    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           HEARING TO REVIEW THE FOOD
                  DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
                       OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                                     OF THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 23, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-53

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    57-927                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                    COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania,            FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
        Vice Chairman                    Minority Member
    MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    JOE BACA, California                 TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California        SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
    JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                STEVE KING, Iowa
    STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South     RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    Dakota                               K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                 JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    JIM COSTA, California                JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
    DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois       BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER,              CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    Pennsylvania                         THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
    BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    SCOTT MURPHY, New York
    WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
    EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
    TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
    WALT MINNICK, Idaho

                                     ______

                               Professional Staff

                        Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff

                         Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel

                     April Slayton, Communications Director

                     Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director

                                     ______

       Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and
                                    Forestry

                         JOE BACA, California, Chairman

    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                 JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               Ranking Minority Member
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                STEVE KING, Iowa
    KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER,              JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    Pennsylvania                         CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi

                   Lisa Shelton, Subcommittee Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California,
      opening statement..............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Fortenberry, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................     5
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, prepared statement..................................     6

                                   Witnesses

    Concannon, Hon. Kevin W., Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition,
      and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Joseph, Jr., Hon. Andrew, Council Member, Confederated Tribes of
      the Colville Reservation; Chairman, Health Subcommittee,
      Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Chairman, Northwest
      Portland Area Indian Health Board, Portland, OR................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Merriman, Norma, Group Leader, Cherokee Nation Human Services,
      Tahlequah, OK; accompanied by Jerry Snell, Director of Family
      Assistance; and Bud Squirrel, Food Distribution Manager........    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    25

                               Submitted Material

    Goforth Parker, Ph.D., R.N., Judy, Administrator, Nation Division
      of Health, The Chickasaw Nation, submitted statement...........    39
    Goodwin, Gloria, Secretary, National and Regional Board of
      Directors, National Association of Food Distribution Programs
      on Indian Reservations, submitted statement....................    42
    Newsom, Roxanna, President, National Association of Food
      Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations, submitted paper..    48
    Rose, Ahniwake, Policy Analyst, Health and Education, National
      Congress of American Indians, submitted statement and fact
      sheet..........................................................    44
    Roy, Susie, Food Distribution Director, Leech Lake Band of
      Ojibwe; Member, Board of Directors, National Association of
      Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations, submitted
      statement......................................................    44

                           HEARING TO REVIEW THE FOOD
                  DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,
                               Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joe Baca
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Baca, Dahlkemper,
    Fortenberry, and Lummis.
        Staff Present: Claiborne Crain, Tyler Jameson, John Konya,
    James Ryder, Lisa Shelton, Pam Miller, Mary Nowak, Jamie
    Mitchell, and Sangina Wright.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                        CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

        The Chairman. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Department
    Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry to review the
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations will come to
    order. With that, I will begin with opening statements.
        I am Congressman Joe Baca from southern California,
    representing the 43rd Congressional District. After I make my
    opening statement I will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Fortenberry from Nebraska, to give his opening remarks. And any
    other Members, as they show up this morning, we will allow them
    an opportunity to make some remarks if they wish so. If not,
    then we will turn to the witnesses.
        Good morning, and thank you for being here before the
    Subcommittee to examine the Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations. For many months, I have hoped to hold this
    hearing to take a closer look at the FDPIR program, which in my
    opinion, does not get enough attention. It is unfortunate, but
    a fact of life is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease here
    in Washington, D.C.: out of sight, out of mind. And while the
    tribes have continued to work hard for their communities, they
    are, unfortunately, not always given the attention they deserve
    from Congress.
        With that said, we are long overdue in reviewing the
    effectiveness of this program. In fact, we went back and looked
    at the official records and could not find--and I state, could
    not--find a hearing that focused exclusively on Food
    Distribution Program on Indian Reservations at any time in the
    recent past. So your comments are even more important.
        Not to make you fearful, but you are representing many
    other tribes that are not here, so your statements today are on
    behalf of many others are very much interested in assuring that
    we address the needs of the many tribes throughout the nation.
    And your comments will also be taken into consideration as we
    look at reauthorization of the 2012 Farm Bill.
        We look forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses on
    the range of issues that concern the Food Distribution Program
    on Indian Reservations.
        We all know that access to wholesome and nutritious foods
    affects health, particularly among children and low-income
    populations. The First Lady, Michelle Obama, has done a great
    job of bringing much attention to the needs of better nutrition
    across America. But as we look across America, we must look at
    our reservations and the impact it is having on the tribes.
        In the most recent farm bill, Congress made it a priority
    to strengthen and modernize the nutritional programs like SNAP
    and TEFAP which affect millions of Americans. But we must not
    overlook the Federal nutrition program that serves our tribal
    communities.
        Sadly, the rate of diabetes in these communities is at 17
    percent, almost double the rate of the rest of the population.
    There is a direct correlation between poor nutrition, obesity,
    and the onset of Type 2 diabetes. Proper nutrition and health
    among Native American populations should be a top priority for
    the Federal Government, as well as every taxpayer and every
    individual, because the higher the cost of obesity due to a
    lack of good nutrition, we all ultimately end up paying the
    price.
        That is why we are here; to get answers to so many
    questions: what can we do to stay more informed on unique
    circumstances of each tribal community; how can we work
    together to better understand the issues like geographical
    isolation? We all know what happened with the storms last year
    on many reservations where you couldn't even get in. There are
    chronic health problems and cultural concerns. What method
    works to improve nutrition and health in tribal communities?
    And what methods do not work?
        What are the language barriers? What changes, if any, need
    to be made to the existing Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations to improve its effectiveness? These are just a few
    of those critical questions that we hope to answer at today's
    hearing.
        Again I want to thank you for your willingness to
    participate in today's hearing. It is part of history. You are
    making history and we are creating the kind of awareness and
    the dialogue and collaboration that is needed. We are here to
    listen and to learn so that we can make good policy choices. We
    owe it to you and to our country to act to the best of our
    ability.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baca follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Baca, a Representative in Congress from
                                   California

