribes for LFPA 

funds spent to resolve the FDPIR crisis, farm bill, make the 638 

FDPIR pilot program permanent, go beyond a 638 pilot for CSRP. 

Tribes know what is best for their tribal members. This example 

further proves we know what is best for our community, not USDA. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Chairman Seki, and my time 

is about up, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
26 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. I 

now recognize the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 

Cole. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 

Greene-Trottier, let me start with you, if I may. Can you give us 

a timeline of when the idea of consolidation from one vendor to two 

was first proposed by the USDA, and then what kind of discussions 

ensued from that? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I can’t speak to their timeline. I can 

speak to the timeline that we were informed of was in February. 

And so, we were informed that we were not able to order any food 

in April. 

So, all of the warehouses had to, so to say, bulk up in March and 

February. And so, the timeline was really not adequate. And some 

warehouses can manage that inventory—additional inventory if 

they have adequate infrastructure. Some cannot. So, that timeline 

was not feasible for every warehouse across the country. And so we 

pushed back orders, and then we had to wait the entire month of 

April. We couldn’t process any orders, and then in May we started 

receiving orders that were late. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, and so then just to be clear—I’ll make sure 

I understand this—there really wasn’t discussion. You were just informed this was going to happen? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. We were told it was done. 

The CHAIRMAN. So there wasn’t any really any consultations at 

all? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, that’s a very important point. Ms. Wafford, 

once you knew you had problems, in other words, you know, stuff 

wasn’t showing up on time, and was showing up expired, what 

measures did you take and the Chickasaw Nation take to try and 

obviously make sure that people that needed to get fed got fed? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this began 

immediately. Since April, we have received 33 trucks, or 24 trucks. 

33 percent of those trucks have had an issue. 

Shortage, something showing up we did not anticipate was coming, spoilage, the examples that I gave earlier. So, the measures obviously that the Chickasaw Nation has taken, I mean, we have 

done everything that we can so that our people do not feel that this 

is even going on. 

We do not want them to see bare shelves. So sometimes our 

teams are driving to all five of our sites, which are in any one direction an hour apart, just to take a dozen of something so that our 

citizens and our families won’t walk in and have a bare shelf of 

milk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please, go ahead. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. We had also prepared a plan so that tribal resources could be used, where to get those tribal resources—if needed. Now, this was a day by day, and then, you know, starting July 

and August, it began to be almost an hour by hour situation to 

where we’re calling for trucks, trucks are not showing up, our team 

is calling it in the morning at 10 a.m., they’re calling in the afternoon at 3 p.m. 
27 

So, tribal plans have been put in place, and they were ready to 

hit the—you know, hit the go button. The truck doesn’t come at 6 

p.m., hit the go button. We’re ordering this, we’re ordering this. 

Those were some of the things that we did. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, I mean, there is—obviously, there is a treat 

and trust responsibility to provide this product, and it wasn’t provided. Has USDA compensated you in any way for the extra effort 

you had to put forward, the extra supplies you had to purchase? 

Did they try to make you whole for their failures? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Absolutely not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any discussion about that at all? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. All of the solutions that we have asked about, 

and believe me, our teams have been asking, you know, we’re one 

of the tribes—we have semi trucks. We can drive to Kansas City 

and pick up our shipments, but all of the things that we proposed 

somehow didn’t work or was always received with a—with a no. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. You know, these flexibilities as I mentioned earlier that were put out in August, everyone can’t qualify for those 

things. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I ask quickly, Mr. Seki, to you as well and 

to anybody else, has USDA, again, offered to replace, make up for, 

compensate you for the additional expenses or efforts that you’ve 

gone because of their failure? Mr. Seki, does it—that happen to 

you? 

Mr. SEKI. No, it did not happen. We’re—our staff did call us— 

the truck will arrive on a Friday. No truck arrived, and not once 

USDA offered any help for our program. You know, it’s a good 

thing the Mdewakanton Sioux tribe offered us a grant to purchase 

food. This is how we did it. Yet USDA kept calling, telling us 

trucks are coming, and they never showed up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, and now I recognize ranking member, 

Mrs. Hayes. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. I just have a few follow up questions to 

some of the things that you have all said before. I heard you say 

that in April you first started to become aware of the cracks. Is 

there any reporting structure for—because we’re here today after 

this has all taken place. 

I’m trying to figure out if there’s any way, or any mechanism by 

which before—after the first shipment was missed—before we got 

6 months out, what is the structure by which you can report that 

up, or let somebody know that this is a problem so that it can be 

evaluated in real time, and attempt to address it? Like you said 

you were making calls, Ms. Wafford. What does that look like? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Our team schedules time to make those calls. 

USDA is not reaching out directly to us. 

Mrs. HAYES. They’re not? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. We are making the calls twice a day. 

Mrs. HAYES. Then when you’re making the calls, are you getting 

any response from them? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Sometimes the phone rings. Sometimes we’re 

able to get confirmation of, you know, a truck will be here tomor-
28 

row, or next week, or—but many of the dates that have been given 

have been incorrect. 

Mrs. HAYES. And then there’s no follow up or recourse. You just 

have to wait and hope the truck shows up. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. We call the next day. 

Mrs. HAYES. So, it seems like that’s something that needs to be— 

there needs to be some way for the problem to—once you identify 

the problem, to be able to address it and get a response, not just 

wait for a congressional hearing seven months later to figure it out. 

Ms. Trottier, you also said something about—I want you to talk 

a little bit more about dual authorization with the SNAP program, 

which you think might be a helpful way to feed some of these tribal 

communities. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Well, during the food disruptions, we simply ran out of food, and so we asked FNS if there was any way we 

could get disaster SNAP benefits to compensate the lack of food 

that we had, and we were said—we were told no, that has to be 

declared by a president—a presidential declaration. So, that would 

have alleviated some of the balance between having no food and 

something that they could tangibly use to purchase food. 

Mrs. HAYES. So, there is no program by which—I mean, I understand the disaster declaration didn’t work, but there’s no program 

by which you could have gotten immediate assistance because of 

the disruption? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Exactly. There is none. So, we didn’t realize that the system was failing until the trucks did not show up. 

Prior to that, the trucks were on time. They never missed a delivery date, and so it was quite a surprise when they simply did not 

show up, and we kept asking for data. 

Do you have data? So, this goes back to your question. FNS was 

pulling orders by priority, but what data were they using? We still 

have not received those data points as to how many trucks need 

to be going out, how many trucks should be going out of that warehouse to meet the supply and the demand of both programs. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. I’m just taking notes on both of those 

things, because I’m hopeful that coming out of this committee that 

we are able to address and close some of these gaps and these failures that we’ve seen in these programs so that they don’t happen 

again, and people are not left hungry. 

Because it’s not really advantageous to say to my colleagues 

point, even if you were compensated, or the food deliveries were 

made up, you can’t feed people seven months later. They’re hungry 

in real time. Do you believe that an increase in the 638 authority 

could have helped ease these kind of sourcing and logistics problems in the future? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I operate the 638, and that was a benefit 

to our program, because that was one of the products that we did 

not run out of during this time frame. 

Mrs. HAYES. OK. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. We ran out of other products, but the 638 

was very instrumental in making sure that we had enough of a 

protein product to supply our participants. 

Mrs. HAYES. And for any of the panelists, do you think it would 

be beneficial if under the umbrella of the nutrition space on this 
29 

committee, there was a dedicated time at the beginning of the Congress to talk about the upcoming year, and what it looks like for 

tribal communities and food delivery on tribal lands? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Mrs. HAYES. Ms. Wafford? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Yes, absolutely. 

Mrs. HAYES. Chairman? 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you, this has been very helpful. I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, is recognized. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

the Agriculture Committee, as well as the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for holding this hearing on a very important 

issue, and to thank the witnesses for expressing to us your concerns in how we see a way forward here. I do hope that there are 

people at the USDA that are paying attention to this hearing. 

I think that’d be very helpful. I just had a couple of questions. 

I understand the last month the USDA offered a suite of optional 

actions that ITOs and State agencies could use to mitigate ongoing 

disruptions. 

These included the use of a commodity credit, corporation funds, 

expansion of the fresh fruit and vegetable program, leveraging local 

food purchase agreements, and activating State emergency feeding 

networks with situations of distress, and emergency designation received by 19 States so far. So, I’d just like to ask all three of you 

if you have a response. Have any of these short term solutions— 

have you seen them provide any relief to the situation? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. I received the CCC funds, and at 

that point in time we were having to order food, but there’s also 

challenges and administrative burdens that were placed on myself 

as the director to find a vendor. We have procurement processes 

that we have to follow. We need tribal resolutions. I’m very grateful 

my tribe met immediately and passed resolutions, and they did set 

up the funding process for us to capitalize on those funds, but finding a vendor to deliver all those foods wasn’t as easy as it looked. 

I simply couldn’t order 125 cases of green beans and carrots and 

get them delivered the next day. So, there are challenges with it, 

but it was—I was very grateful for that ability to go out and procure the foods. 

Mr. SEKI. In Red Lake, we just received the CSFP funds, and we 

haven’t spent it yet, but we want to say thank you for getting the 

funding, but we will be expediting whatever we need to do to get 

some food for our people. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good. Ms. Wafford? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Thank you. Yes. You know, we are also grateful 

for the CCC funds. We’ve given out over 400 boxes in the last few 

weeks. The way that we’re using it in the Chickasaw Nation is as 

a supplemental package that—a box of foods, things that we’re out 

of the most at the time, and we’re giving it to those families as 

they come in, and then there were not things on the shelf to get. 

So, we are grateful. However, this does not one hundred percent replace what we are out of. 
30 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I understand. Thank you. As Members of Congress, we’ve heard, and certainly this morning you’ve expressed in 

your testimony a breakdown of communication between tribal leaders and the folks in the USDA. 

You’ve expressed concerns about their decision to award a sole 

source contract earlier this year, and this issue could and should 

have been avoided. So again, to all of you, what has the department done, and can the department do, to restore a level of communication that inspires your confidence in their administration of 

these programs? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I’ll jump in really quick. Immediately take action. As was said earlier, people are hungry today. We need our 

groceries today, not 7 months later. Go back to that regional model. 

We do not want to go backwards in feeding our people, which is 

exactly what’s happening today. Fix the problem immediately. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. Do the right thing. Get the food, get the funds to 

Red Lake and so we can take care of our children and our elders 

and our people. When they say they’re going to deliver, we got to 

make sure they deliver, not because that’s a government to government relationship to contact the tribes that this is coming, and it 

has to be done. Do the right thing. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I guess I just want to reiterate the ability 

to listen to us when we express our concerns. All of our tribes are 

unique, all of our tribes are different, but listening to us, the regional model was a great plan. Think outside the box, and come up 

with different delivery mechanisms that work in Indian Country. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good. Thank you. Again, I appreciate your testimonies, and my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The ranking member of the 

Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

say thank you to all of you for your compelling testimony this 

morning, and let me just make a comment before—I have a couple 

questions for you. You know, there is a very serious issue, and I 

appreciate what you’re saying about people being hungry in the 

United States. The fact is, is that there is an overall hunger crisis 

in the United States. 

I’ll tell you in my district in Connecticut, and Connecticut is statistically one of the richest States in the Nation, in my district, one 

out of seven people do not know where their next meal is coming 

from. Now, I find that appalling. I find the situation that you’re 

talking about appalling, because the United States has an abundance of food. 

No one in this Nation, no one, should be hungry. That is appalling that happens, but please understand as well that this is happening all over the country, and we need to address it, and were 

particularly need to address what your issues, which are, as I say, 

compelling, and what we need to do, because no one should starve 

in the United States of America. Not adults, and particularly not 

children, because we have the food. 

My question—or, one of my questions to you is, this program, or 

the FDPIR program was established in 1977. Has there been prob-
31 

lems like this in the past? Is this the first time that this situation 

has occurred? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Ironically in 2014, we had the same situation with lean warehouses across the country. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. And at that time, we asked for a contingency plan. 

Ms. DELAURO. And was there a contingency plan developed? You 

asked USDA, is that correct? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. We do not have a contingency plan. 

Ms. DELAURO. Just piggyback a little bit on my former colleague—my colleague here who just recently asked the question— 

there are, as I understand it, so this happened in 2014. 

We’re now 10 years later, and we have the same issue. In that 

period of time, my question is, has there been the conversations 

with USDA about a contingency plan? Was there? When is it coming? What has been the oversight of that, and I say that as well 

if that happened in 2014, I don’t know if this was made—if it required a congressional hearing to address this issue. Was there a 

congressional hearing to address that issue at the time? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. There has not been. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. But we brought it up at consultations 

throughout this time. 

Ms. DELAURO. Brought up? Tell me specifically what was 

brought up. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. The contingency plan has been brought 

up since 2014 at consultations. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK, and at that time, there were then the two 

contractors, is that right? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes, there was multiple contractors. 

Ms. DELAURO. So, there’s multiple contractors. So, that was a 

problem with multiple contractors. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. As well as now where the regulation requires that 

there be a single contractor? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. Now, I’m just trying to get to where the root 

of this effort is, and will question the secretary about that. And I 

would love to get—and if you can, maybe it’s in all of your testimony, but you know, there’s several areas, and I know my colleague jotted down some notes, in which change can be made. 

I don’t know that the regulation which says that we have one 

contractor—you know, what the—how that can be dealt with, but 

let me just move to some of the short term things, which my colleague just a moment ago talked about. My understanding is that 

there are four short term options that have been laid out. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, CCC funds, 

which had been mentioned, expanding deliveries through the Department of Defense fresh fruit and vegetable program, and also 

it’s my understanding that the—that USDA has executed an emer-
32 

gency contract with Amerigold. Should the answer to that be, let’s 

go back to the two contractors? Would that alleviate the problem? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Historically, I don’t think so. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. So, we need to come up and find out—and 

what—with all of you, make a determination on what could be a 

contingency plan to move forward in this area. OK. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I now recognize the chairman 

of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Thompson. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Good morning. Thank you so much. Good 

morning, everybody. I apologize for missing opening statements, 

and before I get to a few questions, just some general comments. 

First, thank you to all of our first panel witnesses for being here. 

You know, your testimony tells a story of hardship exacerbated by 

an administration that failed to listen during February’s tribal consultations. Your testimony shows where Congress can improve legislation to promote sovereignty, and your testimony shows what 

happens when an administration fails to communicate openly and 

continuously with both your communities and with Congress. 

Now like my colleagues, my immediate goal is to ensure that food 

is getting to your communities without delay. This is a mess that 

has hurt the literal, most vulnerable among us. The department 

lacked transparency and it eroded public confidence, and now we’re 

faced with spending millions upon millions of dollars to correct the 

department’s errors. 

If only the secretary was held to a standard like that of Paris 

Brothers Incorporated, or any other vendor in the department’s 

orbit. With that, I look forward to discussing this issue further 

with you, and to hear the department defend their decision, and 

most importantly discuss how do we—how do we immediately get 

this corrected, and what do we put in place so it never happens 

again? 

So my first question is section 4102, and 4204 of the committee’s 

farm bill make permanent the FDPIR self-determination programming, and introduce a CSFP self-determination demonstration 

project respectively. Can any of you walk me through how each of 

these benefit your communities? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. You know, in 2022, when we applied for the 

FDPIR self-determination demonstration project, we were so excited. We were excited to be able to choose and procure locally. 

We chose vendors that primarily were Chickasaw, and having 

the program—we call it the 638 program—has proven reliable. It 

has been successful, and during this crisis, I mean, that has been 

evident. 

Chairman THOMPSON. And any thoughts from our other two witnesses on that area? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. I manage the CSFP program, and 

the FDPIR program. And so we introduce bison into the self-determination project, and that afforded us the opportunity to provide 

different cuts of meats of the bison that we would never get 

through a food package through FDPIR. 

So, it—the flexibility and the variety has been outstanding, and 

popular for our program, but at the same time our CSFP recipients 
33 

who don’t receive FDPIR, they’re bashing us because they’re not 

getting that product in their food box. 

So, CSFP definitely needs some 638, and I think the tribal CSFP 

programs would be a perfect fit for those, and I think that would 

also offer an incentive for more tribes to join the CSFP program, 

because there’s only eight or nine to my knowledge that operate 

right now. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Very good. Mr. Seki, any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. SEKI. Red Lake fully embracing 638 for FDPIR and the 

CSFP program and electronic tracking system, regional sourcing, 

and multiple vendors, this is—readily extends. 

Chairman THOMPSON. You know, to each witness, thank you for 

sharing your examples of logistical failures and food inventories 

impacted at the FDPIR sites, and how your communities came together to lessen the impact to families. Do you mind sharing with 

what little bit of time is left a few of those family stories with us 

today of how families have been impacted within your communities? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Disappointment. They lost trust in the 

program itself. The tribal leaders were somewhat admonished. You 

go to these meetings, and here we are, sitting with empty shelves 

in our warehouse, and we’re not getting our full food package. So, 

the impact at the local level has everyone across the country has 

taken the hit. The amount of stress that FDPIR staff have faced 

these last three months is unforgiving. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, please accept my apologies for the 

failures of this—of the administration of not listening. I mean, 

we—in the agriculture community, we legislate from the outside in, 

and obviously it—the consultation, you’ve expressed yourself, 

you’ve shown past success, you were cautioned about past failures 

that have happened, and I look forward to the second panel and 

seeing how the secretary—what plans he may have to put us back 

on track. So, thank you so much, chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the 

ranking member, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you very much. Chairman 

Seki, I understand that you have received already $49,000 in CC 

funds from USDA. Is that correct? 

Mr. SEKI. No, we received it from the Shakopee Mdewakanton 

Sioux community, $43,000, a grant. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Oh. 

Mr. SEKI. However, Shakopee does not have trust obligation to 

Red Lake. The big old government does. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. All right, well tell me, what’s the 

status of that money? What are you using it for? 

Mr. SEKI. To buy food for our people. The shortfalls that were 

created by the Federal Government. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. All right, so you have used that 

fund? Is it up? Are you going to require more funds from—— 

Mr. SEKI. $43,000 doesn’t go very far. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. I understand that. What I’m trying to get is, how are you using what you’ve gotten already? 
34 

Mr. SEKI. Well, the trucks finally start coming in. So, to fill our 

warehouse, but it’s still lacking. Still behind what they are supposed to be at at this point. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. So, how long will that relief relieve you, and are you going to reapply for additional CC funds? 

Mr. SEKI. We’re going to continue—it will take about a month to 

catch up on what we lost. You know, it’s the Federal Government 

trust responsibility, the questions we are being asked here, because 

that’s what it—it’s all about. The United States Government trust 

responsibility to create what’s supposed to be done for the Native 

Americans. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. I understand that, but you are a 

very good example of how USDA has responded. They have given 

you a certain amount of money. It would be very helpful for us to 

learn from what you’re doing so that we can avoid any mistakes 

otherwise. So, do you plan to ask for more CC money, yes or no? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Mr. SEKI. Yes, we will. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. All right. 

Mr. SEKI. We continue to do so. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. All right, so you got it. It’s helping 

you, and you’re going to use more. Good. Now Ms. Wafford, your 

testimony, you mentioned that the CCC funding not being adequate for all food supply challenges. Elaborate on that, please? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Absolutely will do. You know, we just—this is 

September. This began happening in April. So, while we are thankful for the CCC funds, the supplemental box of food, which includes 

for us juice, milk, spaghetti noodles, canned beef stew, cereal, and 

our cornbread mix, which are things that are very low in inventory, 

that is not a hundred percent of all that we are out of or low on 

inventory. So, it is just that, just a supplement. It is not one hundred percent a replacement. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. So, your tribe utilizing the CC 

funds, and let me just ask you, given that the other short term solutions were not and are not providing enough relief, is what you’re 

saying, how long will the dollars that you have last? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. A very short amount of time, less than 60 days. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. OK, and you will be applying for 

additional CCC funds, correct? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Yes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. All right, now Ms. Trottier, has 

Spirit Lake’s experience been similar? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Pardon? 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. You’re connected with Spirit 

Lake? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Are you not? Has that been similar to what we’ve heard? Are you in agreement? I mean, you’ve gotten money, you’re using it, we need to get more? That’s what I’m 

trying to get to. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. I use the CC funds immediately. We 

had already placed an order for food, and we were going to figure 

out how to pay for it in whatever source of funds we had to use, 

whether it be LFPA funds, or tribal funds, but we were—we were 
35 

already in the process of ordering food to meet the needs of our 

participants. So yes, but the—when you start calculating the costs 

of the food, it was an eye opener, because the CC funds were not 

going to last very long, I would say 45 days at the most. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. So now let me ask you this. Are 

you utilizing right now CC funds for either FDPIR, or CSPP? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes, for both. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. OK. Good information. Good data, 

and we’re going to move forward with this wholeheartedly. Than 

you. 

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the ranking member. Ms. De La Cruz is recognized. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here today. The food distribution program 

on Indian reservations provides food to approximately 53,000 income eligible households on tribal reservations and Native American households in approved areas near reservations, and the commodity supplemental food program provides food to approximately 

720,000 income eligible people, aged 60 and older. 

Each program provides American grown and produced foods and 

nutrition education to the populations in need. Unfortunately, since 

April 2024, Indian tribal organizations, food banks, and emergency 

feeding organizations, State agencies, and program participants 

have experienced significant food shortages caused by delayed, canceled food deliveries, or even deliveries of expired products. 

It was learned that these disruptions were caused by the consolidation of vendors tasked with storing and distributing foods for 

both food distribution programs on Indian reservations, and commodity supplemental food programs. 

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has acknowledged his department’s mistakes in awarding a contract to a single distributor to 

supply critical food aids to these programs. Unfortunately, Congress failed to hear about these issues from the department in a 

timely manner. 

I have a question for you. A little bit ago, my colleague asked the 

question, if you had experienced these food delays with just a single distributor, or if you had also experienced these delays when 

there were multiple contractors, is that correct that this has been 

an ongoing issue? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. I looked at prior notes from previous 

meetings, and in 2014, we had experienced the same disruption of 

food deliveries. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Multiple times, or just once? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Multiple times. 

Mr. SEKI. Yes, it’s been happening in Red Lake as well, and 

there’s also another issue that happens. Some of these items that 

we normally get, they run out, and then we don’t get, you know, 

like, flour, or certain vegetables. The USDA runs out, and then 

here we are, behind on the vegetables to feed our people, or flour. 

Those things happen. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. So, in your opinion, each of you, if you were 

able to make a change, what change would that be? If we’re experiencing the same problem, whether it’s a single contractor or mul-
36 

tiple contractors, what do you think the solution is to avoid these 

type of issues? 

Mr. SEKI. Well, USDA—I’d mentioned it before, is regional 

source—sourcing with multiple vendors, electronic tracking system, 

fully embracing 638 for FDPIR, and CSFP. That was—that was 

what—that should happen for the—for the tribes. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. OK, and would you like to add to that? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I just want to echo it, what Chairman Seki said, 

but you know, we know how to feed our people. Expand self-governance so that we can do that. It has been proven that we know 

how to run our own programs. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. What would self-governance look like for you 

all? Give me some examples. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I explained earlier the bison that we were 

able to purchase and procure our own—utilizing our own bison 

herd and offering a variety of meats that were never afforded to 

the Food Distribution Program, and the participation increase for 

that product has grown exponentially, and it has been very popular, and it’s also a healthier product. And so, I guess, incorporating 638, making that a permanent part of our programs so 

that a vendor that is supplying the product has some permanency 

for future growth, and a 3-year funding level isn’t adequate. So we 

need the permanency of that option along with the regional vendor 

model. 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. SEKI. In order to regulate 638, we would never be uneven if 

we have 638 Food Distribution Programs, CSFP, we would never 

have the same problem then. We’d be purchasing for own food for 

our people. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from Maine, 

Ms. Pingree, is recognized. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding 

this hearing, and thank you particularly to this panel of witnesses. 

I really appreciate you giving us a chance to dig in a little deeper 

and explaining some of the background, and I just want you to 

know you have our heartfelt sympathy. It’s heartbreaking to hear 

you talk about empty shelves and people going hungry. 

I’m also the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, so we get a chance to hear from tribal witnesses during 

the year and some of these issues have been brought up to us, but 

I think it’s one of the first times the Agriculture Committee has 

had the chance to really think about our trust and treaty responsibilities, and thank you, Chairman Seki, for bringing that up. 

I think it’s a good reminder to people that this isn’t just a malfunction of a USDA program, this is our trust and treaty obligations to sovereign nations around this country, and so we have a 

little bit of a higher level of need to fix this and to go in and dig 

into these problems, because it’s not something the Interior Appropriations Committee can fix, this happens through the USDA. 

I certainly appreciate the work that the USDA is trying to do to 

put it all back together, but it looks like from so much of your testimony, these are structural problems within this program to hear 

you say, even when there were two warehouses in 2014, we had 

these issues. Obviously, this is a colossal failure with one ware-
37 

house with all the things that we know post pandemic about the 

supply chains, the cost of food. This never should have happened, 

but I really appreciate your talking to us about the idea of a regional model, why we didn’t have a regional model a long time ago, 

I don’t understand. 

I’d also like to see us take the opportunity in this committee to 

look at whether it’s a farm bill issue or these things can be done 

at the USDA, but to change some of these things structurally, I’m 

a strong supporter of the 638 Self-Determination Pilot Program, 

and I’ll be asking the secretary later, you know, what would it cost 

to move that beyond a pilot program, it shouldn’t just benefit a few 

tribes. And to hear you talk about the ways you’ve utilized I think 

is really impressive as we talk about how to support regional agriculture, how to support agriculture programs in tribal communities, it’s a great way to do all of that and allow you to do more 

of the purchasing particular with products that you want to buy 

that are more appropriate for the communities that you represent. 

I heard from the HIS director this year during the tribal witness 

hearings about the importance of having FDPIR and SNAP benefits available, and I think I’ve heard that a couple of times today, 

and I understand that SNAP wouldn’t always work if you don’t 

have—if you’re in a food desert or you don’t have those opportunities, but I think we should move forward and allow that to happen 

so it’s always an option. You shouldn’t have to get an emergency 

declaration right now to do that, it should just always be an option, 

in my opinion, and it would be good to look at the cost of this. 

There is a Senate bill to do this right now, and I’m looking for 

a bipartisan cosponsor to put it in the house, so any of my republican colleagues who would be interested in looking at that as a solution or a partial way to move forward I think would be very helpful. It’s also a reminder to all of us why we need to keep flexibility 

in the CCC funds. Again, that seems like it has been helpful in an 

emergency basis, it shouldn’t be the only way we’re fixing this, but 

I’m glad we’ve had that opportunity today. 

If you all have any more ideas or you’re thinking about how 

would a regional system work, I’m just interested to hear about 

that. I do think we want to, you know, use this as an opportunity 

to say to the USDA, we need some real revamping of this program, 

because we can never let down our trust and treaty responsibilities. 

Again, we have to make sure this always functions, so are you 

thinking lots of regions? How do you picture it happening? It seems 

ludicrous to me that we’re thinking one warehouse in this day in 

age, so any thoughts? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. There was a study that was based on regional vendor sourcing program, so that is available. I can get a 

copy of that. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, I was trying to decide if we need to 

propose a study, but if there are some studies being done, that 

would be great. 

Mr. SEKI. I want to make it, again, 638 Food Distribution Programs including the CSFP. Like I said, we purchase the food for 

our people, the needs of our people, for 638 because that is what’s 

needed. The other thing I would like to say is self-governance permanent funding should be done for all tribes, permanent, because 
38 

we’re the first Americans, and we’re—and our treaties were adopted on the United States Constitution. Come on, do the right thing. 

[Crosstalk.] 

Ms. PINGREE. And I greatly appreciate that. Do the right thing 

is a good motto for today. I’m going to run out of time here, but 

I will be talking more about the expansion of 638. Did you have 

anything you wanted to say? I’m sorry. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I just want to echo that again, but remind you, 

you know, we’ve been doing this program for 40 years. We’ve also 

been running our own healthcare. We compact to the Indian Health 

Services in 1994, we know how to run these programs to take care 

of our people. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. I think we need to think about that 

going forward. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Rose is recognized. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Chairman Finstad and Chairman Harris 

and Ranking Member Hayes and Bishop for holding this hearing 

and thank you to our witnesses for taking time to be here. I extend 

my deepest and most sincere apologies to the tribes, the tribal nations, and many of our seniors who have fallen victim to the lack 

of responsibility and accountability by the United States Department of Agriculture. 

After countless warnings, the USDA disregarded the growing 

concerns of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program participants. 

Now, these individuals and communities must clean up the mess 

created by USDA’s lack of diligence and restore the strained food 

inventory with little to no help so far from the agency. I’m not only 

disappointed, but I’m also, frankly, outraged that Secretary Vilsack 

and his staff have allowed their mistakes to snowball into this dire 

situation. 

Chairman Seki, I know you’ve already covered this to some degree, but if you would describe the relationship you have experienced with Paris Brothers over the last several months compared 

to how things were before when two contractors were coordinating 

FDPIR, and pardon me if I’m making you retrace steps, but I think 

it might be useful to hear that your firsthand assessment of the 

comparison between how things are with Paris Brothers and how 

they were before. 

Mr. SEKI. Well, they were delayed before; it’s worse now. 

Mr. ROSE. But it was unacceptable in both circumstances is what 

I’m hearing, is that correct? 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. 

Mr. ROSE. So this is not some sort of new revelation that just 

came to light, you’ve been communicating these concerns 

through—— 

Mr. SEKI. No, it’s nothing new, but this is worse this time. 

Mr. ROSE. And when USDA was considering consolidating to a 

single contractor, tell me about the concerns you expressed to them 

at that point. 

Mr. SEKI. Everything is a concern. How everything is operated— 

USDA should listen to tribes, our testimonies, what we say, what 

we need for our people. That’s the answer, because we know how 
39 

to take care of our members of our nations because when it is not 

working, listen to the tribes. 

Mr. ROSE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SEKI. Listen to us, what we say to you when we do our testimonies, what needs to be done to correct, because we know how to 

take care of our members. 

Mr. ROSE. And thank you, Chairman. And Ms. Wafford, the same 

question, tell us from your perspective, what were the concerns you 

were expressing to USDA and what was their response to those 

concerns at the time? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Well, we covered a little bit earlier, but I’m going 

to say it again. The tribal consultation that was held in February 

2024 was not tribal consultation. The decision had already been 

made, so even at that time, tribes expressed, you know, concern 

about there’s not enough time to make this change for April, it’s 

too large across the country, there’s not enough of time, it’s inadequate, but the decision had already been made. That is not tribal 

consultation. 

Mr. ROSE. And I know it’s little consolation to you, but unfortunately, that’s what we have seen over and over again with the 

USDA under the leadership of the secretary is that these decisions 

are being made for whatever other reasons they seem to be being 

made, but without appreciation for consultation with those who are 

affected by USDA decisions, so I know that’s little consolation, but 

this is not an isolated situation. It is endemic to this current USDA 

management. 

And I see I’ve got little time, but Ms. Trottier, can you highlight 

some of the long-term effects that these delivery delays and food 

shortages are having, or you fear they will have? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I guess the personal part of it is the lack 

of trust in the FDPIR program, that there isn’t food available, so 

they might switch programs that might decrease participation, and 

you know, are they going to apply for our program because of all 

of this that has occurred in the last 3 months, that the ramifications long-term maybe be lasting for awhile in the Indian country. 

Mr. ROSE. My time is expired, but every time the trust is lost, 

it takes a long time to restore it and the impact of that will linger 

on for years to come, I fear. So thank you for your testimony again. 

And my time has expired, I yield back. Thank you for your indulgence, Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from Ohio, 

Ms. Kaptur, is recognized. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bishop, Chair Finstad, and Ranking Member Hayes, and I want to 

thank all of the witnesses. I’m very glad I’m attending this hearing, 

and I want to thank you for the marvelous work that you do facing 

shortages on many levels, and I obviously will be a voice along with 

other members on the committees here today to try to fix this, but 

I want to put your situation in a broader context if I could, because 

I don’t know a lot about tribal production. 

USDA has two main parts, one part is the food programs, which 

are distributive programs that consumes about 75 percent of the 

USDA budget. The other 25 percent of the money is food production. And often times, what we’re finding across our country is that 
40 

the food distribution system and the overall food production system 

of this country is working in a way at cross purposes with people 

who actually need food. 

Local is often deemphasized for growing systems that are owned 

and operated very far from home. So when you talk about two distributors, I really hear that, that’s music in my ear, and not pleasant music at that. We ran into problems with distribution during 

the pandemic. We saw that, and I won’t go into all of that. That’s 

not the purpose today, but what I’ve seen happened to U.S. agriculture in this country, to me, is destructive. 

That means that small producers, and one of my first questions 

to you will be, how much do your tribes, your nations produce, anything inside those properties, versus coming from the outside in 

some way? I’m very interested if the production arm of USDA is 

involved with your nations or not, or if you’ve become more dependent on shipments in of food. One of the real challenges we have in 

the country is the next generation of farmers, and they must come 

from places that USDA has ignored, and we must shape USDA programs to help produce closer to home. So my first question to you 

is as we try to attempt to deal with the distribution problem you 

have how can USDA work with you to produce more of what you 

need onsite inside your nations? I have no idea what that number 

is, so you can educate me today. I also know from the National Institutes of Health that the diabetes levels of our country are rising 

exponentially and that within the Native American population it is 

three times the average of our groups. 

I want to know if—and looking at the numbers, fruits and vegetables for our country now we import 60 percent of our fruit, 60 

percent in this country and 30 percent of our vegetables, and they 

are coming from fewer and fewer producers, and those producers 

that are left who are smaller and medium-size farmers close to 

home are being ignored. 

So it isn’t just this administration. This has been going on for a 

long time, and now we face the crisis in the new farm bill of where 

will Americas farmers come from. So my first question to you is 

yes, we have to deal with the two distributors that you mentioned, 

but that is a bad system to begin with. Do you have resources, do 

you work with the production side of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help to produce on your lands food to feed your people? 

You mentioned bison. I heard that clearly. Could you talk a little 

bit about the broader agriculture world in which you operate not 

just to get shipments but to actually produce? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I guess one of the challenges that we 

faced when the first round of 638 funding came out was the herd 

size. They had to wait to build up the herd size. And so if you were 

a producer and you only have three years that you have a guaranteed contract, you are not going to jump into that contract wholeheartedly because it is short term. I don’t think there is any producer out there that would make a huge investment in it. 

So not having the permanency of the self-determination funds to 

proceed is a challenge, but that is the only product that we source 

locally within our community. Other communities have different 

options like the other people at the table today. 
41 

Ms. KAPTUR. Would anyone else like to comment on that? I go 

by the motto what America makes and grows makes and grows 

America, and too much of what we consume is offshore. We need 

to reinvest in our own lands be they tribal or otherwise, and what 

is happening is agriculture is moving out producers who aren’t just 

gigantic mammoth producers. So do you have the ability to help 

solve some of what you face by production on your lands? 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. We are becoming food solvent. [Audio drop]. We 

have a farm. We have a buffalo ranch [audio drop] buy food from 

us, and we sell food [audio drop]. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Any additional information on this regard that 

could be submitted for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate from the witnesses. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I want to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy. 

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to thank all the witnesses for being here to testify today. As 

many of my colleagues have already mentioned we need to determine what went wrong and most importantly work together to ensure that this never happens again. 

Now, I understand that the contractor fell short in fulfilling its 

responsibilities, but this isn’t just a failure of the contractor. It is 

also a failure of the Department. This administration prides itself 

on promoting equity yet it is leaving tribes and seniors hungry and 

without food, and that is just ridiculous and can’t happen again. 

Failing to ensure that these food deliveries arrive on time is 

nothing short of negligence. No community in this country should 

be left wondering when or if their next meal will come because of 

bureaucratic mismanagement. Simple as that. We are not just talking about delays. I mean, this is about food security for families in 

rural communities in the rural lifestyle, families that genuinely 

need this benefit, and we cannot allow the Department’s failures 

to continue. 

In my district, the Seneca Nation has been hit hard by USDA’s 

decision to consolidate food distribution to Indian country. Since 

June of this year their deliveries have been delayed at least 14 

days, and their July order never arrived leaving many in my district without access to fresh food. I am told that if they have another month of no delivery then they will likely end up not being 

able to fully supply food to those who need it the most. 

And the worst part there is no clear and consistent communication from USDA or the contractor to constituents in my district on 

delivery timing, and that is simply unacceptable. Our commitment 

to the health and the well-being of our Nation’s tribal and elderly 

communities must be unwavering, and that starts with fixing the 

breakdown in this system. 

And with that, Ms. Wafford, back in August USDA offered some 

short-term solutions like temporary expansion of DoD fresh and 

leveraging the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, but have any of them been effective so far? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Thank you for the question. We have been able 

to take advantage of the CCC program. However, as I mentioned 

earlier, it is a supplement. It does not 100 replace all of the items 

and all of the groceries that we are short or are missing. 
42 

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Very good. Do you believe the Department is 

capable of effectively administering these two critical programs, the 

Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program moving forward? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I think it is evident here today that there are 

challenges, and I don’t believe I can say yes to that. 

Mr. LANGWORTHY. OK. Thank you very much. At this point, I 

have no confidence or trust in the Department’s ability to effectively administer these programs moving forward. I do believe our 

farm bill makes permanent the 638 pilot, and we have a CSFP selfdetermination pilot as well which helps with expanding tribal selfdetermining and self-governance authority. I thank the witnesses 

very much for being here today and for your testimony, and Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady, Ms. Adams, 

is recognized. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our chairs 

and our ranking members for bringing this hearing together and 

for shining a light on what has become a crisis. Thanks also to our 

panelists for your testimonies. 

First I want to express my deepest sympathies as these breakdowns in program delivery have left citizens of your nations especially some of its most vulnerable members without food. I want to 

reiterate what you expressed that what is happening here is a failure to meet trust obligations to support tribal self-government, and 

that is unacceptable. 

Despite these foreseen circumstances was excellent to hear about 

what your nations are doing in pursuit of food sovereignty especially with pilot programs and LFPA cooperative agreements. And 

so I look forward to engaging with that work more in context of the 

ever going farm bill process. 

And so my questions for the panel, first of all, in many of your 

testimonies it is clear that there were objections or at least doubts 

among tribal representatives about the USDA moving from two to 

one supplier for the food distribution program on Indian reservations. To your knowledge, were these ever adequately responded to 

before USD made that decision, and were there any genuine followups on requests for a more regional procurement system? This is 

a question for anybody that would like to answer it. 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I don’t recall the year that the study for 

the regional vendor was completed, but it was given to Food Nutrition Services several years ago, and there was no follow-up. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right. Yes, ma’am. Would you? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I would have to say that there has not been a 

genuine response, an action for this crisis. 

Mr. SEKI. Same here. Same answer. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right. Thanks very much. So I had a question 

about how CCC funding has been used in the wake of this emergency, but I understand that my colleagues have spoken about it 

in depth. Is there anything else that you would like to share about 

challenges you have encountered with getting or spending CCC 

funding or highlights that we can learn from? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. One of the other solutions aside from 

CCC funding was the State agencies offering TEFAP food, and out 
43 

of the States that—there was five States that offered TEFAP assistance. Only three of those States had tribal nations represented. 

And so the ability for TEFAP to be distributed at a tribal level I 

think is critical and important. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. Well, I am embarrassed to say that we learned 

that Oklahoma was participating on a USDA call. So that option 

in our opinion should not be at the State level. This is a government to government relationship, and the State should not have 

say so in that. 

Ms. ADAMS. OK. Yes? 

Mr. SEKI. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility. 

Ms. ADAMS. OK. 

Mr. SEKI. Because of article VI. That is on the United States 

Constitution that not the States, the Government has the trust responsibility to take care of our people, and we need more funding. 

The funding we get is inadequate. Food is high, expensive. So I 

hope that helps. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. So Chairman Seki, in your testimony, 

you mentioned that Red Lake normally utilizes the DoD fresh 

fruits and vegetable program but does not currently take part in 

the short-term expansion of the program. Why is that? 

Mr. SEKI. We are not involved in what? 

Ms. ADAMS. In the fresh fruits and vegetables program, but it 

does not currently take part in the short-term expansion of the program. Why is that? 

Mr. SEKI. Well, we weren’t part of that. It was only available for 

ten tribes. 

Ms. ADAMS. OK. Were there obstacles that your tribe faces in accessing this emergency measure? I’ve got about nine seconds. 

Mr. SEKI. Accessing more food? Is that what you are asking? 

Ms. ADAMS. Yeah. Were there obstacles that your tribe faced in 

assessing the emergency measure? 

Mr. SEKI. We are unable to do that. 

Ms. ADAMS. OK. I think I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the gentlelady for respecting the 

clock. I want to recognize Mr. McGovern. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank 

Chairman Harris, who is on the Appropriations Committee, for 

joining with us here on the Agriculture Committee for this joint 

hearing. I think it is really important. I want to say to all of you 

I am sorry that this is happening. I agree with all of your recommendations, and I think we need to follow up on them. We will 

have Secretary Vilsack here shortly and again reenforce some of 

things that you have made. 

I just want to make a point that the blame and the fault—obviously, USDA has to have some accountability here, but so do we 

in Congress. I am on the Nutrition Subcommittee as part of the Agriculture Committee. You want to know something? In this session 

this is the first meeting we have had on any topic related to nutrition. We had a full committee hearing before the farm bill. I think 

it was in June. But the subcommittee this is the first time. 
44 

I remember a few years ago when we were in charge of this committee we actually had multiple hearings, and, in fact, we did a 

hearing on the challenges that tribal communities face. And I think 

if we were doing a better job of oversight on a regular basis maybe 

we would have been alerted to what you saw coming much, much 

earlier, and maybe we could have done something. 

But I will tell you the issue of food insecurity and hunger and 

food shortages is a real problem not just in tribal communities but 

everywhere in this country. We have 44 million people in this country who don’t know where their next meal is going to come from. 

We have people not only in tribal communities but throughout the 

country who don’t have access to nutritious foods, to fresh fruits 

and vegetables, and we have got to figure out how to—we have to 

figure out a way to be able to deal with this. 

I look at food as a fundamental human right for every single person in this country. A few years ago I actually did a tour of some 

tribal communities with one of my colleagues here, Chairman Grijalva, out in Arizona and saw firsthand some of the challenges and 

how some of these Federal programs don’t necessarily provide the 

help that we all want them to. 

But I am going to ask this of Secretary Vilsack, but I will ask 

all of you here. I mean, do you think that lifting the statutory prohibition against dual enrollment in SNAP and FDPIR which tribes 

have been asking for, I mean, that would help, right, significantly 

improve food security over the long term, provide more flexibility? 

And by the way, let me just say for the record, too, SNAP is not 

adequately funded—is not an adequate benefit in and of itself. I 

mean, it is a little over $2 per person per meal on average. If we 

were to lift the statutory prohibition on dual enrollment, would 

that be something that could be useful? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. Yes. And I appreciate that consideration. 

Oftentimes people will switch between both programs so they can 

get the food that they can’t receive in FDPIR, and then they’ll 

switch to SNAP. So that becomes an administrative problem for 

that participant going back and forth filling out paperwork for both 

programs. So yes, I think that would be a wonderful lift. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. That is something I favor very strongly. I am 

going to ask the Secretary about that as well. It provides more 

flexibility and some more resources to make better choices. But 

again I appreciate your testimony. I apologize that you have to be 

here. I think that in addition to urging the USDA to pay more attention to what is happening in tribal communities Congress needs 

to as well, not just when there is a crisis and when something is 

not going well. We want to avert crises in the future, and maybe 

one of the things that can happen in the Agriculture Committee is 

that the Subcommittee on Nutrition can hold hearings on a regular 

basis on the topic that they are tasked to oversee. But with that 

I thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Now I want to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. First I want to identify with the 

gentleman from Massachusetts. Look, I am sorry. This is a failure. 

This is a failure of the U.S. Government in a tribal obligation. That 

is the bottom line. We are supposed to deliver on this. We didn’t. 
45 

My subcommittee appropriates hard-earned taxpayer dollars that 

went to a company that simply didn’t perform. That is the bottom 

line. It is inexcusable. I do want to ask questions of the three of 

you because my understanding—I looked at the geographical distribution of what Paris Brothers did before they were a single vendor. I think all three of you have dealt with them when they were 

part of the two vendor system. Is that right? They delivered most 

if not all of your product then. 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. 

Mr. HARRIS. And just briefly was there an issue with them before, or it just appeared when they went to the single vendor, and 

all of a sudden they have been taking care of you for years, and 

now all of a sudden they kind of forgot about you because now they 

had these other obligations? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. They were absolutely a five-star provider 

for our food. I never had any issues. They never showed up late 

through blizzards, through ice storms. They were always on time. 

Mr. HARRIS. Ms. Wafford? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. We didn’t have to worry until they didn’t 

show up. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I would just add, sir, that we would receive 

things that were near expiration but not expired, so the problems 

were not nearly as bad. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Chairman Seki? 

Mr. SEKI. Yes, on occasion. 

Mr. HARRIS. Just on occasion, but abrupt change in the spring 

of this year. Thank you very much. That is important information 

as we talk to the Secretary and the USDA about exactly why in 

the world would they take a system that seemed like it was working, not perfectly but working, and go to a different system. 

I just want to end on an observation because, look, I think this 

program is kind of one of the ideal nutrition programs. If this program works well the way it is designed, this is a kind of ideal program especially if we expand the ability to have the self-determination of some of this. And one of the reasons is because I looked at 

the available list of food distribution products, and these are kind 

of all nutritious foods. I looked at this list. I don’t find soda. I don’t 

find salty snack foods. 

So someone has made a decision that the U.S. Government when 

it provides nutrition to a population that actually is characterized 

by health disparities where some of the problems, obesity, hypertension, diabetes are disproportionately affecting that nutritional 

food might be the answer. And, in fact, when you look for the waivers, the 638s, my understanding it is also for nutritional food. It 

is for food that you grow that you provide locally. This is ideal. 

So I am going to ask a question because this is very different 

from the SNAP program. Ladies and gentlemen, it is very different. 

SNAP program $10 billion a year on soda. Can you imagine, by the 

way, what $10 million would do for your constituencies? If you 

went to a program where you could choose that we have dual enrollment, would you like the opportunity to limit the SNAP benefits 

for non-nutritious products? Because this is an issue before Congress whether or not we should allow States to have that ability. 
46 

Do you think that would be beneficial for your constituencies to 

have the ability to say, ‘‘Yeah. We want SNAP, but, you know, we 

might limit access to non-nutritious food items’’? Ms. GreeneTrottier, what do you think? Would you like to have the ability? 

You don’t have to. Would you like to have the ability? 

Ms. GREENE-TROTTIER. I think it speaks volumes to the food 

package that we have that we have the highest healthy eating 

index of all the food programs, and with the traditional foods we 

have a higher healthy eating index that is already in place. So 

most of the recipients they need enhancements to be able to use 

the products, seasonings and spices, and things like that. So any 

resource would be wonderful. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Wafford, what do you 

think? Should you have the ability to choose if you want to in dual 

enrollment for the SNAP program to be limited to nutritious foods? 

Mrs. WAFFORD. I am very glad that you bring this point up, and 

yes, absolutely we do. 

Mr. HARRIS. Chairman Seki, would you like that ability? 

Mr. SEKI. Anything that would help us purchase traditional foods 

we support. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Honestly, I think this is kind 

of a no-brainer for the U.S. Government. We should be following 

the example that this program has set about providing nutritious 

foods to Americans when the USDA provides money for nutrition 

support. And with that I want to thank all of you for being with 

us today. Thank you for taking time away from obviously busy 

schedules and coming here to Washington. You are dismissed, and 

if a few moments we will move to our second panel. Thank you. 