        Good morning, and thank you for being here before this Subcommittee
    to examine the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
        For some months now, I have hoped to hold this hearing to take a
    close look at a program that--in my opinion--does not get enough
    attention.
        It is an unfortunate fact of life that the squeaky wheel usually
    gets the grease in Washington, D.C.
        And while the tribes have continued to work hard for their
    communities, they are unfortunately, not always given the attention
    they deserve from Congress.
        With that said, we are long overdue in reviewing the effectiveness
    of this program.
        In fact, we went back and looked at the official records and could
    not find a hearing that focused exclusively on FDPIR at any time in the
    recent past.
        So, your comments are even more important, as we anticipate farm
    bill reauthorization in 2012.
        We look forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses on the
    range of issues that concern FDPIR.
        We all know that access to wholesome and nutritious foods affects
    health--particularly among children and low-income populations.
        First Lady Michelle Obama has done a great job of bringing much
    needed attention to the need for better nutrition across America.
        In the most recent farm bill--Congress made it a priority to
    strengthen and modernize nutrition programs like SNAP and TEFAP, which
    affect millions of Americans.
        But we must not overlook the Federal nutrition programs that serve
    our tribal communities.
        Proper nutrition and health among Native American populations
    should be a top priority of the Federal Government.
        That's why we are here today.
        What can we do to stay more informed on the unique circumstances of
    each tribal community?
        How can we work together to better understand issues like
    geographic isolation, chronic health problems, and cultural concerns?
        What methods work to improve nutrition and health in tribal
    communities; and what methods do not work?
        What changes, if any, need to be made to the existing FDPIR program
    to improve its effectiveness?
        These are just a few of the critical questions we hope to answer at
    today's hearing.
        Again, I thank all of you for your willingness to participate in
    today's hearing.
        It is important that you share your candid thoughts with us so we
    can make good decisions about this program.
        We are here to listen and to learn so we can make good policy
    choices.
        We owe it to you and to the country to serve to the best of our
    ability.
        I am now pleased to yield to our Ranking Member, Rep. Jeff
    Fortenberry, for his opening comments.

                                   Attachment

      I am now pleased to yield to our Ranking Member, Representative Jeff
     Fortenberry from Nebraska, for his opening comments.OPENING STATEMENT
      OF HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA

        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
    today to review the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. I
    appreciate the witnesses' time and look forward to the testimony on
    this important subject.
        This program does operate differently than the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program--SNAP, as we call it--which allows
    participants to purchase almost any food item from an authorized food
    retailer with an electronic benefit transfer card, EBT. Instead, the
    Food Distribution Program provides participants with a monthly food
    package to help them maintain a nutritionally balanced diet.
        While both SNAP and the Food Distribution Program have the same
    goal of providing access to healthy food, the manner in which each
    program achieves that goal is quite different, as the Chairman pointed
    out.
        As we begin this process of reauthorizing the farm bill and
    nutrition programs, I am hopeful today that the witnesses will share
    with us what is working well in the Food Distribution Programs and what
    changes may actually need to be considered.
        Chairman Baca and I have both spent a great deal of time, together
    and separately, discussing health and wellness initiatives, and agree
    that balanced nutrition is the key to a healthier America.
        This Subcommittee has held a number of hearings to discuss the
    causes, ramifications, and potential solutions to the rising rate of
    obesity across the country. I am always interested in learning about
    innovative approaches that encourage a healthy lifestyle that includes
    nutritious diet and increased physical activity.
        Seven out of every ten deaths in this country are caused by a
    chronic condition, and the top four killers are heart disease,
    diabetes, cancer and strokes. These are largely lifestyle-related
    diseases. They could be prevented or better managed, and in some cases
    even reversed through healthy lifestyle changes. The Food Distribution
    Program can be a part of this solution by providing a nutritionally
    balanced food package that includes quality, fresh, desirable foods
    that appeal to the participants in the program as well.
        I look forward, again, to hearing from our witnesses today to learn
    more about how the program has actually been operating and, again, what
    has been successful and what we might seek to change in the 2012 Farm
    Bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue.
    And I look forward to the insights that we learn together today.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your comments and your
    continued concern as we address this issue and many other issues in
    this Committee, as well.
        I am going to request that other Members submit their opening
    statements for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
                            Congress from Minnesota

        Thank you, Chairman Baca, for calling today's hearing. I am glad we
    are here to discuss the Federal Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations (FDPIR). This is the first hearing of the House
    Agriculture Committee focused primarily on FDPIR and issues related to
    food distribution on Indian Reservations. So, we are long overdue to
    have a productive and frank conversation about how this program is
    working.
        Today, I hope we can take a look at the FDPIR and how it is working
    for the Native American populations it is intended to serve. One of
    this Committee's many responsibilities is oversight, and we need to
    ensure that both the beneficiaries of FDPIR and the American taxpayer
    are being well-served. As the Committee begins to consider the 2012
    Farm Bill, we are taking a look at many of the programs under the
    Committee's jurisdiction to be sure that we are spending available
    money as effectively as possible, and today's hearing is exactly the
    type of conversation we need to have.
        Most people agree that FDPIR needs some improvements. And so, we
    need to hear from those who use FDPIR to help us assess the current
    situation and consider possible changes. I want to thank our witnesses
    for testifying today and sharing their views and expertise, because is
    absolutely critical to that conversation.
        Chairman Baca, thank you again for holding today's hearing, and I
    look forward to the testimony.

        The Chairman. At this time we would like to turn it to our
    first witness. We would like to welcome Honorable Kevin
    Concannon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
    Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Concannon, please begin when you are ready.

              STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN W. CONCANNON, UNDER
                   SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND
    CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON,
                                  D.C.