Mr. SEKI. I want to say thank you to the House Agriculture Committee plus the House Appropriations Committee for having this 

meeting to listen to us. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman Seki. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses, Mr. Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who is accompanied by Ms.Cindy Long, Deputy Under Secretary of the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at USDA; 

and Mr. Bruce Summers, Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Services at USDA. 

Without objection, your entire written testimony will be included 

in the record. 

Secretary Vilsack, you are now recognized for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. As you acknowledged, I am accompanied by Cindy Long, who is the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Food and Nutrition Service, as well as Bruce Summers, who is the administrator at the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by acknowledging that since April 

2024 the food distribution program on Indian reservations and the 

Community Supplemental Food Program have failed to perform in 

a manner befitting the tribes, tribal members, CFP agencies, and 

seniors. And these are the people that the programs are intended 
47 

to serve. And for that, we at USDA are deeply sorry for the stress, 

disruption, and difficulty this failure has caused. 

Your questions and oversight will no doubt delve into the structure of the program, the awarding of the contract, the implementation and performance of the contract since April, as well as the response of USDA and the contractor when issues concerning deliveries were first surfaced. 

We at USDA, and I believe the contractor, in good faith remain 

committed to mitigating as quickly as we can the consequences of 

the non-deliveries, missed deliveries, and incomplete deliveries 

with the series of short-term actions that were outlined in my written testimony. We are equally committed to giving Paris Brothers 

the assistance and help as we work ultimately to get the programs 

back to a level of performance befitting the people we are to serve. 

We are also committed to listening better than we have, starting 

with the first of at least two tribal consultations that are scheduled 

for tomorrow, and to examine ways in which the programs can be 

improved to better improve the service in the future. 

And finally, we are committed to keeping you in Congress better 

informed of the efforts under way to restore trust in these programs and their performance. And that hopefully can now begin 

with the questions that you wish to pose. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chair Harris, Chair Finstad, and members of the two subcommittees, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak before you today about the Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

(CSFP), two of many important food assistance programs that USDA carries out. 

These programs, collectively, ensure that about 800,000 people receive dietary staples every month and have been dependable, accessible and accountable to the people who rely on them. I recognize that has not been the case for the past few 

months, and I accept responsibility for these delays and I apologize for the impact 

they have had on vulnerable communities. I am here today to commit to you that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working diligently, creatively, and collaboratively to not just get them back on track expeditiously, but to improve them so 

they are even better suited than before to serve the needs of Tribes and seniors. 

Many of you have asked for information on how we got where we are today. For 

well over a decade, FDPIR and CSFP were serviced nationwide by two food delivery 

contractors. These companies were contractually obligated to uphold a rate of 98 

percent or better on-time delivery, which they met consistently, and which earned 

them strong reputations among many of the agencies and participants they helped 

us serve. Under Federal Acquisition Regulations, we could not extend their contracts past 2024, and we were required to open a competitive bidding process. We 

began this process in September 2022, and the deadline for submitting bids was 

September 11, 2023. Of the bids received, only one company, Paris Brothers, Inc., 

was judged as acceptable by the technical evaluation board, which consisted of 

cross-agency experts at USDA. All other offerors were determined to be unacceptable by the board. In addition, Paris Brothers has a solid track record dating back 

to 2007. Furthermore, in the submitted offer to USDA, Paris Brothers did not take 

exception to the requirements in the solicitation, which indicated its ability meet all 

requirements in the performance work statement. As a result, in January 2024, 

Paris Brothers was awarded a contract to deliver nationwide to both programs, work 

it had previously shared with another vendor. 

Paris Brothers began deliveries under the new contract in April. USDA first heard 

reports of delayed deliveries from Tribes and CSFP agencies in May. In response, 

in June AMS staff began working with Paris Brothers on a corrective action plan 

to get deliveries back on track-including consolidating commodities, segmenting 

warehouses, and updating bin locations. Considering our long, trusted relationship 
48 

with Paris Brothers, staff expected the company would be able to course correct and 

resume on-time deliveries. 

Unfortunately, the reports of delays and other disruptions continued to increase. 

In June, USDA began to meet with the National Association of Food Distribution 

Programs on Indian Reservation (NAFDPIR) and conducted an on-site audit of the 

Paris Brothers’ Kansas City warehouse. In July, it became clear that the situation 

would not be remedied without immediate interventions and additional support 

from USDA. 

Since this was brought to the attention of the Office of the Secretary in late July, 

USDA has taken an all-hands approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume 

regular, on-time deliveries to all communities that depend on the FDPIR and the 

CFSP. We have already implemented multiple actions to address immediate needs 

as we work to restore a fully functional and dependable food distribution system. 

USDA’s first order of business has been to use every tool we have available to 

get food to where it is needed as soon as possible. USDA is utilizing resources available to us to fill inventory gaps and provide immediate relief, while also working 

with the contractor to help resolve the delays and return to accurate and on-time 

deliveries to FDPIR and CSFP sites. 

Over the past month, USDA has made available four short-term options to help 

FDPIR program sites obtain food as quickly as possible. These options include making use of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), accessing Commodity 

Credit Corporation (CCC) Funds to purchase domestic food, expanding deliveries 

through the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (USDA 

DoD Fresh) to include items beyond produce, and purchasing local foods through 

Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreements (LFPA). These options 

have been communicated to Tribal leaders and FDPIR administering agencies in 

formal written communications and on regular calls. The CCC Funds, TEFAP, and 

LFPA options are also available to get domestically produced food to CSFP operators. Where possible, USDA is also shipping USDA commodities directly to CSFP 

agencies, rather than going through Paris Brothers. 

More recently, USDA has stood up a team of 20-plus dedicated case workers who 

have initiated twice weekly phone calls to all FDPIR and CSFP administering agencies. That team is helping to augment the contractor’s customer service abilities, 

provide updated information on the status of orders and deliveries to CSFP and 

FDPIR programs, and gather critical data on food inventory levels, delivery and receipt schedules, and other site-specific program information. These communications 

provide USDA with a better understanding of the impact of the short-term measures we have put in place to temporarily fill gaps, and will assist us in prioritizing 

orders and targeting contractor deliveries to those operators most in need. 

Since making those four options available, as of September 9, 2024, 20 states have 

been approved for the situation of distress option under TEFAP. In the weeks since 

the $11 million in CCC funds were made available to FDPIR administrators, 60 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) out of the 110 administering agencies have opted 

to sign agreements. USDA has processed funds for 59 of those 60 ITOs. USDA has 

also made available up to $36 million in CCC funds to CSFP administering agencies; as of September 9, 2024, 44 of 60 CSFP agencies have elected to receive these 

funds. Lastly, deliveries to ITOs in multiple states have begun through a temporary 

expansion of DoD Fresh. 

USDA continues to meet with Paris Brothers’ ownership to discuss corrective actions and with Paris Brothers’ staff to discuss logistics improvements, deliveries, 

and prioritization for those administering agencies with the lowest inventories. 

USDA has also conducted onsite warehouse examinations and has modified the contract to gain viewing access to the Paris Brothers’ schedule of deliveries. We have 

also looked beyond our expertise at USDA and have had access to senior logisticians 

from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help with assessments for how 

to best remedy food logistics management challenges in Paris Brothers’ warehouses. 

While all parties are working around the clock to resolve these issues as soon as 

possible, regretfully we expect it will take some additional time before a full return 

to normal operations and inventory levels. In the meantime, we will continue to support FDPIR and CSFP administering agencies in utilizing the alternative means of 

support. 

We also understand that clear, consistent communication is critical during this 

time, and we continue to prioritize outreach. We are meeting with NAFDPIR and 

Tribal leaders on a weekly basis, with more communications with other program 

staff as necessary, to keep them updated on assistance that is available and 

progress that is being made. We are also communicating with CSFP program operators—including through regular calls—to assist them in accessing these options, to 
49 

understand the changing dynamics on the ground, and to keep them updated on 

progress in resolving these challenges. 

The situation on the ground is very fluid and changes by the day as food orders 

are processed, picked, and delivered. Delays and disruptions may continue for some 

time. Still, since the Department stood up a whole-of USDA response in July to address this emergency situation, we have made strong progress toward stabilizing the 

situation. Paris Brothers has steadily increased from shipping 94 trucks the week 

of August 5, to 140 trucks the week of August 19, to 155 trucks the week of August 

25 and to 125 trucks the week of September 1 (which includes the Labor Day holiday). During the month of August, Paris Brothers consistently met and is now exceeding the number of weekly outbound trucks required in the remediation plan to 

improve deliveries for USDA Food to FDPIR and CSFP customers. 

Although there is still work to be done to bring every participating location to the 

levels of inventory that support the issuance of complete, quality food packages to 

all participants, we are seeing some improvement. There are two primary data 

points that we are tracking to evaluate these distribution challenges and how our 

interventions are closing the gap: food inventory levels and the number of truck 

shipments per week. As of August 22, data showed that approximately 50 percent 

of Indian Tribal Organizations had inventory below two weeks in one or more food 

package categories, which was consistent with the preceding two weeks. As of September 4, we’re seeing modest, but meaningful improvement: 38 percent of ITOs 

have inventory below two weeks in one or more categories. This data does not reflect 

the direct food purchases and food deliveries that are the result of the four additional measures we have put into place which we know are having a positive impact 

on inventories. I want to be clear: we know that this number is still unacceptable, 

and we are committed to returning all ITOs and CSFP agencies to standard inventory levels of 1–3 months and regular, on-time deliveries. While this cannot happen 

quickly enough, we are encouraged by this positive trend, and we will continue to 

track it closely and provide updates. 

The increased number of shipments per week, and the downward trend in the 

overall number of ITOs with less than two weeks of inventory in one or more categories, indicates the steps USDA has taken in the past few weeks are moving the 

needle. Paris Brothers’ efforts to add staff and increase efficiencies with warehouse 

space are resulting in performance improvements. 

Tomorrow, USDA is holding a Tribal consultation, with another scheduled in October. These are only some of the steps we are taking to rebuild a stable program 

that reflects Tribal and stakeholder feedback. USDA is undertaking a review of our 

procurement processes and procedures both within FNS and AMS and at the Department level to identify places where we can make changes that would prevent 

similar circumstances from occurring in the future. 

As the short-term solutions we identified are taking root, USDA is also working 

to resolve the issue in the medium to long-term. In late August, USDA executed an 

emergency contract with Americold to provide receiving, storage, and distribution 

services to help resume on-time deliveries of multi-food orders for CSFP and FDPIR. 

USDA is in the process of filling the Americold warehouses with the appropriate 

quantities of food and setting up ordering catalogs for recipients. 

This emergency contract is another step in a much broader effort to offer solutions 

for the immediate term while addressing underlying issues to restore a fully functional and dependable regular distribution system. We are also working toward a 

longer-term solution. This experience has underscored the importance of redundancy 

and distributed distribution capacity. To that end, USDA is considering ways to create additional distribution services that will allow for a more resilient distribution 

system. We will invite input from Tribes, CSFP agencies and other stakeholders so 

that ideas such as regionalizing distribution systems are properly considered. The 

end result of Tribal consultation and stakeholder dialogue is expected to be a more 

modern and responsive system that is better aligned with the needs of FDPIR and 

CSFP customers than the current one, and incorporates Tribal self-determination 

wherever possible. 

As we take steps to build resiliency and improve the FDPIR and CSFP programs 

for the long-term there may be places where we run into statutory or financial barriers. We will continue to be thoughtful about making these visible to Congress. 

This emergency is partially a result of poor communication and a lack of clear understanding of expectations, and for that we take responsibility. There are several 

places where we did not take steps that we should have taken—from the selection 

of a single contractor, to the initiation of the contract itself, to ensuring the contractor fully understood the requirements of the contract. USDA remains deeply 

committed to transforming America’s food system to ensure access to safe and nutri-
50 

tious foods in all communities we serve, and to better partnering with Tribal Nations in empowering Tribal food sovereignty. 

We will continue to work hand-in-hand with Tribal Nations, CSFP agencies, and 

other partners on a path forward that ensures our systems are resilient, reliable, 

and able to meet our partners’ needs. We look forward to discussing this important 

issue with you today. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. And again, I will reserve my 

time to the end. I want to recognize Mr. Finstad, the chair of the 

Ag Subcommittee. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Secretary Vilsack. 

Thank you for being here today. 

As tribal leaders made clear during our first panel, affected tribal and senior communities have experienced significant food shortages caused by delayed or canceled food deliveries, or even deliveries of expired products dating back to April 2024. You have openly shared that you were not made aware until August 3, 2024. 

So my question, my first question is, did any employee at USDA 

have awareness of these service disruptions before August 3, 2024? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, I was informed late in July of 

the circumstances of the non-deliveries, missed deliveries, and so 

forth. And I am fairly confident that there were people in USDA 

at lower levels that were aware of this, probably beginning in 

April, and certainly by May 2024. 

Mr. FINSTAD. So why did it take so long for you to be read into 

this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is one of the mistakes that was 

made here. Frankly, as soon as we had issues with reference to deliveries, it should have been elevated to other senior staff members, 

which in turn would have elevated it to me. If it had, I think we 

would have at least been able to mitigate some of the consequences. That was a mistake and that is a lesson learned. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you for that. What level of communication 

was had between the department and tribal organizations and 

other CSFP providers then, once this was elevated? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say early in the process, probably not sufficient. But after I became aware, and prior to that, 

there was a regular, ongoing, weekly conversation, and there were 

daily conversations with the contractor to determine what steps 

were being taken by the contractor to rectify the situation. The contractor did take a significant number of steps, but obviously by the 

time we began to focus on this, the supply chain had been significantly disrupted. And it takes a while, as you well know, for supply 

chains to get back in order. 

Mr. FINSTAD. So if someone, anyone at the department had 

awareness of this impending crisis, the question becomes why was 

Congress not notified, and what has been rectified if you have discovered why we were not read into this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congress was notified as soon as I became aware. And I think that gets back to my first point, which 

is I should have been made aware sooner. 

I think what happened, again, I think folks were counting on the 

performance of Paris Brothers, who prior to that for the most part 

had been a pretty good performer of the contracts that they had for 

the last 17 years. And I think they just assumed that things could 
51 

get worked out. That was an assumption that turned out to be 

very, very wrong. 

Mr. FINSTAD. So I want to talk a little bit here or maybe have 

a conversation about the contractor review process. We have heard 

too many times of the ongoing lack of communications. It was 

brought up earlier about the consultation process and it was not a 

two-way conversation, it was a one-way, here-is-what-we-have-decided kind of approach. The hesitation to openly communicate with 

all impacted parties is puzzling. 

So, Mr. Secretary, you went out of your way twice in reporting 

from Politico and the Washington Post to lay blame on multiple 

parties, including your own staff. It becomes inexcusable and indicative of further problems at the department. And so for purposes 

of today’s hearing, can you walk us through the contract review 

process, including how many individuals sit on the review panel, 

what expertise each have related to contract reviews, and why all 

but the Paris Brothers, Inc., were deemed technically unacceptable? 

Secretary VILSACK. The contract process started in 2022, with 

the understanding that under the Federal Procurement Act, we 

were not in a position to continue to extend the previous contract. 

We had used up our extension capacity. 

We put together and reached, requested information from those 

who might be interested in bidding on the contract to help us formulate the contract bid. The contract bid was prepared I think in 

the summer of 2023. There was a pre-contract conference with potential bidders. We submitted the final bid package in August 

2023, with the understanding that the companies would provide 

their response by September 2023. 

Once the responses were received, we received eight responses or 

eight bids. One bid was technically not even close to meeting the 

requirements under the solicitation, so seven of the eight were reviewed by a panel that consisted of individuals with a variety of 

expertise, individuals that were involved with IT, individuals that 

had some knowledge of warehousing, individuals that had some appreciation for the nutritional aspects of the program. 

These folks met over a period of time from September to I believe 

December. And during the course of that time, they looked at all 

seven applications. What they found was that only one application, 

that which was submitted by Paris Brothers, met all of the qualifications. In some cases, bidders requested a change in the solicitation. They wanted to bid on a contract that was slightly different 

than what was proposed. Of course, if we had accepted that, we 

would have had to rebid the process all over, which we were not 

going to do. 

So based on that, the decision was made by the review panel to 

accept the Paris Brothers contract and bid. And Paris Brothers was 

notified in early January of the acceptance of that bid. From that 

point, the process shifted to the transition efforts that took place 

between January 2024 and the ultimate performance date of April 

2024. 

If I might say, that one of the other lessons that we have learned 

in the process, in my view, is that when there is a significant 

change in the makeup, if you will, of how we are going to approach 
52 

this—we went from having two folks, two companies involved in 

this program for a considerable period of time, transitioning to a 

single company that essentially indicated to us they thought they 

had the capacity to do this—that we should have had that also reviewed at a senior level, and questions should have been asked. 

They were not. That is a change that can be made in future contracting. 

In any event, the contract—we had meetings in March 2024 to 

discuss the implementation and transition. There were not significant issues raised by the contractor at that time, or any of the bidders who were disqualified, if you will. And performance in theory 

started in April 2024. 

Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that answer. And, Mr. 

Chair, I thank you for the indulgence with the time. I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I now recognize the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Secretary Vilsack, and your associates for coming today. 

Not to excuse the problems that occurred before you were notified, but I do want to express my appreciation to you of the efforts 

that you have undertaken to remedy the supply chain disruption. 

Let me just reiterate that I think you were only informed of the 

problem on August 3 and in just 5 weeks, you and your staff put 

in place an astonishing list of actions to address the problem. You 

repurposed the CCC funds to provide tribes $11 million so they 

could buy their own food, repurposed CCC funds to provide the 

commodities supplemental food program agencies up to $36 million 

so they could buy food, you asked FEMA to review the commodity 

distributor’s operation and warehouse and provide suggestions to 

streamline and speed up the processes, which was helpful. You allowed the States to declare situations of distress, allowed them to 

give TEFAP commodities to tribes and food banks. You expanded 

DoD Fresh Program, which otherwise was limited to fresh fruits 

and vegetables. You allowed the use by States and tribes of unobligated local food purchase assistance funds. And you signed an 

emergency contract with a second warehouse to deliver. So we appreciate all of these efforts that you have taken. 

But, of course, this is a very, very serious situation. So let me 

just ask you, I promised the first panel that I would ask you some 

specific questions. I have three, I believe, to ask you. 

The first one, the States, if a State does not declare a situation 

of distress and a tribe cannot access the TEFAP commodities, is 

there a workaround for that? Second, if a tribe uses any of its own 

funds, is there any way to reimburse the tribe for the use of the 

funds? Chief Seki suggested that there should be an automatic 

tracking system so that we know the exact status of food deliveries. 

As we have seen, the reporting on the status of deliveries is now 

done by phone calls. Do you have any plans to try to address this 

in the near future? And in your next budget request, do you intend 

to include funds for a tracking system? 

You have suggested that going to a single contractor may have 

been a mistake. But only one company has been qualified, so what 

can be done and what are you going to do? And if you would respond to those questions, I would appreciate it. 
53 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative Bishop, I had a hard time 

hearing the first question. I have my hearing aid turned up as loud 

as it can be, but I just did not get the first question. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, the first one was, if a State does not declare a 

situation of distress, the tribe cannot access TEFAP commodities. 

Is there a workaround for that? Do they have kind of flexibility to 

deal with that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I may ask Cindy Long or Bruce to comment 

on that. But let me comment on the reimbursement question that 

you asked, which was the second question. 

We are limited by the CCC charter, we are limited by the statute 

in terms of what we can do. If there are expenses that were incurred prior to our ability to receive CCC resources, those expenses 

would have to be reimbursed at the direction of Congress. In other 

words, you would have to give us the permission and the resources 

to do that. I suppose you could do that in a continuing resolution, 

or you could do it in a budget bill or any bill. 

And so we are more than happy to reimburse TEFAP for food 

that has been used and redirected in the situation of distress. We 

are more than happy to sort of replace that. The flexibility with reference to the local food purchasing agreement, if there are additional resources that are made available in that program, those obviously would be available. So we are looking for a multitude of 

ways to try to mitigate the consequence. But there are some mitigation steps that we cannot take without congressional direction. 

Ms. LONG. Yes, and if I could add, I think it is what you referenced, Representative, that we had put multiple options on the 

table to address the situation and the reason we have multiple options is because we know that every single option is not going to 

work in every situation. 

With respect to the specific question about the TEFAP situation 

of distress, again, we do have 20 States that have taken that option. Structurally, we are required to have the State take the option. And we have worked very hard and made it very clear to our 

State partners and our tribal partners that we are happy to be part 

of the conversation to help facilitate States making that decision to 

come on board, and we will continue to do that. It is also important 

to recognize that once the State has a situation of distress declared, 

they can expand their use going forward. So if they initially took 

it and were supporting one tribe or one CSFP program, they can 

continue to adapt and to add as circumstances require. 

Secretary VILSACK. As far as the tracking system is concerned, 

representative, what I am hopeful we are able to do with the consultation program, consultations that have been established and 

other listening opportunities, is to gather much more information 

about how we might be able not only to get back to the standard 

required, but also what improvements need to be made within the 

program or changes to the program to be able to better serve folks. 

Then once we have a more comprehensive 360 look at all of this, 

I am sure that we will have a series of recommendations that will 

be sort of tied to budget and/or potential policy. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Rose. 
54 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. And 

thank you, Secretary and your staff, for being here with us today. 

Secretary Vilsack, I appreciate your acknowledgement of responsibility. So thank you for that. That is the stand-up thing to do, 

and I greatly appreciate that. However, I am deeply concerned, as 

I suspect you will find as the theme of today, about the lackluster 

oversight and efficiency of USDA, when the Agricultural Marketing 

Service began coordinating with Paris Brothers on a corrective action plan. 

I am wondering what specific actions were taken by AMS when 

working with Paris Brothers to resolve the infrequencies in food deliveries beginning in June 2024. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the first step in the process was to ask 

Paris Brothers to put together a corrective plan. That corrective 

plan ultimately led to Paris Brothers increasing work seven days 

a week, increasing the number of shifts in the day, increasing and 

hiring additional permanent and temporary staff, providing more 

significant training. 

We did an audit of their facility and realized that there were 

some serious issues with reference to the utilization of warehousing 

space and the usage of certain bins. So we asked and worked with 

them to separate that. So there were a series of steps that were 

taken, in addition to the steps that we took to provide tribes and 

CFSP other alternatives in the meantime. 

You know, the history with Paris Brothers, for the most part, 

was a very successful one. And so therefore, I think there was an 

assumption that they could get this right. I think, frankly, again, 

we probably did not move fast enough or quick enough or 

proactively enough. The steps that were taken should have been 

taken at the get-go when the first sign of problems occurred. And 

the steps that we took, that we instituted in August, should have 

been taken earlier. Had they been, things might have been better. 

I do not know that they would have been completely resolved, but 

they would have been better. 

Mr. ROSE. Do you agree that AMS was, to some degree, ineffective in helping restore stability at Paris Brothers quickly enough? 

Secretary VILSACK. I agree that we could have done a better job. 

We could have done a quicker job. And we could have done a job 

of making sure that senior staff at AMS and in the secretary’s office were made aware of the challenge. 

And the reason why this timing is important, it would be one 

thing if this was an extension of the ongoing contract for the last 

17 years. It was not. It was a change. Paris Brothers was taking 

on the entire responsibility. That is a major undertaking. And 

when we began to see delivery issues, at that point in time it 

should have been elevated. At that point in time, it should have 

come to my desk. And I am pretty sure, had it, I am sure that we 

would have taken the actions that we ended up taking in August, 

but we would have taken them months earlier. 

And we have to take—we own that. We have to take responsibility for that. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you. I appreciate your responses with regard to 

this issue. 
55 

I want to switch gears dramatically and bring up an entirely different issue, not to diminish the importance of this one. But, Mr. 