        Mr. Concannon. Thank you very much. Good morning and thank
    you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Fortenberry, and Members
    of the Committee, for this opportunity to discuss the Food
    Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, or as we refer to
    it, FDPIR.
        I am pleased to be here today to give an overview of this
    important USDA program that fulfills a vital need serving low-
    income Native Americans who live on or near reservations. FDPIR
    is an alternative to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program and is authorized under the Food and Nutrition Act of
    2008. The program provides packages of nutritious USDA foods on
    275 Indian Reservations, pueblos, rancherias and Alaska Native
    Villages. Five state agencies and 99 Indian Tribal
    Organizations, or ITOs, provide this assistance to an average
    of 90,000 participants each month.
        How the program works. Today's FDPIR is an updated, modern
    version that is attuned to nutritional goals, and purchases
    food specifically for the food package, rather than relying on
    surplus items. And I think that is really important.
        USDA ships foods to the ITOs and state agencies based on
    their orders from a list of more than 100 available foods.
    These agencies store and distribute the food, determine
    applicants' eligibility, and provide nutrition education to
    recipients. ITOs have latitude to decide how to set up their
    food delivery system to be responsive to participant needs in
    their communities, including pickup from a local warehouse,
    delivery to a central location within the community, store-like
    locations or, as I saw last week up in Minnesota, even routes
    that may be 150 miles in terms of range that are delivered from
    a central location.
        President Obama's budget for this program for Fiscal Year
    2011 is $110 million, which breaks out to be approximately $73
    million for food purchases and approximately $37 million for
    administrative funding.
        The food package provides a variety of food items to
    participating households to help meet their nutritional needs.
    It is reviewed on an ongoing basis for its nutritional profile
    and customer satisfaction by the FDPIR Food Package Review Work
    Group, which includes representatives of the tribally and
    state-appointed FDPIR directors, USDA procurement specialists,
    nutrition and health experts from the Food and Nutrition
    Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
    the Indian Health Service.
        One clear focus of this work group has been to reduce fat,
    sugar, and sodium levels and to improve food package appeal and
    convenience to recipients. As a part of the strategic plan of
    the Department of Agriculture to encourage local and regional
    food production, FNS is continuing to explore how traditional
    foods important to many Native communities can be incorporated
    into FNS' nutrition assistance programs.
        With regard to Native communities, we already possess the
    authority to purchase traditional foods. Incorporating these
    more culturally appropriate foods will improve farm income
    within the reservation communities.
        Complementing the foods offered in the FDPIR are several
    nutrition education initiatives. We are working with tribal
    communities and other health organizations to continue to
    understand the health and nutritional challenges facing those
    who receive FDPIR services such as--as the Chairman has noted--
    the high rates of overweight, obesity and diabetes found among
    American Indians.
        We have awarded approximately $1 million each year to
    Indian Tribal Organizations in grants for nutrition education
    since 2008, and I witnessed one of those again last week when I
    was in Minnesota. These have included individual nutritional
    counseling, cooking demonstrations, nutrition classes,
    dissemination of information on how to use and store USDA foods
    that are part of the Indian tribal food distribution programs.
        Funds for administrative costs in FDPIR have been a concern
    for the Indian Tribal Organizations. In 2005, FNS convened a
    funding work group comprised of FNS staff, state and ITO
    representatives, which resulted in a funding methodology that
    allocates funding based on the number of FDPIR participants and
    the number of programs in each of the seven FNS regions of the
    country.
        Another important enhancement for FDPIR was $5 million in
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding last year to
    purchase equipment and improve facilities. Funds were used for
    the purchase of trucks, warehouse equipment, needed upgrades or
    repairs to heating and cooling systems, roofing, and even
    warehouse structures.
        FNS remains committed to meeting its responsibilities as
    identified in President Obama's memorandum regarding tribal
    consultation and collaboration. Secretary Vilsack, our
    Secretary, has an action plan for the Department of Agriculture
    with regard to tribal consultation. To those ends, FNS is
    working with Department officials to develop a plan to actively
    engage with tribal governments in consultation regarding this
    very feeding program.
        Looking forward, it is clear that FDPIR continues to
    fulfill an important place in the Federal food safety net. It
    combines extensive reach into Indian Country with the
    opportunity for local administration. Yet we are always looking
    for ways to improve the program. We will continue to work
    closely with partners such as ITOs, state agencies, and
    Congress to ensure that we are doing all we can to assist the
    Native American community.
        And I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
    Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Concannon follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin W. Concannon, Under Secretary for
    Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                Washington, D.C.

        Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Fortenberry, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
    discuss the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
        I am pleased to be here today to give an overview of this important
    USDA program that fulfills a vital need to serve low-income Native
    Americans who live on or near reservations. FDPIR is an alternative to
    the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food
    Stamp Program) and is authorized under Section 4(b) of the Food and
    Nutrition Act of 2008. The Program provides food packages of nutritious
    USDA foods on 275 Indian Reservations, pueblos, rancherias, and Alaska
    Native Villages. Five state agencies and 99 Indian Tribal Organizations
    (ITOs) provide this assistance to approximately 90,000 participants
    each month.

    History of FDPIR
        The FDPIR was born from the Needy Family Program, which predated
    the Food Stamp Program and utilized surplus food donations while
    operating in many counties and Indian Reservations in the 1960s and
    1970s. With the effort to make the Food Stamp Program available
    nationwide in the 1970s, there was also an effort to phase out the
    Needy Family Program. Several tribes that were operating that program,
    however, were reluctant to move toward food stamps because stores that
    accepted food stamps were not always conveniently located and may not
    have offered products at affordable prices. The Food Stamp Act of 1977
    afforded low-income households on reservations the option of
    participating in either the Food Stamp Program or FDPIR; if they so
    choose, participants are actually able to switch between the two
    programs each month according to their need and preference. However,
    access to healthy and affordable food remains limited in or on many
    reservations.