Secretary, August 31 was the final day of the Tennessee Walking 

Horse National Celebration. My staff and I stayed up until the 

early hours of the morning and watched as USDA’s veterinary 

medical officers disqualified horse after horse for the most a subjective and frankly scientifically inaccurate reasons. I and several others from the Tennessee and Kentucky delegations sent you a letter 

on August 5 highlighting our concerns regarding a couple of the 

VMOs, veterinary medical officers, who have been present at recent 

walking horse exhibitions. 

Why have we failed to receive a response from you? And when 

can we expect to receive a response from you on this issue that is 

very important to many across the country, and particularly in 

Tennessee? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will get you a response quickly. I will tell 

you that this is obviously an issue upon which there are significant 

differences of opinion. The rule that we put in place was a controversial one, with people feeling very strongly about it for it and 

very strongly against it. So it is not surprising that there were people that were not happy. But at the end of the day, it is our job 

to make sure that the horses are safe. And I am confident that our 

people were doing the best job they could under the circumstances. 

Mr. ROSE. I have no such confidence. And having watched the inspections on August 29 for several hours, what I can tell you is 

that it was a classic display of a regulator run amok. And I look 

forward to future opportunities to address this issue with you. But 

the harm has been done and cannot now be remedied. And unfortunately, that regulation was not supposed to take effect until next 

year, as you know. And so what we still instead saw was the subjective application of standards that have never been imposed before. 

So I am very disappointed in the department and, frankly, disappointed in you, Mr. Secretary, for that failure. 

My time has expired. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady, the ranking 

member of the Appropriations Committee, is recognized. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today on an important 

issue. I said at the outset of the first panel, given that this is a 

nation with an abundance of food, that whatever the mechanics of 

the supply chains are, that no one in this Nation, no child, no 

adult, should experience hunger. And so that this is—would appear 

to be one of the consequences of the issue we are speaking about 

today. 

I want to just also say I thank you for acknowledging not acting 

quickly enough, understanding that there were mistakes made, and 

saying so. Quite honestly, it is quite refreshing. That does not happen very often in the world that we live in here. So very, very 

pleased with the actions that you have taken in order to address 

this issue. 

In the first panel, I asked the question about had this problem 

occurred before? This is a program that goes back to 1977, and 
56 

have we experienced this kind of a problem in the past? And the 

response to that was that we had experienced that in 2014. And 

so just let me just say to you from 2014, of having experienced this 

problem before, why have we not moved to try to do something 

about it? What happened in 2014? There was one contract or two 

contractors? What was the situation? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not think it was a circumstance involving the contracts, per se, representative. I think it was a situation 

where it was a ramification of a shutdown of the government that 

basically caused a rippling effect of resources that made it difficult 

to basically buy product on a timely basis. If you remember back 

in 2013, we had a shutdown for an extended period of time, and 

that was a consequence, one of many consequences, I might add, 

and one of many—if I can editorialize—one of many consequences 

that occurs when we do not have budgets. 

Ms. DELAURO. When you have a government shutdown. OK, interesting. That was not—thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that 

answer. 

The other issue that I asked about, were there two companies? 

One company? The indication was that there were similarities of 

problems with two companies, one company. 

Let me just be clear. Were you legally bound to move from two 

contractors to one? 

Secretary VILSACK. No. The solicitation was set up in a way that 

multiple bidders could have successfully been awarded part of the 

contract. As it turned out, of the seven that were reviewed, only 

one met all the technical aspects and qualifications of the solicitation. In fact, one of the bidders, and I mentioned this earlier, wanted to change the rules so that their bid would fit. And we cannot 

do that, because if you do that, then you have to rebid the whole— 

you have to go through the whole process again. 

So we ended up with one successful bidder. We could have had 

two. We could have had more than two. As it turned out, we had 

one. 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me just cut to the chase here for a second. 

You have acknowledged that there were mistakes made. We need 

to try to move forward. How is it that your view is—how do we, 

short term, long term, correct this situation, and we do not have 

people who are not finding food for them, you know, on the 

shelves? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the first order of business is try to mitigate the severe consequences that we still see. We still have too 

many tribes in too many locations that do not have sufficient inventory on stock or are missing critical components of the food 

package. So we have to get that resolved. And that is why we are 

doing all of the things we are currently doing on the short term. 

Then we have to work to exactly build back up the inventories 

to a point where they get to maybe a month and a half on stock, 

and then ultimately do three months. I think that is one of the reasons why a midterm effort was to enter into the emergency contract with another contractor to basically take some of the pressure 

off Paris Brothers to allow them to build back up. 

Now the good news is, we are seeing more truck deliveries from 

Paris Brothers. We are now at a level very consistent with what 
57 

was initially contracted for. That was not the case in July, not the 

case in August. It is the case now. 

And then longer term, I cannot answer that question, because I 

think it is fair to say we need to do a whole lot more listening and 

a whole lot more thinking about the totality of this program and 

whether or not in any aspect of it, it can be changed or should be 

changed or expanded or changed in some way. I do not have the 

answer to that question. That is why we have the consultations 

that have been set up. That is why I am sure that there will be 

additional discussions on this. And we will be more than happy 

once we have had that 360 review to come back and say this is 

what we think needs to happen, this is what can stay the same, 

this is what should change. And obviously, I suspect that you all 

have some thoughts about that, too, and we are anxious to hear as 

well from you. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I just 

want to reiterate that in order to deal with compensation, which 

has been a question which has come up in the earlier panel, as you 

pointed out, that becomes then an issue for the Congress to deliberate, whether it is through a continuing resolution or other efforts. 

So thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The ranking member of the 

Agriculture Committee is recognized, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you, Secretary. 

You know, I often say that our Agriculture Committees are the 

most powerful committees up here in Congress because of this one 

thing you can do without a lot of things, but the one thing you cannot do without is food. 

That makes us the most powerful committee up here. So it’s a 

necessity that we approach the solution of this problem. And I 

want to suggest, as I said earlier, we got to get the Brothers in 

here, find out what happened, and hopefully you can take the leadership in bringing together the pieces of how this puzzle must be 

put back together as quickly as we can. 

In order to do this I have a series of questions I would like to 

ask you so that we can have an order of what we have got to do. 

First of all, you need to communicate back to us and elaborate 

on what USDA knew about exactly how the Paris Brothers bit off 

more than they can chew. We got to know and understand how we 

got into this problem in order to find the way out. 

And so what were their plans to expand and ensure they could 

cover both programs by themselves? And where did these programs 

fall short? Can you respond to that first? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think I can respond at least to a 

point. During the course of the process in January, when Paris 

Brothers was awarded the contract, they began the process of putting together a transition plan. And then we met in March with 

Paris Brothers and others to discuss that transition plan. 

And at that point in time, they were confident that they would 

be able to get the staffing and train the staffing, and you have the 

warehousing space and organization to be able to handle the totality of this very important program, a set of programs. 
58 

It became obvious, relatively early in the process, April/May, that 

perhaps it wasn’t as easy as they had assumed, in terms of hiring 

people, or in terms of training people, or in terms of having the inventory control to be aware of what is coming in, what is coming 

out, and that they were having—began to have difficulties. 

I think at that point in time, our staff met with them, and at 

that point in time, the plan to rectify those concerns was put together, which involved more staff, different warehousing, construct, 

more training, things of that nature. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Did it occur to you, Mr. Secretary, that it might have been a good point for USDA to, at that 

time, have an opportunity to see what their plan was, to present 

it to you so that you could get approval for it? Apparently you did 

not. 

Secretary VILSACK. It was presented at a much lower staff level, 

Congressman. And therein lies one of the problems, which is that 

at that point, when we first experienced difficulties, in my view, we 

should have accelerated this and elevated it to a higher senior level 

so that people could ask the questions necessary to determine 

whether or not the plan was adequate and sufficient, whether there 

was capabilities to actually implement the plan in a timely way. 

That was not done. And I think the reason it wasn’t done is folks 

assumed that a contractor that had been providing services for 17 

years at a fairly high level of performance was going to be able to 

continue to maintain that level of performance, but this was a different situation. And I think that we just failed to recognize that. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. And I think that this could be 

a great opportunity for us to show our Nation how we, in this committee, thanks to this excellent hearing that our chairman has put 

together here. 

And you know, I mentioned in the early part of my presentation, 

we got to get the Brothers in if we are going to keep them into the 

mix. And I don’t know what your plan is going forward, but your 

Secretary of Agriculture, and we are hopeful you can take the leadership in putting the pieces together and then bring them to this 

committee. 

I mentioned we might want to have a hearing of them. But we 

all got to understand, we are in this together now, and we need a 

plan. It needs to be done right, and then it needs to be brought before this committee. 

We need to approve it, because the shining light of our Nation 

is on this hearing. This gives us a great example to show how we 

can arise to this occasion. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, can I have 30 seconds to answer? 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, please. Go ahead. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think there is a short-term and a midterm 

plan. The short-term plan is, as I think I outlined in my statement, 

the CCC resources, the TFAP distress situation, things of that nature. 

The midterm plan is to basically have a second emergency contractor that will take some of the pressure off. They are ramping 

up. We are delivering food to their warehousing to ramp up so that 
59 

we eventually get to a point where all the locations have adequate 

inventory on hand. 

The final piece, the longer term, I think, does require us to do 

a lot more listening and a lot more thinking. We’re not there yet 

today, but we will be, and we’re committed to doing that. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Great. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. I want to recognize the gentlelady from Louisiana, 

Ms. Letlow. 

Ms. LETLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Vilsack, for 

being here with us today. And as we have both discussed numerous 

times, farmers in my district and around the Nation have been facing adverse weather conditions, including drought, for several 

years now. 

And as we speak, you know, a hurricane is making landfall in 

Louisiana, disrupting farm operations in my district and across the 

south. In addition, costs for farm inputs like fertilizer, labor, and 

equipment have skyrocketed, while commodity prices have remained static, causing many of our farmers to operate at a substantial deficit. 

USDA September 2024 farm income forecast projects that farmers are expected to lose nearly a quarter of their income between 

the years 2022 and 2024. Farmers are constantly facing financial 

challenges, and many of them cannot afford to continue producing 

in current marketing conditions. 

I know this because I hear from them all the time. Many of the 

farmers in my district too often find themselves relying on disaster 

assistance payments just to make ends meet and to continue farming. 

Domestic production losses mean that less of our American 

grown food is ending up on our tables, which can ultimately result 

in food shortages, and that is just unacceptable. 

Farmers are the backbone of our economy. We must do more to 

ensure that our farmers have the resources they need to continue 

producing for our families and our industries here at home. 

Mr. Secretary, USDA’s disaster assistance programs play a critical role in helping our farmers get back on their feet in the aftermath of a disaster, and at a speed. And the speed at which these 

payments are issued makes all the difference. 

I want to work with you on a commitment to make sure that 

these assistant payments are delivered to farmers in a timely and 

efficient manner. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, happy to make that commitment. I would encourage you to work with our office to make sure 

that your farmers have access to the Disaster at a Glance document that essentially outlines all of the programs that could potentially be available, depending upon the nature of the disaster, as 

well as providing contact information for people in their area, in 

their district, where they could basically secure the applications 

and the information about how to apply for the specific programs. 

More than happy to provide that to your office. 

Ms. LETLOW. Sure. I know that a lot of my farmers are still waiting on payments from the 2022 disaster and would like to know if 
60 

you can speak to that and how I can, how maybe we can come up 

with a better system moving forward? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have made partial payment under 

the ERP 2022 program. We’re waiting for a court decision. There 

was a lawsuit pending concerning the structure of that program. 

There was a temporary ruling on an injunction that gave us 

some direction, but we need a summary judgment decision by the 

court so that we know the parameters under which we can make 

the final distribution. 

Once we have that, those parameters, we’ll be able to make those 

distributions in very, very quick order. 

Ms. LETLOW. OK. I will let my farmers know. And it is also my 

understanding that you haven’t yet visited Louisiana after a natural disaster. Can I invite you down to Louisiana after this hurricane to visit with my farmers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Always looking forward to a chance to come 

down to your neck of the woods. 

Ms. LETLOW. Thank you. 

Mr. Bruce Summers, I would like to move to you now. I want to 

take a second to discuss a critical feature that the FDPIR and 

CSFP program share. 

Both programs provide American grown and produced foods and 

nutrition education that help reduce food insecurity and support 

nutritious diets. And as you may know, I am proud to be from a 

district where agriculture is our bread and butter. And I know that 

many of my colleagues in this room share the same sentiment. 

Our Nation’s farmers play a critical role in ensuring that these 

programs can deliver domestically sourced food products to individuals and households in needs. What measures are in place to ensure that domestic agriculture products are adequately represented 

in these programs moving forward? 

Mr. SUMMERS. So by statute, we only purchase 100 percent domestically produced foods. 

Ms. LETLOW. Great. And that will be your commitment moving 

forward? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Of course. Absolutely. 

Ms. LETLOW. Absolutely. Wonderful. All right. All right. That 

concludes my questioning. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much. 

First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your commitment to addressing the issue of food insecurity in this country. I 

appreciate your leadership at the White House conference on hunger, nutrition, and health. 

And I know you care deeply about these issues, and I think we 

all agree, and I think you have made it clear that it is unacceptable 

for any tribal member or senior to be hungry in this country in 

2024. 

I appreciate the fact that you have taken, you are taking accountability for the Department’s response to the crisis and pledging ways to try to fix it. I would just say that we in Congress have 

to take some responsibility, too. 
61 

I said, during my questioning of the earlier panel, that I sit on 

the Subcommittee on Nutrition, on the Agriculture Committee. I 

mean, this is the first hearing that the subcommittee has conducted in this session of Congress, and maybe we ought to be conducting more hearings, including hearings on challenges in tribal 

communities so that we better understand not only what the realities are, but we can maybe, hopefully find whether there is any 

trouble spots where we could address something before it becomes 

a crisis. 

And, you know, I think if we also held more hearings, maybe we 

wouldn’t be talking about cutting SNAP or any other nutrition programs. In my opinion, the current allocation for programs like 

SNAP is just not adequate for people to be able to put food on the 

table. 

You know, in 2021, I traveled to Arizona with then-Natural Resources Chairman Grijalva and visited a number of his tribal communities. We had a round, and then I am also on the Rules Committee, we had a round table discussion on the Rules Committee 

about the challenges that tribal communities face. 

And out of that work came a bipartisan request that I authored 

with Chairman Cole and Mr. Grijalva, asking GAO to examine 

challenges and opportunities for addressing hunger among tribes. 

That report was released in July, and details are alarmingly— 

and it details the alarmingly high rate of food insecurity among 

Native Americans. Nearly 30 percent of native American households experience food insecurity, compared to 11 percent of all 

households. 

And these families disproportionately suffer from diet related diseases, diseases as well, because they don’t have the resources, or 

sometimes the access for more nutritious food. 

And that obviously is wrong. But among the recommendations in 

the GAO report, and I hope we will remove the statutory prohibition on dual enrollment in SNAP and FDPIR, which causes a lapse 

in benefits for families and limits access to nutritious food. 

So let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, thank you for creatively using 

all available resources to help address the immediate food shortage 

crisis. But what can Congress do to help? Do you think lifting the 

statutory prohibition against dual enrollment and SNAP and 

FDPIR, which tribes have been asking for, would help improve food 

security over the long term? 

And then as a follow up, maybe you could just comment on how 

we can better support food security in tribal communities? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say anytime you can invest additional resources for tribal families, they’re obviously going to benefit. I think there’s two issues here, Congressman. 

One is the resources, and two is, as you mentioned, the access. 

I think it’s important not only to increase capacity to purchase or 

to buy or to have, but you also have to have the access to be able 

to utilize those resources in a convenient way. 

And I think that’s one of the challenges that tribes face, is that 

oftentimes they are in remote areas and they don’t necessarily have 

access to full scale grocery stores and things of that nature. 
62 

We’ve been making an effort, with our food sovereignty initiative, 

to try to incorporate more culturally appropriate foods that are important to the diets of tribal members. 

We have a way to go, but we’ve made, I think, a positive first 

step. We’ve tried to expand opportunities, for example, for bison 

and things of that nature. So I think it’s a more comprehensive answer to your question, which is that it’s money, it’s access, and it’s 

also choice. 

And I think to the extent that hearings, consultations, listening 

sessions, all of that is important to be able to get a full understanding of the challenge. 

And then you’re dealing with a multitude of tribes in a multitude 

of different circumstances, and that has to be recognized. In this 

program itself there are 110 different tribal organizations that 

we’re dealing with, and they’re all in slightly different positions 

and places. 

So it’s tough to develop a program that’s responsive, as responsive as it needs to be to all 110 at the same time. We’re doing our 

best, but we have to do better. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you. And again, I appreciate it is 

complicated and it could be tough, but it is doable. And I think we 

all need to do a better job, especially with regard to our tribal communities. 

And hopefully, as we move forward, we will pay more attention 

to this in the committee and jurisdiction here. But I appreciate it, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Thompson. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Mr. Secretary, good to see you. It was great to see you in Iowa. 

Always good to see you. I was very pleased about 48 hours ago, I 

got the notice that your preference was to come and testify for this 

committee, and you were always welcome here. I was excited to see 

that that was going to occur. 

I am going to apologize for the cough first. These allergies are, 

as someone who never had allergies growing up, but I wish I didn’t 

have them today, actually. But the pollen count’s pretty high, I am 

told. 

So Secretary, I was stunned, as others were, to hear your Department made the warehouse consolidation decision, actually, before the required tribal consultation in February. 

And so, especially given the fact, I think it was 2014, we kind 

of experienced something similar to this. And so I wanted to check 

with you, first of all, give you an opportunity to explain the rationale of the Department of doing what they did? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Mr. Chairman, the 2014 experience was 

directly connected to the fact that there was a government shutdown, and the repercussions and implications of a lack of funding 

made it difficult for us to do a timely purchasing of items. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Sure. So what about the rationale here in 

2024? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the process started in 2022. It was a 

long, extended process in which we had to rebid the contract be-
63 

cause of the Federal procurement requirements. We couldn’t extend 

it any further than we already had. We’d already exercised two extensions, so it had been in place for many, many, many years. 

So we were required by law to basically rebid it. We went 

through a process of soliciting information and input. We had a request for information giving people the opportunity to weigh in on 

how they thought the program should be designed. 

We put the bid package together. We had a pre bid or pre-solicitation conference and laid it all out in, I believe, August or July 

of 2023. In August 2023, we submitted the package for consideration for bids. 

Folks had to submit their bid prior to September 2023. And at 

that point, we had eight bids. One was disqualified immediately. So 

seven got judged or reviewed by a panel of individuals who had a 

wide array of experience. 

They went through the process of looking at those bids for several months and concluded that only one bid actually met all of the 

technical and procedural requirements and substantive requirements of the solicitation process. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So was there any process for—well, first, 

my first question, next question then is, during those 2 years, 2022, 

2024, was there a tribal consultation during that time where the 

sovereign nations expressed what they knew worked for them in 

terms of having some redundancy, multiple warehouses, multiple 

vendors? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know if there was a specific tribal consultation. I’ll have to check on that, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell 

you that I think there was a constant communication. 

The problem was, and frankly, we need to listen better. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Yeah, well, we work really hard to do that 

with the committee, as you know. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I mean, when I say we, I mean USDA, 

not you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, but we need to do that too. It is 

team, Agriculture is teamwork, working with all the two branches. 

Given the fact that the tribes have been pretty expressive about 

the importance of, with what they experienced before, for whatever 

reason it happened, the impact was significant on families and individuals. 

There wasn’t a process to go back and to work with those who 

came up short with their proposals to be able to honor their call 

for, you know, I don’t know what redundancy is the right name, 

but multiple providers? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, if you do that, under the Federal procurement rules, you have to go all the way back and start the process all over again. You can’t just bring folks in and say, can you 

adjust your bid, because we’d like to see if we could have more 

than one successful contractor. You can’t do that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Does there exist quality assurance surveillance plan that aligns with the Paris Brothers incorporated contract or statement at work? Can you describe the responsibility of 

the Department in ensuring a contractor delivers on their commitments? 
64 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the performance, as I understand it, requires a very high level of performance. I think it’s a 97, 98 percent 

level. And historically, Paris Brothers met those standards, and I 

think that’s one of the reasons why there was some confidence that 

they would be able to do the job that they contracted to do. 

We had, after they received the bid in January 2024, we had 

transition conferences in March. There weren’t any indications at 

that time that they were concerned of their ability to get this done. 

I know that there were some tribes who raised some concerns in 

February, but by then, obviously, we were in the process and we 

were reassured, by the company, that they thought they could do 

it. And with their track record, I think that was a reasonable assumption. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Are there what actions exist in instances 

where the contractor fails to meet its obligations? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there’s the ability of the Department to 

essentially assess financial penalties. 

Mr. THOMPSON. OK. And, you know, the Federal Acquisition Regulation part 5 States contracting officers shall give members of 

Congress, upon a request, detailed information regarding any particular contract. 

The FAR goes on to make certain classified information as released through existing security channels. So Secretary, why has 

an unredacted contract assigned to by the Paris Brothers Incorporated not been shared with members of Congress? 

Secretary VILSACK. It’s my understanding that we’ve done that, 

Mr. Chairman, but I will check and—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Yeah, I don’t have any record of it being 

received. 

Secretary VILSACK. Let me check on that. I think I’m right in 

saying that, but I could be wrong. 

Chairman. THOMPSON. We have made multiple requests, but we 

don’t really have record of it being received. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. 

The Chair understands that the chairman of the full committee 

would just like an additional minute to make a closing statement 

because you are not going to be available later. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. HARRIS. Yeah, and without objection. 

Chairman THOMPSON. By the way, I just want to say you, you 

fill my chair rather well. Andy, good job. 

Mr. HARRIS. You’ve got great snacks in the drawer. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Yes, we do and you found them. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I’ve just been informed 

we still owe you that redacted contract. 

Mr. THOMPSON. OK. Look forward to receiving you. 

So Mr. Secretary, real quick, before I get into my, you know, I 

wanted to kind of finish up with asking you about a letter this 

committee sent you in July, requesting information on agency rulemaking as it relates to the overturning of the Chevron deference 

we received. 

Now we received really what was a non-response yesterday 

evening. And can you tell me, did USDA engage with the White 
65 

House Counsel’s Office, OMB, DOJ, or anyone else outside your 

agency in preparing your response? 

I am not going to get into the details of what you might have received from them, direction or feedback, but just a question of 

whether you, you know, whether that there was an engagement 

with any of those offices? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the 

first part of your question. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Sure. Well, tell me, did USDA engage in 

terms of the, related to the letter Louis sent asking for implications 

of the overturning of Chevron deference? Did USDA engage with 

White House Counsel’s Office, OMB, DOJ or anyone else outside 

your agency in preparing your response? 

Secretary VILSACK. I personally don’t know the answer to that 

question, but I will check and I’ll get back to you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I would appreciate that. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would say normally a letter of that kind, 

our general counsel obviously would be very much involved in the 

drafting and counseling us in terms of what could be said or should 

be said, but I’m not sure about outside of our department. 

Chairman THOMPSON. And that is what I would assume too. 

Well, I am really curious about given the fact that we are not really did not reveal anything or that there would be significant implications with the overturning of Chevron deference that, you know, 

I would be interested to know if anyone, other than your general 

counsel, whether it was instructed or consultation with the White 

House or OMB, Department of Justice, anyone else—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I can tell you that I haven’t been. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Got it. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brown is recognized. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, I cannot let the debunked conspiracy theories 

about immigrants in Ohio go unaddressed. The Republican candidate for president’s remarks about Haitian, meaning black, immigrants in Ohio, were barbaric, bombastic, and beneath the dignity 

of someone aspiring to hold the highest office in the land. 

People are struggling. But these outrageous and racist lies are an 

insult to our Ohio communities, including the ones I represent here 

in Congress and our food pantries and our local programs and services that work tirelessly to combat hunger. 

We are a nation of immigrants and trafficking in these baseless 

conspiracies is destructively divisive. 

Mr. HARRIS. Excuse me, the lady—— 

Ms. BROWN. With that, I want to thank both the Agriculture 

Committee and excuse me? 

Mr. HARRIS. Excuse me. The lady will be reminded to not ascribe 

things to people who are candidates for the president. It is not appropriate at this hearing, and I want to ask the lady to cease that. 

Otherwise I will have to have the words struck from the record. 

Ms. BROWN. With that, I want to thank both the Agriculture 

Committee and Appropriations Committee for their leadership in 

convening this hearing. 
66 

Secretary Vilsack, Deputy Under Secretary Long and Administrator Summers, thank you all for being here to discuss how we 

can work together to ensure that delays and disruptions like this 

never happen again. 

In Ohio’s 11th Congressional District, we have thousands of lowincome seniors who rely on the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to provide them with fresh, healthy food options that they are 

otherwise unable to afford or access. 

The Greater Cleveland Food Bank, which distributes over 3,500 

senior boxes per month, has not had a complete or on-time delivery 

for months since being newly serviced by Paris Brothers. 

This is unacceptable. The seniors in my district struggling with 

hunger have no patience for excuses about a multimillion-dollar 

contract failing them. When the company shows up weeks late with 

incomplete orders their hunger doesn’t wait. 

Food banks in my district have been following the guidance of 

USDA in redirecting TEFAP product where possible to fill the gap. 

However, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul and at a time when 

TEFAP products is in decline and the Republican Farm Bill proposes significant cuts to the program, this solution is 

unsustainable. 

So Secretary Vilsack, beyond the CCC funds that USDA has committed to replenishing redirected inventory, how would the USDA 

guarantee that TEFAP resources remain intact? And why is it crucial for Congress to fully fund TEFAP in support of this effort? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, we would love to be able to 

respond by essentially providing replacement foods for foods that 

are used by TEFAP. We’d actually have to have additional resources in the TEFAP budget to be able to do that. 

We’re using TEFAP for the very reasons that you’ve articulated 

in your question, which is that no seniors should go hungry and 

should go without. And that’s one of the reasons why we are using 

that tool, as well as the tool of the CCC, providing resources that 

can then be provided in terms of cash that will allow seniors to basically purchase items until we get this circumstance in a much 

better place. We’re improving, but we have a ways to go. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Secretary Vilsack, in your testimony, 

you say that the first time USDA was made aware of the delays 

was in May, 1 month after the new contract began, and was only 

elevated to your attention in July. 

However, I’ve heard from folks in Ohio that delays with Paris 

Brothers are nothing new happening long before they were the sole 

servicer. So if you could share with us, was the USDA informed of 

service issues with Paris Brothers before awarding them with the 

singular contract role? 

Secretary VILSACK. The reason why Paris Brothers got the contract was because they were the only successful bidder in a solicitation process that attracted eight bids. One was disqualified immediately. Seven were reviewed. The other six bids did not meet the 

technical or substantive requirements of the solicitation. 

Ms. BROWN. And does USDA have a proactive communication 

plan in place to assure that providers on the ground do not face 

prolonged challenges before the agency intervenes? 
67 

Secretary VILSACK. What we are learning from this process of the 

need for better communication. But in the meantime, we are reaching out on a regular basis now to make sure that we are aware of 

problems that are cropping up in the system and that we are trying 

to respond and triage those very serious problems at the same 

time, providing additional options for folks to mitigate the consequences of that. 

And then we’ve entered into a second contract with a contractor 

that is now staffing up or ramping up its capacity to begin making 

deliveries. And we’ve seen Paris Brothers significantly increase the 

number of trucks that are now going out of their warehouse. 

So these are all positive directions, but there’s still work to be 

done and it’s going to take a bit more time to get us back to where 

we need to be. 

Ms. BROWN. My time has expired, but I want to thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here today and look forward to staying in good 

touch with your office on this issue as we move forward. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate our witnesses being here today. 

My first question goes to, and I know you’ve answered several, 

Mr. Vilsack, but there probably exists a quality assurance surveillance plan that aligns with the Paris Brothers contract or statement of work. 

Can you describe the responsibility of the Department in ensuring a contractor delivers on their commitments? What actions exist 

in instances where the contractor fails to meet those obligations? 

And are there financial fines, or are there system and award 

management disqualifications? And I will just give you an opportunity to outline those issues in that kind of a contract. 

Secretary VILSACK. The history of the Paris Brothers and their 

involvement in these two programs spawns, I believe, a number of 

years, maybe 17 years in total. And during that period of time, the 

performance level was met the standards at 97, 98 percent performance. 

However, the contract does contain provisions that if, for whatever reason, deliveries are not made on time, deliveries are not accurate, deliveries are missing, there is the capacity of USDA to assess financial penalties against the payments and against the resources owed to the contractor. 

We obviously are focused right now on understanding the nature 

of the challenge that we face, the steps that we’re taking to try to 

mitigate the consequences to tribal members and to seniors, to try 

to mitigate those consequences, to put in place additional assistance and help to give Paris Brothers additional time to solve the 

problems that have cropped up as a result of them taking on this 

responsibility, in terms of warehousing, in terms of staffing, in 

terms of training, and beginning the process with a consultation 

that begins tomorrow and into the future, of trying to listen and 

learn about how we might, in the long term, make these programs 

even better than they were before this unfortunate and difficult situation that we’ve got to accept responsibility for. 
68 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. 

Mr. Summers, can you add how the Agricultural Marketing Service might be of assistance in these kind of programs? 

Mr. SUMMERS. So the Agricultural Marketing Service is the agency that’s responsible for the contracting. So therefore, that relationship with Paris Brothers, when the problem started to arise, we 

started really daily contact with Paris Brothers to make sure we 

understood what was happening with processing of orders and deliveries. 

When the situation didn’t improve, we worked with them on putting together a mitigation plan. They actually ended up putting together two mitigation plans. So the contract and the request for 

proposals list certain deliverables that contractors are responsible 

for, and we measure their performance against those performance 

measures. 

When they aren’t meeting them we start, in this case, daily contact and take steps to try to bring the contractor into reaching 

those performance standards. 

That’s a fairly standard process under the FAR. As a result of 

the mitigation plans and the work that we did with Parrish Brothers, they did a number of things like moving to seven days a week 

operations, increasing staff, adding quality control experts on the 

day and night shifts. 

A number of corrective actions went in place to move their performance forward. And I think late August and kind of where we 

are now, we’re starting to see the number of shipments and the orders being filled, but that is the process that the agency pursues 

when there are issues. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. I got about 45 seconds. So Ms. Long, can 

you tell me how this food distribution situation impacts the food, 

nutrition, and consumer services? 

Ms. LONG. Well, FNS is responsible for the operation of the 

FDPIR and the CSFP program. So we are the ones that interact 

with the tribes and the State agencies that operate CSFP. 

We work this in close partnership with AMS, who is responsible 

for the contracting and the purchasing of food. We are responsible 

really for the interface with the program operators. 

You know, you asked how this is impacting FNS programs. You 

know, I want to take the opportunity. on behalf of the teams that 

work with these programs in both agencies, I think on a day-to-day 

basis to reiterate the secretary’s remarks that USDA takes responsibility for this. 

We deeply regret the impact that this has had on the individuals 

and the communities that rely on us for healthy food, and we are 

absolutely committed to making this right. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. 

My time is up and I will yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Adams is recognized. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. 

I do appreciate your willingness to engage in the oversight process and your commitments to leave FDPIR and CSFP stronger 

than they were in the wake of what is clearly a crisis. 
69 

So can you speak to how the threat of government shutdowns 

and fights over funding in Congress put pressure on your department to make decisions about program implementation? 

And did the past years repeated threats of a government shutdown? There were several. Did they adversely affect the solicitation 

for bids that you undertook to invite vendors to service FDPIR and 

CSFP? 

Secretary VILSACK. When there’s a government shutdown, there’s 

obviously an interruption of resources available to the Department, 

which in turn impacts and affects contracts that the Department 

has, which in turn makes it harder for the contractor and the 

FDPIR and the CSFP program to be able to purchase on a timely 

basis the items that go into the various food programs that they’re 

administering and implementing. 

And that happened in 2013–14. The shutdown of 2013 created a 

rippling effect which impacted and affected deliveries in 2014. 

The circumstance we’re dealing with here today is not obviously 

direct to, related at all to congressional action or inaction. It is a 

result of a number of judgments and assumptions and decisions 

that were made that obviously were not the right judgments or decisions or assumptions. 

And that’s why we’re here to acknowledge that and to point out 

that we’re doing what we can to mitigate the impacts and effects 

of those decisions and to commit to longer term improvements to 

the system. 

Ms. ADAMS. Well, thank you. And thank you for those acknowledgments. I think that is important. So can you speak to some of 

the concerns raised by members of the first panel about funding 

levels for these programs? And would greater funding allow for, for 

example, more staff involved in acquisitions work? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I will say that when you look at the, 

at the amount of work that the Agricultural Marketing Service has 

done in the last several years, I will tell you that their staff has 

worked extraordinarily hard. 

And I’m sure that Bruce would probably kick me under the table 

if I indicated that he has the right number of people working at 

AMS. You know, our budgets have always been tight. 

You know, at the end of the day, we do what we can with what 

we get. I think more resources as we look at the longer term, as 

we look at adjustments and ways in which FDPIR relates to SNAP 

and the ways in which tribes can be more engaged in all of this, 

there are some financial consequences that are attached to those 

decisions. 

And that’s why I think it’s important for us to do a 360 degree 

review and then come to Congress and basically say, this is what 

we’ve heard, this is how we think the program could be improved. 

And I would, I would be surprised if there isn’t an understanding 

that that would require additional commitments from Congress in 

terms of funding. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. So zooming out a bit, I understand that 

only the bid by Paris Brothers was judged as acceptable among the 

eight bids received, and that, at least on paper, the company did 

not take exception to any contractual requirements. 
70 

And so the decision to move forward with one firm seems that 

odds with both the requests of tribal nations for regionalization, 

but also the USDA’s own work to increase competition, to reduce 

consolidation in the food and farm economy. 

So were there any FAR compliant considerations to expand the 

solicitation to attract more bids, perhaps from smaller companies? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I will say that I think the USDA and 

AMS in particular have a pretty good track record in terms of 

doing business with small business. About 60 percent of our procurement is done with small businesses and throughout the entire 

department I think we are one of the best departments in the government with reference to doing business with small business. 

The problem with the bid situation was that if you were to provide some flexibility in having people sort of revise their bid or 

come in and say, if you change this about the solicitation, we might 

be, be willing to be part of this. 

The problem is that you would then sort of taint the entire system. You’d have to go back to square one and you’d have to start 

the system all over again. And this process started in 2022. 

It wasn’t like it started late in 2023. And we made a decision in 

January 2024, advised the Paris Brothers in 2024. This basically 

started in the middle of 2022. So it was a rather elaborate process. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Ms. Hayes. Oh, OK, we’ll get to you subsequently. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. Thank you to you and your team for the explanations you have given today, the work you are doing to try to 

mitigate this serious problem and for talking to us a little bit about 

the future going forward. 

So I just want to focus a little bit on that. And I guess in particular, I mentioned earlier that I am the ranking member on the 

Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. 

So we deal with the funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and are very familiar with the trust and treaty obligations. And we 

have talked a little bit about that today when Chair Seki was talking to us earlier, he reminded us several times that that is somewhat of the failure here. 

And I think it is unique for the Agriculture Committee to have 

to deal with the added responsibility of the trust and treaty obligations. 

We all are very concerned about the level of hunger in America 

and food distribution, but, in my opinion, this adds a level of additional concern here. And I just want to know how often or how you 

are able at the USDA to kind of add that lens to this issue? 

I wasn’t aware of the GAO study on tribal food security that I 

understand came out at the end of July. I should say maybe it 

crossed my desk, but I hadn’t seen it yet. So I have had a chance 

to hear people discuss that today. And I am assuming that’s something that as you’re reviewing how to do this differently in the future, what concerns might be brought up that you’ll be looking at? 
71 

And certainly one of the first things that it says is that food insecurity is far greater in American Indian and Alaska native households. So the scope of the problem, as we all know, is much greater. 

And I know there are some things that have been done. 

I know you have put some emphasis on the food sovereignty initiative and that you have a high level of concern about making 

sure that appropriate foods are available, sufficient foods are available, that more opportunities for tribal agriculture are there. 

But I guess going forward, I want to be able to have that dialogue about how you might respond to the concerns and the suggestions that were raised in that GAO report. 

You know, looking at this overall, again, I don’t expect you to 

know all the answers today, but, you know, having one warehouse 

seems kind of like a poor way of going about doing this. 

And there has been suggestions about doing this more regionally. 

A couple of the other suggestions that came up very specifically 

today. And again, I understand you are going to want to look at 

some of these, but are using more opportunities to use things like 

the 638 pilot that is allowing for more self-determination. 

I mean, if we were to allow tribes themselves to spend the money 

on FDPIR, would that be an option going into the future? How 

complicated would that be financially? And I also want to just get 

your initial opinion on the prohibition between participating in 

FDPIR and SNAP. 

Interestingly, that concern was raised in our committee earlier 

this year from the Indian Health Service. And so it was something 

I was already looking at but wasn’t aware of. But why do we have 

that prohibition? 

And, you know, how significant do you think the cost would be? 

I know it wouldn’t have solved every problem today, but certainly 

our tribal panel represented that. 

I know I have used up a lot of the time, but I also don’t expect 

you to have all the answers today. And I just want to say I feel 

like we have to have this lens on this. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, I’ll try to respond as best I 

can to some of the comments you made. 

First of all, oftentimes we deal with statutory restrictions and 

barriers, and that’s certainly the question with reference to SNAP 

and FDPIR, in terms of the notion of not being able to utilize both 

programs. 

So you’d have to remove the statutory barrier that exists. I really 

appreciate you bringing up the issue of trust, and I think we have 

to be really very careful about distinguishing between trust responsibilities and trust relationships. 

Trust responsibility is more of a general, and you’re right, a lot 

of us do not fully appreciate and understand the nature of nation 

to nation and dealing with tribal consultation and doing it in a 

meaningful way. 

That is something that all of us have to learn. It’s why I elevated 

the Office of Tribal Relations into the Secretary’s Office, and why 

one of the first things we did was to take a look at that consultation system to make sure that we, we’re doing a better job of it. 

We still need to obviously improve. 
72 

The relationship issue often starts with Congress, because if you 

want responsibilities, you have to basically specify them in statute. 

So for example, if you’re talking about trust responsibilities relative 

to FDPIR, they are not specifically expressly stated in that part of 

the law. 

So that is, to your point, of elevating the awareness of it so that 

you can make that judgment and decision about whether this is 

something that requires more specificity or whether it requires just 

a reliance on the overall general responsibility piece of this. So this 

is complicated. 

And one of the things that we’re trying to do at USDA is we’re 

trying to get people with expertise in this area into our general 

counsel’s office, for example. 

We have a very small general counsel’s office relative to the size 

of our operation. It’s a budget, sorry, Mr. Chairman, it’s a budget 

issue. But we’re trying to figure out ways in which we can get that 

expertise so that we have somebody saying, wait a minute, you got 

to think about this specific aspect when it comes to tribes. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. I know I went over my time. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair, but I do think it is an area in the future where the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the Interior Environment Subcommittee might want to talk about some of these things 

together. 

And thank you for the statute reference. I think some of these 

things we need to make sure are written into the law going into 

the future. 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Thank the gentlelady. 

And now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Molinaro. 

Mr. MOLINARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I appreciated coming at the end of that. It is not often the Department suggests that we need more specificity in law in order to 

establish trust relationships. And we do rely on the agency itself 

and able staff to build those relationships. 

But I appreciate that. I appreciate you being here today. As we 

all know, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides 

monthly food boxes to nearly one million low-income families or 

seniors, but it doesn’t reach all seniors. 

On top of the distribution failures of Paris Brothers and the 

USDA, admittedly, mobility and transportation challenges continue 

to make it difficult for many seniors throughout the country, in 

particular, in my district in upstate New York. 

Seniors in rural areas have a much lower participation rate since 

they must travel greater distances to pick up their monthly food 

box. Because of this, I have introduced the Delivering for Rural 

Seniors Act, bipartisan bill in the farm bill passed by the House 

Agriculture Committee. 

This bill authorizes a program that will further direct Federal 

funding to food banks to build out home delivery operations, or to 

contract with private partners to do the same. 

The goal, of course, to meet seniors living in rural areas where 

they are, seniors with disabilities and those with limited mobility 

where they are, and ensure that they have access to nutritious 

meals. 
73 

In your testimony, you mentioned that USDA is considering ways 

to modernize CSFP distribution to make it more responsive with 

the needs of customers. I suggest that the bill that now is in the 

House Ag Committee adopted farm bill is a good place to start. 

Certainly would, would welcome USDA support and frankly 

would like to see the Senate start moving more efficiently on a 

farm bill. 

I do want to shift quickly so that I may take advantage of my 

time just to get some clarification on some of the concerning facts 

as related to the topic we are discussing today. 

Could you explain the rationale for take for not taking information gleaned from the February 2024 tribal consultation into consideration when making the decision to consolidate storage and distribution services? 

I heard you say it was sort of a staffing, perhaps you didn’t have 

the right people in the right places to understand that need for 

that relationship. Can you explain, though, why there wasn’t greater consideration of the consultation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think it’s a result of the extensive nature of the process that preceded the contract, the bid, and solicitation, and the confidence, I think, that we had and that Paris Brothers had in itself, of its ability to perform the contract that it agreed 

to do. 

I think that’s basically, at the end of the day, the reason, and I 

think it’s fair to say that the lesson learned here is that we do have 

to listen more carefully, and we need to perhaps listen sooner rather than later. 

And so I think that’s, these are changes that can be made in subsequent relationships and contracts. And reviewing the totality of 

this program. 

Mr. MOLINARO. You’ve been around for a while. I won’t say a 

long time, respectfully. It just seems like—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I’ve been around in life for a long time. 

Mr. MOLINARO. Fair enough. I hope to grow up to be a senior citizen someday soon. But I appreciate—it is surprising to me to hear 

you say that, right? Because it does seem to me that this is sort 

of an obvious kind of overlook, no? 

Secretary VILSACK. It would be if there had not been any experience with Paris Brothers. But when you’ve had a 17-year experience with a contractor and they’ve been performing at a fairly high 

level during that 17-year period, there is a level of trust or assumption that if they say they’re going to do the job, they’re going to do 

the job, because for 17 years they’ve been doing the job. 

Mr. MOLINARO. Fair enough. As a local county executive, I had 

led a lot of contracts. And I tend to feel, in fact, when an agency 

or a vendor is around for a while, it is in fact those situations that 

require us to pause and think, because they can become very comfortable in the relationship and there isn’t always the kind of accountability necessary. 

I do want to just mention, with my time running out, though, we 

are aware, and as you know, tribes offered to drive their own 

trucks to collect food. And for whatever reason, this offer was denied by USDA. What was the reason for not allowing at least that 

voluntary action? 
74 

Secretary VILSACK. We’ve got 110 different tribal organizations, 

and I think it was an issue of essentially trying to make sure that 

we knew what was going on in a variety of different areas. 

And I think it was just a situation where it was going to be difficult for us to know when deliveries were being made independent 

of the—— 

Mr. MOLINARO. Is that better than no deliveries? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say that we are making a concerted effort to address that by providing the resources for folks to 

be able to purchase food, providing TEFAP alternatives, providing 

the Department of Defense fresh in a number of States. 

So there were strategies in place and that we were implementing 

designed to respond to the need. And we’re seeing, gradually, an 

improvement of the circumstance and situation. 

Fewer tribes with inventories that are not as full as they need 

to be, fewer tribes with late deliveries and things of that nature. 

Still have a ways to go, which is why we have the emergency contract in place to get that second contractor up to give Paris Brothers— 

Mr. MOLINARO. My time has expired. 

Mr. Chair, I just would say I would like to submit some additional questions just for consideration. And I would just close that, 

it does sound to me like there was a bit of paralysis when there 

could have been triage and partnering with tribes to take that. We 

don’t have time right now, but I will further those questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Gentleman be reminded we will have questions 

for the record that can be submitted. 

And now I recognize the subcommittee chair, Ms. Hayes. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. And thank you to Secretary Vilsack for 

being here today. 

And I actually would agree with my colleague, Mr. Molinaro, because I am not sure that gradual improvement instills confidence 

in these tribal communities that have been impacted. 

I would also say that a program that has been in existence for 

40 years that we know demands improvement and we have seen 

some failures right now in a farm bill year would be the time to 

do that before we, I mean, we have drafted language that has not 

been passed, has not been approved. 

I think that now is the time to really do a deep dive and try to 

address some of the things that we have heard here today. 

During the first panel, we had the opportunity to hear directly 

from members of those communities. My question to you, Mr. Secretary, was the USDA aware of the desire for a contingency plan 

when the FDPIR program moved from two contractors to one? 

We have heard that after 2014, they experienced something similar and asked for a contingency plan, and nothing was put in place. 

And now we are experiencing the same thing. 

I guess I want to know, if we are not addressing it in the farm 

bill and we are not putting together a contingency plan, how are 

we making sure that those communities feel that their concerns are 

heard? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would just say the 2014 situation was different because it was a result of a government shutdown and an 
75 

interruption of funding, which made it difficult for the contractor 

to be able to purchase food on a timely basis. 

So it is a completely different circumstance than what we have 

here. That is not to say that we shouldn’t have additional plans. 

And that is part of what I think is incorporated in our review, our 

360-degree review of these programs, to determine how we might 

be able to improve them over time. 

Mrs. HAYES. So in your review, you have specific language to talk 

about how we improve delivery to these tribal communities so they 

don’t experience what we have just seen? 

Secretary VILSACK. The review starts with listening to the tribes 

and making sure that we fully understand and appreciate, again, 

110 different tribal organizations. They are all at different levels 

in connection with this program. So I think we will hear a number 

of different opinions. 

And so the challenge is obviously to create enough flexibility to 

meet the needs of all 110 as they need, as opposed to having a one 

size fits all. 

Mrs. HAYES. I understand that, and I am a part of the government. I understand the levels and the different processes that we 

go through. 

But when you have tribal communities that found out in April 

that they were not getting food deliveries for our message to be, to 

hungry people, to be that we are in a process of review and like, 

what do we do in the immediacy? 

One of the witnesses asked about if USDA had a process for 

emergency supplemental benefits to communities when programs 

like this fail. Is an emergency disaster declaration or something 

like SNAP, the only thing in our disposal? 

Secretary VILSACK. That’s why we use the power of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide resources to enable tribal 

members, if their tribe so chose to participate in this, to be able 

to purchase food on their own. That’s why we also provided seniors 

at the same level $11 million from CCC for the tribes, $36 million 

for CSP. That is why we did the Department of Defense Fresh Program. It is why we utilized TEFAP. It is why we are encouraging 

tribes with local food purchasing agreement to use the resources 

there as well. So these are short-term steps. 

In the mid-term, we have got the second contractor staffing up 

to be able to respond to get ultimately the inventories back to 

where they need to be. And then there is the 360 review to take 

a look at the longer term, how do we make this better permanently, if you will. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. That is encouraging. That is actually a 

much better answer. So there are programs in place that can be 

taken advantage of in an emergency situation. 

My last question. Does the Federal contracting policy allow for 

Paris Brothers to be held accountable for failing to meet the requirements of this program? Because the other thing we have 

heard from tribes is that they have had to bear the expenses from 

this. 

Secretary VILSACK. Paris Brothers has made a number of business decisions to increase staff, to increase warehousing capacity, 
76 

to increase shifts, to increase the number of days that it worked. 

And so obviously, all of that has an economic consequence. 

There are also provisions in the contract that enable the USDA 

to assess financial penalties in the face of nonperformance. 

Mrs. HAYES. Thank you. And I hope as part of your review, we 

have heard that there is an appetite for regional distribution. So 

with that, there are more than one contractor, I hope you would 

at least explore that as an option so that this does not happen 

again. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here and answering 

questions about this issue. It is very important. 

I just had a couple quick questions, and maybe you covered it. 

And I apologize for my inability to be here the whole time. But witnesses in the first panel, and maybe you were listening, noted that 

there were several instances of food that was not only late being 

delivered, but also past the best-by dates on the label. And I believe one mentioned that something that was several months old 

with a 2023 expiration date. The solicitation awarded to Paris 

Brothers included a requirement that contractors must be able to 

track dates product is received into the contractor’s warehouse and 

the best-if-used-by dates on all external containers and report to 

the USDA electronically. 

Can you tell me who is accountable for food past date being delivered to these communities? And is the information reported to 

USDA monitored by program managers? 

Secretary VILSACK. If I may, I am going to ask Mr. Summers to 

respond to that question, because he can go into detail concerning 

the inventory checking that goes—of product that comes into the 

warehouse and what leaves the warehouse. 

Mr. SUMMERS. Yes, thank you for that question. So the vendor, 

the contractor, is responsible for ensuring the food that is shipped 

is within the expiration dates that the food is in good condition. 

That is part of the contract. 

We have heard reports, very concerning reports, that food was 

being shipped that was out of expiration, and some other instances. 

As a result, we worked with the vendor to put in corrective actions. 

They increased the number of quality control employees that they 

have on board, including adding quality control specialists to the 

night shifts. 

We have also worked with them to ensure that product in the 

warehouse that has expired codes is either tagged on the boxes 

with big yellow stickers so that the folks that are picking loads to 

be product to be loaded on the trucks will not pick that expired 

product. We are also asking that entire pallets be blocked off it is 

expired code. 

So again, taking steps to implement procedures within the warehouse to ensure, because it should not happen, that product that 

is out of code or—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. OK, thank you. Good to hear there is a process 

in place. 
77 

This last summer, July 13, a USDA representative speaking on 

background told Tribal Business News that the consolidation was 

due to expiring contracts and that Paris Brothers won the bid 

based on decisions from the technical evaluation teams. And shifting to a single provider was not the intention but a result of how 

the proposals were evaluated. 

Now it is my understanding that eight proposals were received 

in response to the request for proposals. Are the vendors still contractually required to uphold a 98 percent on-time delivery rate? 

And did Americold submit one of these proposals? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am going to take a stab at a part of that 

question and then Bruce can supplement. 

There were eight solicitations. One was immediately eliminated 

because it did not meet basic criteria. The other seven were evaluated by the technical team and six of the seven basically had significant defects and flaws in their evaluation, and in some cases 

asked for an amendment or change to the solicitation, which we 

could not, under the Federal procurement rules, allow without 

going back and starting the whole process over again. And that left 

basically Paris Brothers as the sole successful bidder. 

Paris Brothers represented to us and to everyone that they believed they could fulfill the contract in its entirety at the performance level that was required. And as a result of that, they were 

awarded the contract. And then we went through, we transitioned 

from awarding the contract to beginning the planning for transition. 

Mr. SUMMERS. I am not sure, maybe I think you might have answered the question completely. Is there a follow-up or any additional detail? 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So Americold was not one of the—— 

Secretary VILSACK. It was one of the bidders. But their bid was 

deficient. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I see. 

Secretary VILSACK. Their solicitation was deficient from a technical perspective. I am not sure whether they were the one that 

also added, if we could change criteria in the solicitation, then this 

is what we would do. Well, you cannot change the criteria in the 

solicitation. Otherwise, you have to do the whole thing over again. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, again, I appreciate you being here to answer questions. And hopefully, through this conversation, I know 

you have had lots, we can prevent this from ever happening again. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is the goal. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Underwood, is recognized. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss deeply concerning food shortages 

that are impacting some of our most vulnerable populations, tribal 

communities and seniors. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am proud of the work Democrats have done to put people 

over politics and the wins we secured in the fiscal year 2024 funding legislation that will keep families fed and healthy. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program or CSFP is intended to improve the health of low-income seniors across the coun-
78 

try, including in my State, Illinois, by supplementing their diets 

with nutritious and affordable foods. For our seniors, participating 

in this program is about more than food, it is about health and dignity. However, as we have learned today, there are significant 

problems with food deliveries and the overall administration of the 

program. 

USDA’s recent acknowledgement of mistakes made here is an 

important step, and I am glad to see the agency taking action to 

correct these issues and restore trust in these vital programs. 

These shortages are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent real families, real seniors and communities struggling to put 

food on the table. 

A recent Federal Trade Commission report on USDA contracts 

made it clear. High levels of market concentration where one company dominates creates a greater risk of disruption when problems 

arise. 

Hi, Secretary Vilsack. Thank you so much for being here. And 

given the findings in the report and the shortages that occurred, 

how does USDA evaluate and weigh the risk associated with 

awarding contracts to a single distributor, especially considering 

the potential for supply chain disruptions, service delays, and the 

impact on vulnerable communities? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, I think it starts with the 

fact that this was a contractor that had done business with USDA 

for 17 years successfully. And I think there was an assumption 

based on that past performance that they would be able to meet 

the responsibilities of the new contract. 

As has been explained, we basically put a solicitation process in 

place that spawned over a year and a half of activity to solicit 

input in terms of how it should be structured and who could successfully bid. There were eight solicitations. Seven were reviewed. 

One ended up meeting all the requirements. 

I think part of the challenge and one of the lessons that we have 

learned is that when you have a significant change in the nature 

of how the contract is going to be performed, in this case going 

from two contractors to a single contractor, that perhaps it would 

have been appropriate for senior staff at AMS and at the Secretary’s office to review that to determine whether or not there was 

a complete satisfaction that we knew what we were getting into before we got into it. That did not happen. 

And then secondly, when we did enter into the contract and performance began in April, and we began to see problems in April, 

May time frame, it was at that point in time that more aggressive 

action should have been taken. It was not taken. That is on us. 

And that is why we have taken the steps we have taken to try to 

mitigate the consequences of that. It is going to take us a while because once a supply chain gets disrupted, it is very difficult. And 

I can assure you we do appreciate and understand the stress that 

we have created, and we are deeply, deeply sorry for it. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir. Thanks for explaining that process. I 

think it may be worthwhile for USDA to evaluate the requirements 

to promote a more competitive process as we move forward, while 

still maintaining the high quality and program integrity. And I 
79 

hope that you will follow up with my office on any plans or proposals to do just that. 

Now, your department has announced short-term options to help 

communities access the food that they need, including allowing 

State and tribal governments to use local food purchase assistance 

program funds to meet the immediate needs while USDA works to 

resolve the delays with the food distribution program on Indian 

reservations and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 

The farmers and the food banks that I represent have been really 

excited about the lol food assistance program. It is supporting 

things in my district like the DeKalb County Community Gardens. 

I am glad that we have these funds available as a stopgap. But I 

am concerned about how it impacts the projects that it was originally designed to support. Can you tell us more about that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the concept of the local food purchasing 

agreement was primarily—there were two primary purposes. One, 

to expand the access to nutritious, fresh offerings in our food programs, our food banks, our schools, et cetera. The second was to 

create market opportunities for small and mid-sized family farming 

operations that oftentimes do not benefit as much financially from 

the overall commodity system that we have in play today in America. And for that reason, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the 

number of those small and mid-size family farming operations over 

the last 40 years, 544,970, to be exact, since 1981. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Oh, yes, sir. I just mean for the folks that were 

already slated to receive funds, now that this program is being 

used sort of on an emergency supplemental basis, do we have an 

assurance that those existing programs will still be able to receive 

appropriately? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are exploring ways in which we might be 

able to provide additional resources. We have not yet quite closed 

the loop on it. But we are hopeful that we can in the very near future. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK, well, we look forward to getting that information and passing it along to the folks in our community. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Cline. 

Mr. CLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you 

for being here. 

Can you quantify the additional cost to the taxpayer for the department’s mistake? 

Secretary VILSACK. I can give you some numbers. There are $11 

million of Commodity Credit Corporation resources being used to 

provide cash to tribes that have decided to take advantage of that 

program. Up to today, it is roughly $7 million of the $11 million 

has been spoken for, if you will. 

We have set aside up to $36 million of the CCC for the Community Senior Food Program. I believe roughly $27 million of that has 

been spoken for. 

The DoD Fresh expansion, to date, is a couple hundred thousand 

dollars, but it could be significantly more than that, since there 

are, I think, six or seven States that are actively—and tribes in 

those States that are actively utilizing that tool. 
80 

Mr. CLINE. OK, you are getting into my next question, which was 

related to DoD and FEMA as well. The department has requested 

the assistance of FEMA and DoD to mitigate the disaster. We understand that representatives from DoD will take over once temporary FEMA officers leave their positions. What is the current 

role of FEMA and will DoD replicate the same assistance? And do 

you have estimates of these costs? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have been trying to help Paris Brothers 

with their logistics. And FEMA has expertise in the logistics. It is 

a temporary commitment on the part of FEMA. It is time limited. 

And when that time is up, the Department of Defense, who also 

have logistics experts, will supplement our efforts. 

We have also identified roughly 27 individuals from USDA that 

have been assigned to create a case management system so we can 

sort of keep an eye on some of the really difficult challenges that 

we face, where some of the tribes have faced serious disruption. 

That is the process designed to help complement Paris Brothers for 

a period of time, a limited period of time, with logistics. 

Mr. CLINE. And you were saying that the DoD costs—I interrupted you, I apologize, when you were saying how much that cost 

was. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is for the DoD Fresh program. 

Mr. CLINE. OK. 

Secretary VILSACK. We have allocated up to $15 million for that program. But as of today, roughly $200,000 has been spoken for. 

Mr. CLINE. Of the $15 million? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. CLINE. OK. 

Secretary VILSACK. The last piece of this, I think, that bears discussion is the contract with Americold. That is the emergency contract that we have entered into. And you are going to have to help 

me here with the numbers on that. But that is a contract we have 

entered into to be able to eventually get back to a point where the 

inventories that are on hand in the tribes and in the CSFP program are at levels acceptable to reduce the stress and eliminate the 

stress, one and a half months, and then ultimately three months. 

Mr. SUMMERS. My recollection, that is up to $35 million. It is a 

service-based contract. So the payments that actually go out are 

based on the services that are provided. So we do not have a definitive amount, we have a cannot exceed. But right now, that is up 

to $35 million. 

Mr. CLINE. Your testimony, Mr. Secretary, claims to prioritize 

outreach to tribal leaders. And I agree that outreach and engagement is a priority, particularly in times of distress. But can you articulate why you did not heed tribal leaders’ warnings about shifting to one contractor and one warehouse? And would it not make 

it apparent that you are, in fact, not prioritizing outreach and engagement to these communities? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think there was—there was, during 

the course of the many years of this program, there has been conversations about ways in which some tribes feel the program could 

be improved. I think there has been an effort on our part to listen. 

But I do not think we have listened quite as carefully as we need 

to. And I think that is one of the reasons why we have started the 
81 

consultation process which begins tomorrow. There is also a consultation that is scheduled in October. I think that will allow us 

the beginning of a more in-depth conversation for a longer term review of exactly how this program could be improved. And it will be 

interesting to see what recommendations and suggestions are 

forthcoming. 

Mr. CLINE. Well, it is a costly mistake, as you have articulated, 

the costs to the taxpayers and to the people, The impact on the 

people who it was meant to serve is significant. So we look forward 

to continuing to follow up with you over the course of—at least in 

the Appropriations Committee—how we are going to recoup those 

costs and how are going to make sure that this program is actually 

run in an efficient manner for the people. So thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I yield to myself for questions. 

Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. As I suggested earlier, I 

also want to thank you for your response to our letter of August 

26. But I would remiss to say that I was a little disappointed that 

it was time-stamped by email at 5:45 p.m. yesterday. It was sent 

over 2 weeks ago. And for it to arrive at 5:45 the day before a 10 

a.m. hearing, a little bit tardy. And the chairman of Agriculture 

Committe kind of suggested that he also got a response yesterday, 

late yesterday, to another letter. So we are still looking it over, because it was a pretty in-depth letter. But I would appreciate if we 

got a little more than a 3-business-hour notice on a response letter. 

All right, so when you look back at what happened, it appears 

that, since we had Americold and we had Paris Brothers, and they 

were both doing a good job, somebody must have changed the contract specifications a little bit. Am I right, Mr. Summers? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am sorry—— 

Mr. HARRIS. I have only got a limited time, and I know you are 

going to have to defer this to AMS—— 

Secretary VILSACK. No, no, no, I am going to answer the question. I think the major difference was on cybersecurity. There was 

a provision relating to more cybersecurity. 

Mr. HARRIS. OK, so let me dissect that a little bit. So I assume 

that Americold had some cybersecurity and that your experts decided that it was not quite enough cybersecurity. Because every 

company has cybersecurity. Is that a correct assumption? 

Secretary VILSACK. Not necessarily. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, was it or was—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Americold basically tried to change the bid. 

Mr. HARRIS. Bear with me. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is one—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Was it rejected because of cybersecurity at 

Americold? 

Secretary VILSACK. No. It was rejected because Americold asked 

to change the nature of the contract. 

Mr. HARRIS. But that must be because somebody had suggested 

that as a portion of the contract, that as a requirement of the contract that had to be fulfilled and was not adequately fulfilled at 

Americold. Because every company has cybersecurity. 
82 

Secretary VILSACK. Sir, you asked about the contract. The general contract, whether it changed, and it is cybersecurity. But 

Americold, basically, in the basic contract, tried to provide additional provisions not related necessarily to cyber. Correct? 

Mr. SUMMERS. That is correct, sir. 

Secretary VILSACK. That were related to some other aspect of the 

program, as it had been performed for the previous number of 

years. That was the problem. 

Mr. HARRIS. So that part of the requirement of the program was 

not changed, and Americold bid on the contract contingent on that 

changing? 

Secretary VILSACK. Go ahead, Bruce. 

Mr. SUMMERS. Yes, so the only change to the request for proposals from 2018 to 2024 was an addition of requirement to have 

a cybersecurity plan that talked about what you do if you had a 

cybersecurity attack or how you would avoid one. 

Mr. HARRIS. OK, so again, we have limited time. So it was cyber. 

That was the reason the technical panel said, we had to go from 

two to one, is because we reject Americold because of cyber. 

Mr. SUMMERS. No. Your first question was what changed. The 

only thing that changed was the cyber requirement. That was not 

a factor in determining whether or not Americold ended up with 

the contract. 

Mr. HARRIS. Oh, it was not? So Americold’s cyber requirement 

was adequate? 

Mr. SUMMERS. As far as I can recall, yes. But, no, that was not 

the—there was a different issue. 

Mr. HARRIS. And what was that issue? Why did we reject 

Americold and yet now Americold is doing the job as an emergency 

contract. So why did we reject Americold? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Because the proposal that they put forward, we 

could not award because it changed certain contract requirements 

that did not align with the request for proposals that went out. So 

everybody else proposed—submitted proposals based on the solicitation. Theirs came in with a change that was not reflected in the 

solicitation. 

Mr. HARRIS. Gotcha. I understand. Then that is their problem, 

because they should not have changed it. I mean, if they wanted 

the contract, they should not have changed it. 

But by the way, the cybersecurity, do we have a congressional 

mandate that you have to add cybersecurity things into contracting 

now. We should. I mean, do we? 

Mr. SUMMERS. I would have to check. 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not know that we necessarily have. But 

I think we were sensitive to it because of the disruption of when 

JBS was hacked. 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. I get it. We should. And if we do not, honestly, 

we should. And following up on the Chevron deference issue, Congress should basically say, look, when you go to contract, you ought 

to have some cybersecurity in it. 

OK, now, I would assume that if there were 20 percent of 

Walmart stores that had an empty shelf, that someone at logistics 

at Walmart would be fired. Who was fired for letting this happen 

at the USDA? Anybody? Anybody fired? Anybody demoted? Any-
83 

body transferred to another job? Because in the private sector, 

when you have a disaster this large, and this is large, this is a lot 

of stuff, we will get into the amount of dollars, was anybody fired? 

Secretary VILSACK. I do not believe so. 

Mr. HARRIS. No. OK. So this here, another example how the administration tolerates something that is egregious and does not fire 

anybody. 

Now, I hope you hold the contractor liable. So how big was this 

annual contract with Paris? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is roughly $35 million. So $177 million 

over 5 years. 

Mr. HARRIS. Wait, wait, wait. But you said it is $35 million going to Americold to supplement a contract that was $35 million? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is in part because it is a 6-month contract. I mean, they are going to have to ramp up and then ramp 

down. 

Mr. HARRIS. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let me get this straight. This is a program that is supposed to cost $35 million for the en- tire year, and we issued a $35 million 6-month emergency contract 

on this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, actually, I think our estimate was that we expected bids in the neighborhood of $230 million to $240 million. We ended up with a bid of $177 million. 

Mr. HARRIS. Let me get the numbers. It is $35 million a year, and we are spending $35 million for a 6-month contract with a rejected contractor. Are my numbers right? I think that is what I 

heard, the testimony? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is also a contractor that for a number 

of years performed at a 98 percent level. They just did not want 

to perform at—— 

Mr. HARRIS. You are talking about Americold, right? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, both Americold and—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Ah, OK. So we are going to end up at the end of 

one year spending at least twice as much. So now my question is, 

is Paris Brothers going to be liable for any of that $35 million that 

we have to spend to Americold? Because remember, Paris Brothers 

promised they were going to deliver on this contract. They took the 

contract, they promised they were going to deliver on it, they did 

not. So they were not qualified either. Americold was not qualified 

because of a circumstance of their bid. Paris Brothers is not qualified because they could not deliver. And I follow up on the gentleman from Virginia’s question. Is the American taxpayer going to 

be held holding the bag for Paris Brothers? And that is a rhetorical 

question, because I think you answered it, that you can assess liability. 

How much of Paris Brothers’ book of business is this program? 

I am sure when you evaluate a contractor, you know what their entire revenue is. This is $35 million a year. What is Paris Brothers’ 

entire revenue? Please tell me that you evaluate the revenue base 

of a company that is bidding on a $35 million contract. 

Mr. SUMMERS. I do not know today what that number is. 

Mr. HARRIS. Ballpark? 

Mr. SUMMERS. I do not have that ballpark number. 

Mr. HARRIS. You are going to have to get back to me on that. 
84 

Mr. SUMMERS. Right. 

Mr. HARRIS. I suspect that there is no way they could deliver on 

this contract because it probably was, again, as was suggested—I 

think one of my colleagues on this side of the aisle suggested it— 

they bit off a whole lot more than they could chew on this, and we 

watched them bite it off. 

I have to tell you, this is—all I can tell you, Mr. Secretary, is 

that if somebody’s head does not roll over this, the American taxpayer should be furious. This is tens of millions of dollars. And I 

am not even talking about what we did to our tribal nations, delivering outdated food, missing shipments, things like this. But the 

American taxpayer should be furious. This program is going to cost 

us at least twice as much as—and that is only for—we are not talking about the other things, the other little pockets of money that 

you are shuffling in here. 

So again, I would suggest that we hold Paris Brothers liable. You 

know, the benefit of a government contract is you make money. 

The downside is if you do not deliver, you have to be held liable. 

And I fully expect that when we meet again to discuss this, which 

may be, you know, in a budget hearing, that we have data on what 

fines are going to be assessed, what the final cost was, and how 

we are going to solve this. 

Because I will tell you, I have no confidence that Paris Brothers, 

no matter how much you hold their hand, is going to be able to become a 98 percent delivery system in the next few months. I have 

no confidence in that whatsoever. 

I would like to hear your perspective as we close out. 

Secretary VILSACK. I need to correct the record. The Americold 

contract is $25 million for 6 months, not $35 million. 

Mr. HARRIS. OK. 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I think we have seen Paris Brothers make significant improvements in terms of the number of delivery trucks leaving their warehouse. We are now at a point where 

they met or exceeded the contract number of truck deliveries on a 

weekly basis. So I think they have the capacity. I think they are 

reflecting that capacity. I think it took them, obviously, a lot longer 

than they anticipated. 

Mr. HARRIS. I thank you for watching that. I will tell you, I do 

not know if you were here for the testimony of the first panel, the 

testimony was they missed two shipments to the Chickasaw Nation 

in September. This is September. That is within the last 10 days, 

missed two shipments. They are not delivering on that contract, 

they still are not. And no reasonable person would expect they 

could. You cannot ramp up a business like that in 3 months. It is 

not possible. 

That is why the whole—I do not know. There is some suspicion 

here that things were being steered that way. Maybe they were 

not. Maybe this was just incompetence, I do not know, at some 

level. 

But, Mr. Secretary, I would be furious if I were not told for 3 

months that something like this was brewing, and you suggested 

that you were, you felt that you should have been told earlier. 

Right. But let me tell you something. Whoever did not tell you earlier and let this fester should not be holding a job at the USDA. 
85 

That was extremely poor judgment and what it resulted in is an 

abridgment of our tribal nation obligation. 

Paris Brothers, anybody can Google, by the way. Paris Brothers, 

they deliver to other systems. This is not their only contract. They 

chose not to deliver to tribal nations, probably to keep their other 

commercial contracts whole. That is why I wanted to know what 

their book of business was, because I suspect that they shorted the 

tribal nations while keeping other commercial contracts whole, and 

we should never tolerate that, because we do have penalties within 

our contract. 

And I kept you way too long. 

Oh, my gosh, and Mr. Miller. Oh, Mr. Miller. Thank you very 

much. So I will recognize Mr. Miller before, hopefully—and again, 

look, if another member shows up while Mr. Miller hears, we will 

hear from them. But, Mr. Miller, you are recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is good to 

see you again. I do not know if you remember the first time you 

and I met. I was sitting in that seat, and I was always the last one 

to go, and you looked at me and you said, you have been very patient. Well, thank you for your patience today, sir. 

Thank you for holding this important joint hearing. And, Mr. 

Secretary, we look forward to working with you as we seek to address food insecurity, which has been brought up numerous times, 

and ultimate build better opportunities for those in need. 

I recognize the vital efforts of Ohio food banks and our local communities, and the stress now being experienced due to persistent 

food inflation challenges that we see. Within this setting, it is troubling to hear the most vulnerable in my region may be experiencing bureaucratic Federal program delays and cancellations of 

vital goods. 

Recently, I was privileged to witness firsthand the valuable efforts of food banks in my congressional district. The Ohio Association of Food Banks, including the Greater Cleveland Food Bank 

feeding Medina County and others, partner with 3,600 hunger relief organizations across my State to meet the needs of the underserved. However, I am deeply concerned to learn that many of 

these local services have been significantly impacted by the USDA 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, distribution 

delays, cancellation, and shortages impacting critical food security 

efforts. 

For instance, the Cleveland Food Bank normally provides 3,523 

senior boxes per month. However, CSFP products for the needy 

seniors scheduled for delivery on August 18 unfortunately still has 

not been delivered. And earlier kits were short critical food components. It is reported that these recent delays and shortfalls have 

cost just this local food bank in our district $277,000, just bearing 

this economy for anybody. 

If delays and cancellations continue, I understand these food 

banks will be limited in their capacity to meet local food security 

needs to those who are the most vulnerable. And, Mr. Secretary, 

can you just please share how options such as the most recent announcements from the USDA to address these shortfalls to the 

emergency food assistance program known as TEFAP can operate 
86 

effectively to get food in the hands of those in need without compromising TEFAP’s ability to fill its already challenged capacity? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is just one of a number of steps 

that we have provided to try to provide assistance. The other step 

is to utilize resources that are available to the agencies that are 

operating CFSP program to provide cash to seniors so that they 

can essentially buy groceries themselves to supplement what they 

did not get or to supplement what they have gotten from the food 

program. 

We obviously would be happy to work with you as you consider 

funding for TEFAP, happy to work with you to make sure that we 

have adequate resources in TEFAP. We know it is an important, 

incredibly important program. And our hope is that we get this 

straightened out. And we also have the local food purchasing agreement opportunities in Ohio. We are operating through your secretary of agriculture, commissioner of agriculture. So I think there 

are a number of ways in which we can mitigate the consequences 

until we finally get to a point where we get back to a normal order. 

Mr. MILLER. It is my hope that at some point, not that it would 

be federally sponsored, but if we cost a business or an entity 

$277,000 in this type of economy, and a lot of it can be done, you 

know, whether it is going to be from donors or whomever, or the 

government and its community, it is a hit that just is not sustainable for all these local food banks to take and sustain. My concern 

is it is happening not just in my district but across this entire 

country, regardless of political affiliation. And that is just my ultimate concern for our seniors and for every one in seven children 

who are going hungry every day that we need to help. 

I also would like to flag a recent letter by the Ohio Association 

of Food Banks and Ohio farm organizations to USDA seeking a 

continuation of the local food purchase assistance programs and in 

support of TEFAP. And I look forward to working with you on that 

effort. 

As just a final note, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to mention, as a nation, we must identify policies aimed at helping low income families 

achieve the type of opportunity that every American deserves. And 

I believe that you and I probably both agree on that wholeheartedly. This includes bipartisan farm bill measures adopted by 

this committee to ensure those in need can maintain access to critical nutrition programs and pathways to long-term economic security. 

I just wanted to say, I am sure you have gotten a little roughed 

up here today. I know it has been a long day. But I have enjoyed 

working with you and your team. And so any of these issues that 

I have within my district, if you can I can continue to work on, so 

we can deliver for the people of the Seventh in Ohio, I would be 

honored to do that. Thank you for your time. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I just want to recognize Mr. 

Bishop for closing comments. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to again thank each of our witnesses for coming to speak with us 

today. We are grateful for our tribal leaders and the important 

work they are doing to keep the spotlight on this issue. We also ap-
87 

preciate hearing from you, Secretary Vilsack, and the department 

about the progress that is being made to remedy the situation. We 

understand there is still much work to be done. 

I hope that the dialogue between the tribal leaders and the 

USDA at tomorrow’s consultation will be productive. And I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remain engaged on 

this issue. Congress must be prepared to support the tribes and the 

department in resolving this shortage and ensuring that our domestic food programs can be resilient so that we do not suffer this 

kind of inventory crisis again. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. I want to recognize the ranking member 

of the Agriculture Committee. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you very much. First of all, 

Mr. Secretary, I just want to say so much, so many of us our depending upon you to provide the sterling leadership that you have 

demonstrated in so many challenges. You and I worked together to 

develop my food assistance program for our veterans. We have so 

many groups out here who need food. Hunger is a big problem in 

our country. 

I want to ask you before we close, what in your mind is to be 

the future of the Brothers operation? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think right now, the immediate future is to 

mitigate the consequences of the problems that arose in May and 

June that were not addressed as actively and as aggressively as 

they should. Mid-term, it is ultimately to get the programs back 

where tribes have a month and a half of inventory, tribes eventually have three months of inventory. And the CSFP basically are 

in the same circumstances. 

Longer term, I cannot answer your question today, because I do 

not know everything I need to know, and I need to listen more 

carefully about what tribes and others want to say about how to 

improve the program. And that may or may not involve contractors 

that have been engaged and involved in this. 

But short term focuses on mitigating the consequences. Midterm, getting this program at least back to where it was. And then 

long term, trying to figure out ways in which it can be better. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Well, it is my hope that if you 

have those Brothers involved, I would hope we would have them 

come before the committee to answer to what has gone on. They 

have a good track record, they have done some good things, but we 

cannot let them come back without answering to this with your 

blessing, so that we will have the full confidence of the American 

people in this example. This is a great example for us in Congress 

to be able to show the American people that when something goes 

wrong as desperately as dealing with our food supply system, how 

we move to effectively fix it. And if it is the Phillips Brothers— 

have I got their name right?—I think we are to at least hear from 

them, I would hope. And I just submit that to you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do not think we should let that lie until we have full confidence, 

face to face, that we are bringing them back and we have that. 

This is a great opportunity, as I see it, to send a powerful message to the American people. Nobody is going to go hungry in this 

Nation. And we are here to make sure that happens. 
88 

And I want to personally thank you. This has been an unusual 

hearing. It has been the first of my kind. I have been here 22 

years, and we have never had such a pulling together of Appropriations. And I want to thank you, Mr. Bishop. As the chairman of our 

subcommittee, you are doing a great job. I appreciate it. 

I just want us to know, we have a great opportunity to do a great 

blessing that God has given us to do with this particular challenge. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the ranking member for his comments. I could not agree more. You know, this is a 5-year contract, 

which has fallen apart in the first few months. And we should need 

assurance that, if it is going other be a five-year contract, that it 

can be deliverable to the extent of quality that it had in the past. 

And I am not convinced at this point. I think you are right, I 

think we would have to have people come and explain to us exactly 

how that turnaround is going to occur. 

Anyway, I want to thank all of today’s witnesses for joining us 

to discuss the severe food shortages impacting tribal and elderly 

communities, the fact that USDA could probably have prevented 

this entire situation and has let this crisis drag out for months 

with no long-term solution at this point. We will continue to closely 

monitor this situation. 

If Members, not many left, would like to submit questions for the 

record, please submit those to the subcommittee staff within 7 

days. 

Thank you all for attending today. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Answers to submitted questions follow:] 
89 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS, M.D. 

FDPIR AND CSFP 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK

1. Mr. Secretary, I understand you only became aware of USDA’s contracting failure in early August. Who brought this matter to your attention 

and when? Did you have to hear about it from Tribes, advocacy organizations, or through the media, like Congress did? Because as the Committees 

with oversight responsibilities of USDA, we were not informed of this 

brewing problem by USDA. 

My staff brought this to my attention in late July. 

2. You said in the August 28 Politico article that senior staff should have 

been involved earlier in the decision and the response and that senior staff 

should have reviewed the switch from two contractors to one. Is ‘‘senior 

staff’’ a reference to Ms. Long and Mr. Summers? If not them, who are you 

referring to that qualify as ‘‘senior staff’’ and should have been involved to 

prevent this debacle? 

USDA is currently evaluating what level of staff seniority should beappropriate 

to review certain contracts. 

TO MS. LONG AND MR. SUMMERS

Ms. Long, prior to becoming Deputy Under Secretary of FNS, you were the FNS 

Administrator. The Administrator functions like a CEO, so as you and Mr. Summers 

are the equivalent of being CEOs of FNS and AMS, respectively, your primary responsibilities are to ensure programs are carried out according to the law. In this 

case, to make sure food was being delivered to Tribes and State Agencies. USDA’s 

written testimony states that USDA heard of delays in May. 

3. When did you both learn of food distribution shortages? 

USDA first heard reports of delayed deliveries from Tribes and CSFP agencies in 

May 2024. In response, USDA staff began working with Paris Brothers on a corrective action plan to get deliveries back on track-including consolidating commodities, 

segmenting warehouses, and updating bin locations. Considering Paris Brothers’ 

history of successful performance and 98–99 percent on-time food delivery rate, staff 

expected the company would be able to course correct and resume on-time deliveries 

per the corrective action plan. FNCS Deputy Under Secretary Cindy Long and AMS 

Administrator Bruce Summers learned of Paris Brothers’ challenges delivering shipments to FDPIR and CSFP program operators in June 2024. That month, USDA 

conducted an on-site audit of the Paris Brothers’ Kansas City warehouse. In July 

2024, it became clear that the situation would not be remedied without immediate 

interventions and additional support from USDA. 

Since then, USDA’s first order of business has been to use every tool we have 

available to get food to where it is needed as soon as possible. We have taken an 

all-hands approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume regular, on-time deliveries to all communities that depend on FDPIR and CSFP. 

4. Did any member of your staff brief you on this contract before it was 

decided that there would be only one contractor, Paris Brothers, servicing 

both FDPIR and CSFP? 

No. In hindsight, this is a place where USDA senior staff should have been made 

aware and been able to engage to understand the full impact and potential risks 

of this shift. USDA is undertaking a review of our procurement processes and procedures both within FNS and AMS and at the Department level to identify places 

where we can make changes that would prevent similar circumstances from occurring in the future. 

5. Did you attend the February tribal consultation meeting to hear the 

Tribal concerns with using only one vendor for FDPIR? If not, who was 

your respective agency’s representative(s)? 

Former Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean was the consulting official for the 

February 16, 2024, FDPIR Tribal Leader Consultation Work Group Tribal consultation. AMS and FNS support staff were also in attendance. 

6. The whole crux of this issue is the fact USDA had two contractors supporting FDPIR and CSFP and then a decision must have been made to 

change the contract specifications. What requirements changed to make it 
90 

such that only Paris Brothers met the requirements out of the 7 or 8 bids 

you received? 

The 2018 and 2023 Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were largely the same—one notable change is the addition of a requirement for a cyber security plan, a commercial 

best practice to reduce potential business disruptions. However, this added requirement did not cause Paris Brothers’ bid to be the only one to meet the RFP requirements. 

7. When USDA is awarding a contract, there is a contract review board— 

how many reviewers were from FNS, AMS, other agencies, or contracting 

divisions? Did they have familiarity with how FDPIR and CSFP operates? 

The technical evaluation board was comprised of a multidisciplinary team of three 

Food and Nutrition Service program agency representatives, one USDA warehouse 

examiner, one IT expert, and two Agricultural Marketing Service contracting specialists; they were selected for their knowledge of CSFP and FDPIR, their expertise 

in warehouse management and audits, their understanding of IT interfaces, and 

their comprehension of government contract terms and conditions and offerors’ ability to meet them. 

8. Did the contract review board recommend that only Paris Brothers 

met the qualifications? 

Yes. Of the bids received, only one company, Paris Brothers, Inc., was judged as 

acceptable by the technical evaluation board. 

9. Then who reviewed the recommendation to only use one company and 

had final sign off to move forward with one contract? 

The contractor selection was made by the contracting officer based on recommendations from the technical evaluation board, which was a multidisciplinary 

team of experts selected for their knowledge of CSFP and FDPIR, their expertise 

in warehouse management and audits, their understanding of IT interfaces, and 

their comprehension of government contract terms and conditions and offerors’ ability to meet them. 

10. Please provide Paris Brothers book of business as to how many other 

contracts they service, both commercially and through government contracts. Was this information taken into consideration when deciding to select them as a sole source contractor? 

Paris Brothers is a privately held company and has not disclosed that information. The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires the contracting officer to determine whether a prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform 

the contract, or the ability to obtain them, and is given broad discretion to use any 

current facts in making such determinations. Paris Brothers was determined financially responsible using past performance information from the prior 3 years as well 

as information documented in the System for Award Management (SAM). 

11. According to the Paris Brothers contract, they had 60 days to transition to the sole provider. When USDA staff recognized that 60 days was not 

enough time, why was the contract not updated to allow for a longer transition? 

USDA never received a request for an extension to the transition period from 

Paris Brothers. The Request for Proposals to which Paris Brothers submitted their 

bid called for a 60-day transition period between the old contracts and any new contracts. USDA only considered proposals that indicated they could meet this timeframe. The bid Paris Brothers submitted indicated they were capable of serving the 

entire country. Further, the contract was signed in January 2024 with the contractor’s knowledge of the full scope. Preparations for the transition began immediately 

in January 2024. 

12. According to the Paris Brothers contract, Paris Brothers was required 

to have a detailed communication plan to notify USDA and Tribes of emergencies. Please share minutes, timelines, and plans of action that cover this 

situation from early April when Paris Brothers notified Tribes of delays. 

The contract requires Paris Brothers to have an Exigency Plan that describes how 

they will continue their work in the event of power outages, unexpected location closures, nation-wide fuel shortages, and/or cyber attacks. Paris Brothers began meeting with USDA on a daily basis in June about this situation. Paris Brothers does 

not have previous minutes, timelines or plans of action to share. 

13. How would USDA describe the quality of food provided through 

FDPIR and CSFP, and how can USDA use the current situation to consider 
91 

how regional and more culturally relevant and healthy foods can be procured going forward? 

USDA provides nutrient-dense foods through CSFP and FDPIR to support participants in achieving healthy dietary patterns while advancing nutrition security. 

USDA’s purchasing power means the nutritious USDA Foods provided through 

FDPIR and CSFP can be procured often at a lower cost than on the open market. 

CSFP food packages, which are supplemental, include foods that are good sources 

of the nutrients typically lacking in participants’ diets. Similarly, the FDPIR food 

package offers a variety of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, legumes, grains, and 

dairy products with traditional foods included. A recent study was conducted to 

measure the nutritional quality of the FDPIR food package using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI). HEI scores are used to assess how well a set of foods aligns with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The study found that the FDPIR food package scored much higher, meaning it is healthier, than the average U.S. diet. 

USDA has made significant progress in increasing Indigenous and culturally appropriate food offerings in FDPIR in recent years, in consultation with our Tribal 

partners. FDPIR participants may select from over 100 products, including over 40 

fresh produce options and six traditional foods (bison, blue cornmeal, wild salmon, 

traditionally harvested wild rice, catfish, and walleye). USDA works with FDPIR 

Tribal partners to identify and implement enhancements to the food package to support the cultural preferences of program participants. 

Additionally, the successful FDPIR Pilot Self-Determination Demonstration 

Projects involve partnerships with Tribal vendors for food procurement. These 

projects empower Tribal Nations by providing them with options for the selection 

and procurement of foods for FDPIR. In September 2023, USDA also initiated a 

pilot aimed at offering more localized ground bison meat for Tribal communities 

through FDPIR. The pilot will look at changes to how USDA purchases bison to better support buying the meat from local, small, and mid-sized bison herd managers 

and delivering it directly to their local Tribal communities. 

As one of the short-term options to help address the current situation, USDA has 

encouraged Local Food Purchase Assistance awardees to purchase local foods to support FDPIR and CSFP programs, which may create and/or strengthen local partnerships. 

14. What obstacles keep Tribes and food banks from receiving culturally 

relevant and healthy foods through FDPIR and CSFP? 

Both FDPIR and CSFP collectively ensure that about 800,000 people receive domestically produced dietary staples every month. For FDPIR especially, which is one 

of the few programs at USDA specifically developed and operated for Tribes, food 

package offerings also include a growing number of culturally significant foods, as 

well as fresh fruits and vegetables. In nation-to-nation consultation, Tribal leaders 

have called for expanded culturally significant foods to be included in the FDPIR 

package, highlighting these foods’ high nutrient density as well as their cultural importance. Tribal leaders have asked USDA to focus on opportunities for local and/ 

or Tribal agricultural producers to provide these foods. USDA has been working 

with NAFDPIR and Tribal leaders to meet these requests over the past several 

years by identifying and adding culturally relevant, nutritious foods to the package. 

In addition to this work, USDA has also been successfully implementing the 

FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Projects as authorized by the 2018 Farm 

Bill. Under these projects, USDA enters into modified self-determination contracts 

for Tribal organizations to directly purchase some of the foods for the food package. 

This included supplanting existing USDA Foods purchased by USDA with local Indigenous foods. More than $10 million has been awarded to 16 Tribal nations to 

purchase foods for their FDPIR food packages. For example, the Lummi Nation uses 

the program to purchase foods like local prawns rather than some of the fish in the 

USDA food package. FNS has been able to fund all requested projects to date. 

15. How can USDA partner with regional food providers to ensure this 

situation doesn’t happen again? 

USDA has taken several steps to offer solutions for the immediate term while addressing underlying issues to restore a fully functional and dependable regular distribution program. We are also working on a longer-term solution. This experience 

has underscored the importance of redundancy and distributed distribution capacity. 

We recognize that regionally based food distributors, warehouses, and transportation could play a role in a system that is able to meet the needs of communities 

in different parts of the country. USDA will explore all options as we consider the 

best system to mitigate the risk inherent in relying on a few, centralized warehouses. To that end, USDA is considering ways to create additional distribution 
92 

services that will allow for a more resilient distribution system. We will invite input 

from Tribes, CSFP agencies, regional supply chain businesses, and other external 

partners to discuss the best approaches to a system that will ensure dependable deliveries and responsive service. 

USDA remains deeply committed to transforming America’s food system to ensure 

access to safe and nutritious foods and to better partnering with Tribal Nations in 

empowering Tribal food sovereignty. We are also undertaking a review of our procurement processes and procedures both within FNS and AMS and at the Department level to identify places where we can make changes that would prevent similar 

circumstances from occurring in the future. As we take steps to build resiliency and 

improve the FDPIR and CSFP programs for the long-term, there may be places 

where we run into statutory or financial barriers. We will continue to be thoughtful 

about making these visible to Congress. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER SANFORD BISHOP 

RESOURCES FOR TRIBAL AND ELDERLY COMMUNITIES AND SUPPLY CHAIN

DISRUPTIONS

TO SECRETARY VILSACK

16. Secretary Vilsack, I think that you requested an increase of $1.5 million in TEFAP and FDPIR in the FY 2025 Budget Request, as you had in 

the FY 2024 Budget Request. You also requested an increase of $4 million 

and 13 FTEs for regional commodity procurement and to support USDA’s 

ongoing response to supply chain disruptions. Would these additional staff 

work on this contract? If so, how would an increase in staffing help in future contracting actions? If you had gotten this increase last year, would 

you have been able to prevent this issue from occurring? 

USDA FNS requested an additional $1.5 million, adjusted annually for inflation, 

in the 2025 Budget request to support additional Federal staff and operational expenses for TEFAP and FDPIR. As described in the Budget request, administration 

of the programs has become more complex and increased the need for Federal staff 

support and technical assistance to both TEFAP State agencies and FDPIR administering agencies. Though the volume of USDA Foods purchases and additional resources provided to these programs has increased dramatically over the past few 

years, staff increases have not kept pace to support the additional oversight that 

these investments and initiatives require. This funding would allow for increased 

staffing to support these ongoing investments in equity and food sovereignty for 

Tribal Nations, including enhancing customer service and oversight of the expanded 

FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Projects and the Bison Purchase Pilot. 

Staff would be added to both the National and Regional Offices to facilitate increased FNS engagement with tribal communities, support tribal producers, and ensure program offerings continue to meet the needs of our tribal partners. In addition, staff would provide enhanced monitoring and stakeholder support in TEFAP 

for kosher, halal, and culturally relevant foods for program participants, the TEFAP 

Reach & Resiliency grants to provide oversight to ensure grant funds are used effectively and leverage best practices to better serve those in remote, rural, tribal and/ 

or low-income areas that have been underserved by the program. 

The USDA AMS marketing services FY 2024 enacted budget was $14.8M (6.2 percent) less than the FY 2023 enacted budget. In the FY 2025 budget request, AMS 

identified an increase of $2,000,000 and 11 FTE in the Local and Regional Commodity Procurement program. This increase will help AMS better respond as emergency food organizations continue to face significant ongoing needs. Schools have 

had difficulty purchasing products from their commercial distributors and have 

looked to USDA to continue to purchase and deliver nutritious food products to 

serve their customers. USDA needs to continue strengthening and diversifying the 

suppliers that provide foods to schools and nutrition assistance programs. We can 

do this in several ways including by engaging with producers and distributors who 

are successfully providing local food deliveries to schools, food banks, and community organizations through the Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for 

Schools programs. We can also do this by assisting small and underserved farmers 

and businesses to become vendors in these programs. Outreach to small and historically underserved producers, processors, and food businesses will help us understand the challenges they face in becoming USDA vendors, identify barriers that can 

be removed, provide additional support, and inform future contract requirements 

and planning. While the current contract was executed with a company that had 
93 

been successfully delivering services for 17 years with USDA, and additional resources may not have necessarily led to a different conclusion, having the necessary 

resources to hire, recruit, retain, and train high caliber employees to meet the mission is critical to long term success. USDA is also undertaking a review of our procurement process to prevent similar circumstances from occurring in the future and 

will be building on lessons learned and other warehousing best practices to ensure 

necessary redundancy moving forward. 

LOCAL CSFP PROVIDERS AND STATE FLEXIBILITIES

TO SECRETARY VILSACK / DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY LONG

17. Secretary, first, let me express our appreciation for the efforts that 

you have undertaken to remedy this supply chain disruption. Let me ask 

you about the flexibility at the state level. Local partners within the Commodity Supplemental Food Program rely on the state agencies for answers 

to questions and for administrative assistance. If a state agency does not 

sign an agreement to receive the funds necessary to fill food boxes for our 

seniors, what flexibility exists for local partners such as our food banks? 

The USDA is taking an all-hands approach to address significant delays in the 

delivery of USDA Foods from the contracted national multi-food warehouse to 

FDIPR and CSFP and has initiated several short-term options to assist program operators in accessing the supplemental food they need as quickly as possible.USDA 

offered up to $36 million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds for CSFP 

State agencies, including ITOs, to support the purchase of domestically grown and 

produced foods. The Department infers the above question is related to the acceptance of CCC funding by CSFP State agencies, and the requirement that CSFP State 

agencies enter into agreements with USDA to accept and use such funds. 

The majority of CSFP State agencies (51 out of 60 as of October 1, 2024) have 

entered into signed agreements to accept the CCC funds. USDA is providing ongoing 

technical assistance to support CSFP State agencies in accepting the funds and to 

ensure they have the information needed to best use the funds. The CCC funds are 

just one of several short-term options USDA has implemented already as part of 

this response, recognizing the needs of CSFP program operators vary. For the full 

range of options available to State agencies and Indian Tribal organizations (ITOs), 

please see the Department’s dedicated webpage: https://www.fns.usda.gov/usdafoods/supply-chain-disruptions 

Our priority is to get food where it’s needed, and to do that expeditiously, we’ve 

taken care not to put up overly burdensome requirements and to strike the right 

balance between streamlining processes and building in guardrails and checks. The 

requirements and criteria USDA has set related to the use of the CCC funds for 

FDPIR and CSFP strike that balance. 

18. What will USDA be doing to empower, enable, and encourage the 

states to put meaningful solutions in place quickly? It seems that the red 

tape may hamper any real remedies quickly. 

It is a priority of USDA to get food where it is needed, expeditiously, and without 

overly burdensome requirements that could unnecessarily slow down the corrective 

actions being taken. The criteria USDA has set related to the use of the short-term 

options to activate additional food resources, summarized at https:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/usda-foods/supply-chain-disruptions, require commonsense documentation and reporting by State agencies, while minimizing unnecessary and overly burdensome processes and recordkeeping. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN TOM COLE 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK

19. Secretary Vilsack, under your duties as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, you are charged with upholding the federal trust responsibility with tribal nations. You are accountable for any actions made 

within your agency. Who ultimately made the decision to consolidate from 

two contractors to one? Were you aware of this decision when it was made, 

and did you approve it? 

This was the outcome of a competitive bidding process. The contractor selection 

was made by the contracting officer based on recommendations from the technical 

evaluation board, which was a multidisciplinary team of experts selected for their 
94 

knowledge of CSFP and FDPIR, their expertise in warehouse management and audits, their understanding of IT interfaces, and their comprehension of government 

contract terms and conditions and bidders’ ability to meet them. In hindsight, this 

is a place where USDA senior staff should have been made aware and been able 

to engage to understand the full impact and potential risks of this shift. USDA is 

undertaking a review of our procurement processes and procedures both within FNS 

and AMS and at the Department level to identify places where we can make 

changes that would prevent similar circumstances from occurring in the future. 

20. It is September—why did USDA not take immediate actions when you 

learned in May that disruptions were occurring? 

In May, USDA initially learned from calls with a few program operators of disruptions to Paris Brothers’ normally 98-99 percent on-time food delivery rate. 

In June 2024, USDA met with FDPIR Tribal leaders, began daily calls with Paris 

Brothers to discuss deliveries and prioritization, issued a letter to FDPIR and CSFP 

operators notifying them of the disruptions and explaining the events leading up to 

the problem, conducted a site audit of Paris Brothers’ Kansas City warehouse, initiated weekly meetings with the National Association of Food Distribution Programs 

on Indian Reservation (NAFDPIR), and addressed communications and administrative concerns onsite in Kansas City. 

In early July 2024, USDA received the first indication from Paris Brothers that 

storage space was an issue and that the continued high level of inbound trucks of 

USDA Foods was a challenge to on-time operations. USDA immediately solicited 

and contracted for additional pallet in/pallet out warehouse space to serve as overflow, awarding a contract on July 10, and began diverting dry loads of USDA commodities from Paris Brothers to the overflow space the same day. Later in July, seeing the continued challenges and lack of progress, USDA quickly stood up a wholeof USDA response to address this emergency situation. 

In August 2024, USDA announced the availability of four short-term options to 

help program sites obtain food as soon as possible. These options include making 

use of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), accessing Commodity 

Credit Corporation (CCC) Funds to purchase domestic food, expanding deliveries 

through the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (USDA 

DoD Fresh) to include items beyond produce, and purchasing local foods through 

Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreements (LFPA). USDA also established a dedicated case management team to support this short-term response. 

USDA assigned a case manager to each FDPIR Tribal operator and CSFP State 

agency to provide individualized, one-on-one communication and assistance. 

USDA’s first order of business continues to be using every tool we have available 

to get food to where it is needed as soon as possible. We have taken an all-hands 

approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume regular, on-time deliveries to 

all communities that depend on FDPIR and CSFP. 

21. Who, within your agency, attends the tribal consultations? How do 

they communicate to their superiors what was discussed and how to best 

implement improvements based on tribal feedback? 

USDA’s Departmental Regulation on Tribal Consultation, which applies to all 

USDA agencies, mission areas, and offices, specifies that in Nation-to-Nation consultation, a USDA consulting official should be a ‘‘senior-level official with the statutory or delegated authority to make decisions on the regulation, policy, or other 

USDA action in question.’’ This regulation also provides for post-consultation actions, including consideration of feedback received during discussion and coordination with the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) regarding the consultation record. Report-outs from Tribal consultations are publicly available and archived on the OTR 

website (https://www.usda.gov/tribalrelations/tribal-consultations). These reports include notes from all items raised by both USDA and Tribal leadership. The reports 

also specify which senior officials served as consulting officials from USDA at each 

consultation. 

TO DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY CINDY LONG

22. Deputy Under Secretary Long, I have heard from tribes that the 

short-term solutions presented by USDA are not sufficient or beneficial for 

all impacted participants. For example, it is absurd to ask tribes to rob 

their own Local Food Purchasing Agreement resources to resolve USDA’s 

failure with no guarantee of reimbursement. In addition, it is apparent 

that the CCC funds being distributed is causing extra internal burdens and 

costing tribes more in administrative costs to administer the funding. What 
95 

are other options the USDA is considering for more long-term solutions to 

this crisis? Are you basing these proposals off feedback from tribes? 

USDA is committed to strengthening our Nation-to-Nation relationships with 

Tribal Nations. On September 12, 2024, USDA held a Tribal Consultation and listening session on the FDPIR warehouse issues, which included topics such as USDA 

contracting for the warehouse distribution services, building supply chain resiliency 

for food distribution programs, and self-determination in food and nutrition programs. 

USDA has scheduled a follow-up Tribal Consultation on the supply chain disruptions on October 9, 2024, to coincide with the 35th Annual National Association of 

FDPIR conference in Auburn, Washington. USDA will continue to invite input from 

Tribes, CSFP agencies, and other external partners so that long-term solutions are 

properly considered. 

The end result of Tribal consultation and external partner dialogue is expected 

to be a more modern and responsive system that is better aligned with the needs 

of FDPIR and CSFP customers and incorporates Tribal self-determination wherever 

possible. For example, USDA expects to invite a Tribal representative to participate 

in future procurement decisions related to the FDPIR program. This would be a new 

action that would meaningfully incorporate Tribal input using a practice allowed by 

the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

23. What is USDA doing to lift the burden of this crisis off tribes? Is there 

technical assistance being offered to tribes to navigate the various shortterm options and to assist with tracking receipts and orders? Are there 

plans to reimburse tribes for food purchases made from their own money 

due to the empty shelves or for administrative costs they have had to 

incur? 

The Department is committed to returning to on time and accurate deliveries 

from the national warehouse and minimizing the burden on ITOs and State agencies during this response. For example, USDA has put in place an emergency contract for additional surge capacity for warehousing and delivery services to help resume on-time deliveries of multi-food orders for FDPIR and CSFP. USDA is also 

providing ongoing technical assistance to support FDPIR and CSFP program operators in exploring solutions to best meet the needs of their participants. 

The Department conducts regular online meetings with FDPIR and CSFP ITO 

and State agency operators, to help them navigate the various short-term options 

and the food delivery process. During these meetings, USDA provides updates on 

key issues related to our efforts to mitigate the impacts short-term and ultimately 

remedy the situation for participants, as well as providing time for questions and 

dialogue. This ensures an open forum for USDA to provide technical assistance 

while creating a feedback loop necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to assist 

program operators in meeting participants’ needs. 

USDA’s dedicated case management team also supports direct, timely communication with CSFP and FDPIR program operators to ensure any questions are addressed and regular updates provided. USDA assigned each FDPIR and CSFP State 

agency a dedicated case manager who engages in weekly conversations to address 

any questions and understand inventory concerns, which informs the prioritization 

of deliveries. We continue to engage with FDPIR and CSFP State agencies as we 

consider how USDA can best support communication with those agencies to meet 

their needs. 

With regard to reimbursement, USDA is offering at least $11 million in CCC 

funding to FDPIR and up to $36 million in CCC funding to CSFP to support food 

purchases and associated incidental expenses. For FDPIR, CCC funds are available 

to cover ITO and State agency food purchases made on or after August 12, 2024. 

For CSFP, these funds are available to cover ITO and State agency purchases made 

on or after August 26, 2024. 

TO ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE SUMMERS

24. Administrator Summers, why was Paris Brothers not fully vetted in 

their abilities to be the single source contractor? Did you visit their warehouses and inspect their abilities to make deliveries nationwide? 

Of the bids received, only one company, Paris Brothers, Inc., was judged as acceptable by the technical evaluation board, which consisted of cross-agency experts 

at USDA. All other offers were determined to be unacceptable by the board. In addition, Paris Brothers has a solid track record dating back to 2007. Furthermore, in 

the submitted offer to USDA, Paris Brothers did not take exception to the requirements in the solicitation, which indicated its ability to meet all requirements in the 
96 

performance work statement. While not part of the solicitation and contract award 

process, AMS has visited Paris Brothers in the past and subsequently since the contract was awarded. 

25. Why did USDA not consider a regional sourcing model when tribes repeatedly expressed that this would be a better distribution method? 

This experience has underscored the importance of redundancy and distributed 

distribution capacity. To that end, USDA is considering ways to create additional 

distribution services that will allow for a more resilient distribution system. We will 

invite input from Tribes, CSFP agencies and other stakeholders so that ideas such 

as regionalizing distribution systems are properly considered. 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY CINDY LONG, AND

ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE SUMMERS

26. What has USDA learned because of this crisis and the decisions made? 

Do you have a better understanding of how tribes operate and the barriers 

they face regularly? How are you going to use this to better uphold your 

trust responsibility to tribal nations? 

This experience has underscored the importance of redundancy in our systems 

and distributed distribution capacity. To that end, USDA is considering ways to create additional distribution services that will allow for a more resilient distribution 

system. The Department is undertaking a review of our procurement processes and 

procedures to identify places where we can make changes that would prevent similar circumstances from occurring in the future. We are in regular dialogue with 

Tribal leaders to understand the unique challenges they face with remote locations 

that are often at the end of the food supply chain. We are seeking input from Tribes, 

CSFP agencies and other stakeholders so that ideas such as regionalizing distribution systems are properly considered. We are rethinking our models using concepts 

gained from nation-to-nation consultation, Tribal consultation and stakeholder dialogue, and we expect to develop a more modern and responsive system that is better 

aligned with the needs of FDPIR and CSFP customers than the current one. USDA’s 

goal is to incorporate Tribal self-determination throughout our program design 

wherever possible. 

27. Are you all going to commit to take tribal consultation seriously and 

act upon what tribes recommend is best for them? 

Since taking office, President Biden has committed to strengthening the Nationto-Nation relationships between the United States and Tribal Nations and advancing Tribal sovereignty. USDA has taken this commitment to heart. 

As USDA begins to address underlying issues to restore a fully functional and dependable regular distribution system, we will invite input from Tribes, CSFP agencies, and other external partners so that potential long-term solutions are properly 

considered. The end result of Tribal consultation and external partner dialogue is 

expected to be a more modern and responsive system that is better aligned with the 

needs of FDPIR and CSFP customers and incorporates Tribal self-determination 

wherever possible. 

28. What is the cost-estimate of what is needed to resolve this crisis? 

USDA does not have a cost estimate at this time. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSWOMAN SHARICE DAVIDS 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY CINDY LONG, AND

ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE SUMMERS

29. I am working on legislation to make permanent the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations Self-Determination Demonstration 

Project, which was initially authorized in the Agriculture Improvement Act 

of 2018. Does USDA support making this program permanent? 

As USDA has shared with Tribes previously through Tribal Consultation, the Department supports making the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Project 

permanent and nationwide, with appropriate planning, funding, and Congressional 

authority. 
97 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY CINDY LONG, AND

ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE SUMMERS

30. Furthermore, does USDA support using title I and title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to carry out this 

permanent program? Does the United States Department of Agriculture 

need resources to implement the permanent authority? 

FDPIR is one of the few programs at USDA which is specifically developed and 

operated for Tribes. Title I on its face applies only to the BIA and IHS and the purpose and text are designed in the context of those agencies. FDPIR fits into the concepts underlying title I of the Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance 

Act (638) model better than almost any other program at USDA. A powerful step 

would be to expand purchasing to all Tribes who wish to procure any foods in 

FDPIR. This would empower increased Tribal control and choice. Tribes could still 

use and leverage USDA’s national buying power where they choose, and also choose 

local purchases from Tribal producers, incorporating traditional food items. 

As USDA has shared with Tribes previously through Tribal Consultation, the Department supports making the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Project 

permanent and nationwide, with appropriate planning, funding, and Congressional 

authority. We stand ready to provide technical assistance on this issue at Congress’ 

request. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSWOMAN MARCY KAPTUR 

LOCAL FOOD PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

TO MS. LONG

31. I noticed that one of USDA’s emergency responses was to activate the 

Local Food Purchase Assistance Program in some affected areas. If it is so 

effective that it works as a backup plan in an emergency, why not give this 

a bigger, permanent role in fulfilling the needs of these programs? 

We are pleased to have LFPA as an option to support FDPIR and CSFP programs, however, not all Tribes participate in LFPA. Additionally, not all of the foods 

made available through the FDPIR and CSFP programs would be able to be purchased through LFPA. To make LFPA a permanent program, Congressional action 

is necessary.USDA believes that promoting and supporting local food systems certainly has a large role to play here. LFPA provides funding for state, tribal and territorial governments to purchase foods produced within the state or within 400 

miles of the delivery destination to help support local, regional and historically underserved producers. The cooperative agreements allow the states, tribes and territories to procure and distribute local and regional foods and beverages that are 

healthy, nutritious, unique to their geographic areas and that meet the needs of the 

population. The food serves feeding programs, including food banks, schools and organizations that reach underserved communities. In addition to increasing local food 

consumption, the funds are expanding economic opportunity for local producers and 

food supply chain businesses, helping to build resilient regional food systems. 

32. Is there going to be a cost analysis on the difference between the cost 

of buying local versus the cost of transportation associated with the current distribution system for these programs? 

USDA is undertaking a review of our procurement processes and procedures both 

within FNS and AMS and at the Department level to identify places where we can 

make changes that would prevent similar circumstances from occurring in the future. However, this will not include a cost analysis on the difference between the 

cost of buying local versus the cost of transportation associated with the current distribution system for these programs as the data are not available. 

TO MR. SUMMERS

33. Per pound of food, how much money does USDA pay for transportation in the FDPIR and CSFP programs compared to the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program? 

We do not have data to be able to answer this question. LFPA awardees do not 

report transportation costs and when AMS purchases the commodities for FDPIR 

and CSFP, the cost is inclusive of transportation. 
98 

TO MR. SUMMERS

34. Given the fact that a local food system improves both individual and 

community health in nearly every way—including financially—do you 

think that using these programs to lift up the local food system and put 

this money into the local economy could lift up citizens to the point that 

they can come off the program? 

Yes, USDA believes that promoting and supporting local food systems certainly 

has a large role to play here. For example, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA) provides funding for state, tribal and territorial governments to purchase foods produced within the state or within 400 miles 

of the delivery destination to help support local, regional and underserved producers. The cooperative agreements allow the states, tribes and territories to procure and distribute local and regional foods and beverages that are healthy, nutritious, unique to their geographic areas and that meet the needs of the population. 

The food serves feeding programs, including food banks, schools and organizations 

that reach underserved communities. 

In addition to increasing local food consumption, the funds help build and expand 

economic opportunity for local and underserved producers. One of the most compelling reasons to buy locally grown produce is the positive impact it has on the local 

economy. LFPA and the Local Food for Schools (LFS) programs have been important 

to lift up the local food system and put money into local economies. As always, our 

mission is to increase food security and reduce hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income people access to food, a 

healthy diet, and nutrition education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence 

COMMUNITY GARDENS

TO MR. SUMMERS

35. Young farmers are the future of this nation. If USDA puts this money 

into the local economy of these low-income program participants, it could 

incentivize both first generation and legacy farmers to become farmers or 

remain farmers, lifting up those communities. Community gardens recruit 

farmers, uplift youth, build wealth in the community, supply the community with food, and are largely independent of the supply chain. 

Could a local community garden or urban farm receive funding from 

these programs if it supplies to FDPIR and CSFP program participants? 

The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement and Local Food for 

Schools Programs provide awardees the flexibility to purchase from local community 

gardens or urban farms. Those purchases can supplement FDPIR and CSFP distributions to meet participant needs. In addition, any approved vendor may bid on 

selling food to USDA’s nutrition assistance programs. Information on becoming an 

approved vendor can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/becoming-approved, although AMS has typically ordered in full truckload quantities which 

would be difficult for most community gardens and urban farms to meet. 

FOOD QUALITY AND TYPE

TO MS. LONG

36. How would USDA describe the quality of food provided through 

FDPIR and CSFP, and how can USDA use the current situation to consider 

how local and more culturally appropriate and desirable foods may be procured going forward? 

USDA provides nutrient-dense foods through CSFP and FDPIR to support participants in achieving healthy dietary patterns while advancing nutrition security. 

USDA’s purchasing power means the nutritious USDA Foods provided through 

FDPIR and CSFP can be procured often at a lower cost than on the open market. 

CSFP food packages, which are supplemental, include foods that are good sources 

of the nutrients typically lacking in participants’ diets. Similarly, the FDPIR food 

package offers a variety of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, legume, grains, and 

dairy products with traditional foods included. A recent study was conducted to 

measure the nutritional quality of the FDPIR food package using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI). HEI scores are used to assess how well a set of foods aligns with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The study found that the FDPIR food package scored much higher, meaning they are healthier, than the average U.S. diet. 
99 

USDA has made significant progress in increasing Indigenous and culturally appropriate food offerings in FDPIR in recent years, in consultation with our Tribal 

partners. FDPIR participants may select from over 100 products, including over 40 

fresh produce options and six traditional foods (bison, blue cornmeal, wild salmon, 

traditionally harvested wild rice, catfish, and walleye). USDA works with FDPIR 

Tribal partners to identify and implement enhancements to the food package to support the cultural preferences of program participants. 

Additionally, the successful FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Projects involve partnerships with Tribal vendors for food procurement. These projects empower Tribal Nations by providing them with options for the selection and procurement of foods for FDPIR. In September 2023, USDA also initiated a pilot aimed at 

offering more localized ground bison meat for Tribal communities through FDPIR. 

The pilot will look at changes to how USDA purchases bison to better support buying the meat from local, small, and mid-sized bison herd managers and delivering 

it directly to their local Tribal communities. 

As one of the short-term options to help address the current situation, USDA has 

encouraged Local Food Purchase Assistance awardees to purchase local foods to support FDPIR and CSFP programs, which may create and/or strengthen local partnerships. 

PREVENTING FUTURE OCCURRENCES

TO MR. SUMMERS

37. How can the U.S. Government partner with local food providers to ensure this situation doesn’t happen again? 

This experience has underscored the importance of redundancy in our systems 

and distributed distribution capacity. We recognize that regionally based food distributors, warehouses, and transportation can play a role in a system that is able 

to meet the needs of communities in different parts of the country. Understanding 

the capacity of these businesses and their role could mitigate the risk inherent in 

relying on too few, centralized warehouses. To that end, USDA is considering ways 

to create additional distribution services that will allow for a more resilient distribution system. The Department is undertaking a review of our procurement processes 

and procedures to identify places where we can make changes that would prevent 

similar circumstances from occurring in the future. We will invite input from Tribes, 

CSFP agencies, regional supply chain businesses, and other external partners to discuss the best approaches to a system that will ensure dependable deliveries and responsive service. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE 

COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK

38. The draft FY 2025 Ag-FDA spending bill includes a $34 million decrease in funding for the CSFP. If enacted today, how would this cut in 

funding impact USDA’s work to resolve this crisis? How many people 

would lose access to food assistance due to this cut in funding? 

The House appropriation bill would provide $34 million below the President’s 

Budget request for the Commodity Assistance Program (CAP) account, including 

nearly $410 million (or $15 million below the request) for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Taking into account the current warehouse crisis, 

funding CSFP at the House mark would result in about 75,000 seniors losing access 

to the program in 2025. 

FDPIR 

TO SECRETARY VILSACK

39. I am encouraged to see that the USDA has taken an all-hands approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume regular, on-time delivers to all communities that depends on the CSFP. 

Among the four available short-term options to help get food back into communities as soon as possible, which option have Tribal leaders and FDPIR administering agencies used the most and can you explain why USDA has not approved 
100 

options offered by Tribes to mitigate the impact of this situation, such as driving 

their own trucks to pick up food from the Paris Brothers warehouse? 

Our first order of business continues to be getting food where it’s needed while 

continuing the all-hands approach to resume on time and accurate deliveries as soon 

as possible. In the short-term, USDA continues to provide options to support Tribal 

operators and CSFP State agencies in meeting immediate food needs. Providing 

multiple options recognizes the diverse needs of program operators. Below are the 

four options, to include the number of agencies which have pursued each option as 

of September 30, 2024, to the extent such the data is available: 

• Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds for FDPIR and CSFP agencies: USDA offered at least $11 million to help FDPIR agencies buy food; and 

made available up to $36 million to CSFP state agencies. The funding may be 

used to purchase domestically grown and produced foods. 72 FDPIR agencies 

and 51 CSFP agencies have elected to pursue this option. 

• Temporary Expansion of the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit 

& Vegetable Program (USDA DoD Fresh): Through a partnership with the 

DoD Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), USDA is working to expand USDA DoD 

Fresh to include food items such as meats, grains, and dairy for distribution to 

a limited number of FDPIR sites experiencing severe inventory shortages. To 

date, 35 FDPIR agencies were offered this option and 11 elected to pursue it. 

• Activation of the Emergency Feeding Network with Situations of Distress: USDA is encouraging TEFAP State agencies to work with local partners 

such as food banks to distribute food to FDPIR and CSFP sites. A total of 20 

TEFAP State agencies have pursued this option to date, to the benefit of 11 

FDPIR and 13 CSFP agencies. 

• Leveraging the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA): LFPA agreements allow State and Tribal governments to procure and distribute regional foods that are unique to their geographic areas and dietary needs and preferences. Some Tribes served by FDPIR 

agencies, plus some states that administer CSFP, have cooperative agreements 

with USDA under the LFPA, and they can use LFPA funds to purchase food 

to address immediate needs while USDA works to resolve the delays. 

We understand that this situation has been frustrating to Tribal operators. To 

date, USDA has not approved Tribes to use their own trucks to pick up food from 

the Paris Brothers warehouse because the root cause of this issue is not trucking. 

Since a lack of trucks is not the issue, additional trucks would not be helpful and 

would only add to the challenges by introducing additional disruptions or slowing 

down regular processes. While we understand and appreciate the offer of help, we 

believe that we can get more food to more tribes faster by minimizing distractions 

in the warehouse and supporting Paris Brothers in picking, packing and loading 

trucks for deliveries to tribes nationwide We continue to work closely with Paris 

Brothers to address root causes and remedy the situation through corrective actions 

like increasing warehouse shifts, leasing additional space, and hiring more staff. 

40. According to a statement from NAFDPIR, ‘‘USDA initially estimated 

issues would be fixed by mid-July.’’ However, it is now September 2024, and 

this inventory crisis has not been resolved yet. Could you discuss the 

timeline of events from July 1, 2023, to now of actions taken by USDA to 

try to address the delays? When did USDA first convene a dedicated team 

of USDA case workers to assist Tribal leaders and administrating agencies? 

In May, USDA initially learned from calls with a few program operators of disruptions to Paris Brothers’ normally 98–99 percent on-time food delivery rate. 

In June 2024, USDA met with FDPIR Tribal leaders, began daily calls with Paris 

Brothers to discuss deliveries and prioritization, issued a letter to FDPIR and CSFP 

operators notifying them of the disruptions and explaining the events leading up to 

the problem, conducted a site audit of Paris Brothers’ Kansas City warehouse, initiated weekly meetings with the National Association of Food Distribution Programs 

on Indian Reservation (NAFDPIR), and addressed communications and administrative concerns onsite in Kansas City. 

In early July 2024, USDA received the first indication from Paris Brothers that 

storage space was an issue and that the continued high level of inbound trucks of 

USDA Foods was a challenge to on-time operations. USDA immediately solicited 

and contracted for additional pallet in/pallet out warehouse space to serve as overflow, awarding a contract on July 10, and began diverting dry loads of USDA commodities from Paris Brothers to the overflow space the same day. Later in July, seeing the continued challenges and lack of progress, USDA quickly stood up a wholeof USDA response to address this emergency situation. 
101 

In August 2024, USDA announced the availability of four short-term options to 

help program sites obtain food as soon as possible. These options include making 

use of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), accessing Commodity 

Credit Corporation (CCC) Funds to purchase domestic food, expanding deliveries 

through the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program (USDA 

DoD Fresh) to include items beyond produce, and purchasing local foods through 

Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreements (LFPA). USDA also established a dedicated case management team. USDA assigned a case manager to each 

FDPIR Tribal operator and CSFP State agency to provide individualized, one-on-one 

communication and assistance.USDA’s first order of business continues to be using 

every tool we have available to get food to where it is needed as soon as possible. 

We have taken an all-hands approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume 

regular, on-time deliveries to all communities that depend on FDPIR and CSFP. 

41. How can Congress ensure that USDA has the support it needs resolve 

this crisis? As USDA takes steps to build resiliency and improve the FDPIR 

and CSFP programs for the long term, can you discuss any statutory or 

budgetary barriers that you believe the Department will face? When can 

Members of Congress expect a USDA report outlining recommendations to 

Congress to improve USDA oversight of FDPIR and CSFP? 

USDA appreciates the opportunity to work with Congress as we continue to resolve the food distribution disruptions. As we take steps to build resiliency and improve the FDPIR and CSFP programs for the long-term there may be places where 

we run into statutory or financial barriers; we will be thoughtful about making 

these visible to Congress. 

Regarding recommendations to improve USDA oversight of FDPIR and CSFP, 

USDA has taken an all-hands approach to resolve the contractor delays and resume 

regular, on-time deliveries to all communities that depend on the FDPIR and the 

CFSP. We have already implemented multiple actions to address immediate needs 

as we work to restore a fully functional and dependable food distribution system 

such as offering a number of program flexibilities and direct financial assistance to 

help FDPIR and CSFP program operators access food. We’ve also put in place an 

emergency, auxiliary delivery contract to alleviate some pressure in the system over 

the next few months. Long term, we are undertaking a review of our procurement 

processes to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future and will continue 

to keep Congressional leaders and offices abreast of our efforts.