    How FDPIR Works
        Today's FDPIR is an updated, modern program that is attuned to
    nutritional goals and purchases food specifically for the food package
    rather than relying on surplus items. USDA ships food to the ITOs and
    state agencies based on their orders from the list of available foods.
    These agencies store and distribute the food, determine applicant
    eligibility and provide nutrition education to recipients. FDPIR
    operates on established Indian reservations, which are located mostly
    in the West, Midwest, and Southwest and are often very rural. There are
    a number of ways that participants can obtain their food packages,
    including pick up from a local warehouse, delivery to a central
    location within the community, or from ``store locations'' at some
    reservations. ITOs have latitude to decide how to set up their food
    delivery system to be responsive to participant needs in their
    community. USDA provides administrative costs to administering ITOs and
    state agencies to support program delivery. The President's budget for
    this program for Fiscal Year 2011 is $110 million which breaks out to
    approximately $72.9 million for food purchases and about $37.1 million
    for administrative funding.

    FDPIR Food Package
        FDPIR provides a variety of food items to participating households
    to help meet their nutritional needs. Included in the food package are:
    frozen meats, canned meats, fresh and canned fruits and vegetables,
    juices, peanuts and peanut butter, vegetable oil, soups, pastas, rice,
    cereals, cheese, beans, flour, and low-fat bakery mix.
        The food package is reviewed on an on-going basis for its
    nutritional profile and customer satisfaction by the FDPIR Food Package
    Review Work Group that includes representatives of the tribally- and
    state-appointed FDPIR directors, procurement specialists from the Farm
    Service Agency and the Agricultural Marketing Service, and nutrition
    and health experts from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Indian Health
    Service.
        A clear focus of the work group has been to reduce fat, sugar, and
    sodium levels and to improve food package appeal and convenience to
    participants. We are very proud of the FDPIR Food Package Review Work
    Group and what this partnership has accomplished so far. The Work Group
    is considering more improvements to the food package, such as more
    fruits, vegetables, meats, reduced-fat dairy products, and whole grain
    selections.
        One recent item under consideration for the FDPIR food package is
    bison. This item has been popular with tribes. However, due to its
    higher cost, bison has only been offered with specific Congressional
    appropriation. In recent discussions with the FDPIR Food Package Review
    Work Group, the possibility of offering this on a seasonal basis has
    been discussed, and we are working to see if this can be accommodated.
    As we come closer to a resolution, we will be advising the Committee of
    our progress.
        Over the past several years, all USDA foods--including those
    offered under FDPIR--have been subject to nutritional review and the
    items in the package now have reduced sodium, sugar, and fat content.
    FNS is guided in this effort by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
        Before leaving the discussion of the food package, I want to
    explain something we call DOD Fresh. Started as a pilot in October
    1995, in cooperation with the Department of Defense (DOD), the program
    allows DOD to supply fresh fruit and vegetables directly to schools.
    Due to its success, DOD Fresh was expanded to include purchases for
    FDPIR, thereby allowing the programs to order fresh fruits and
    vegetables using DOD purchasing agents. About 91 percent of FDPIR
    programs are enrolled in this option, allowing for a variety of fruits
    and vegetables probably not available any other way. Households may
    select the fresh produce in lieu of the canned fruits and vegetables
    when they pick up their monthly food package.
        To give an example of the fresh produce offered through DOD Fresh,
    some recently added selections include more apple varieties, asparagus,
    avocado, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cherries, seedless grapes,
    honeydew melon, kiwis, Romaine lettuce, nectarines, plums, and
    radishes.
        FNS is working with other USDA agencies to encourage local and
    regional food production as part of the overarching strategic plan of
    the Department. FNS is exploring how traditional foods important to
    many Native communities can be incorporated into FNS' nutrition
    assistance programs. With regard to Native communities, we already
    possess the authority to purchase traditional foods. Incorporating
    these more culturally appropriate foods will improve farm income within
    reservation communities.

    Food Package Quality
        The 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to review the nutritional quality
    of the food package provided for FDPIR, comparing its content to
    scientific standards including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and
    nutrition benefits under SNAP. We also made comparisons to the Dietary
    Reference Intakes (DRIs), the Thrifty Food Plan nutrient standards and
    the Healthy Eating Index--2005. To quote from the summary of the FDPIR
    Food Package Nutritional Quality: Report to Congress:

            The FDPIR food package provides a nutritious variety of foods,
            and sufficient calories to meet the energy needs of most
            sedentary individuals and many moderately active children.
            While, similar to American diets in general, there is room for
            improvement in the quantities of fruits, vegetables, low-fat
            dairy products and whole grains, the nutritional content of the
            package is considerable. Individuals consuming FDPIR foods in
            the quantities provided would achieve a HEI-2005 score of 81
            out of 100, considerably better than Americans in general (58
            out of 100) and SNAP participants (52 out of 100). The efforts
            of the FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group, a partnership
            between FNS and the American Indian community to improve the
            food package, have contributed to the package's quality.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The entire report can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/
    menu/Published/FoodDistribution/FDStudies.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Web-Based Ordering
        FNS is currently in the midst of major system changes that will
    affect the ordering process for our program operators. In the coming
    months, FNS and other agencies will be transitioning to Web-Based
    Supply Chain Management (WBSCM). WBSCM is an initiative to replace the
    aging Processed Commodity Inventory Management System (PCIMS) and
    satellite systems including USDA's Electronic Commodity Ordering System
    (ECOS). WBSCM is a commercial off-the-shelf system featuring standard
    e-commerce food order entry, real-time order and shipment status,
    online viewing of shipment documents, and an integrated enterprise
    supply chain system. It will make doing business with USDA easier by
    increasing collaboration, data and information visibility, efficiency,
    and improving service to customers, suppliers, and business partners
    through a seamless, efficient supply chain.
        WBSCM is slated to go live at the end of this month (June 2010).
    This will impact FDPIR because FNS must temporarily stop most food
    ordering in mid-June. FNS has been preparing FDPIR ITOs and state
    agencies for this transition by providing training sessions on the new
    system and encouraging all ITOs and state agencies to order the foods
    they need to serve full food packages to participants in advance of the
    mid-June cutoff date. Ordering through the new system will start at the
    beginning of July.

    Nutrition Education Materials
        Complementing the foods offered in the FDPIR are several nutrition
    education initiatives. We are working with Tribal communities and other
    health organizations to continue to understand the health and
    nutritional challenges facing those who receive FDPIR services.
    American Indians in general face high rates of over weight, obesity,
    and diabetes. Our concern over these diet-related illnesses is linked
    to our broader concerns with the obesity epidemic. Strengthening FDPIR
    is one of the many steps USDA will be taking to contribute the
    Administration's goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity
    within a generation. Over 16 percent of American Indian and Alaska
    Native adults served by the Indian Health Service have been diagnosed
    with diabetes, about twice the rate found in U.S. non-Hispanic whites.
    Diabetes-related mortality for these groups is about three times the
    national rate. In addition, up to 75 percent of American Indians are
    lactose intolerant, potentially limiting their use of low-cost dairy
    products containing lactose and presenting a challenge in delivering
    adequate calcium, potassium and vitamin D.\2\ We at USDA want to be
    sure that our programs are responsive to concerns about diet-related
    illnesses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ FDPIR Food Package Nutritional Quality: Report to Congress--
    Summary, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis,
    November 2008. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We understand that we need to be part of the solution and. USDA is
    committed to ensuring that we have materials and support for increasing
    nutrition awareness and effecting wise food choices. We provide FDPIR
    participants with information about nutrition and suggestions for
    making the most nutritious use of USDA foods. Available materials
    include:

       USDA food fact sheets that provide storage, preparation
            tips, nutrition information, and recipes are accessible on the
            FNS website: www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir/cfs_fdpir.htm.

       ``A River of Recipes: Native American Recipes Using
            Commodity Foods''--A collection of tried and true recipes
            submitted by program participants (accessible on the website
            at: www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/recipes/hhp/fdpir-cookbk_river1.pdf).
            Also, we are developing another book containing 40 culturally
            relevant recipes using USDA foods along with photographs and
            graphics. Some of these recipes were submitted to us by program
            participants.

        In FY 2010, we distributed seven different nutrition education
    videos in DVD format to each ITO and state administering FDPIR. The
    videos can be shown to program participants in waiting areas, during
    nutrition education classes and special events, and in other venues.
    Topics covered include how to analyze food labels, eating healthy
    portion sizes, and choosing healthy beverages.
        In FY 2007, we initiated a FDPIR NutritionTalk Listserv. The
    listserv plays a role in promoting open communication and an exchange
    of information between tribal communities, USDA, and other agencies and
    organizations that provide diverse nutrition education, materials,
    resources, and/or health-related services to participants in FDPIR.
        Administering agencies are responsible for providing nutrition
    education to participants. Federal administrative funding is available
    for these activities, which can include individual nutrition
    counseling, cooking demonstrations, nutrition classes, and the
    dissemination of information on how USDA foods may be used to
    contribute to a nutritious diet and on the proper storage of USDA
    foods. In FY 2008-2010, we awarded nutrition education grant funds
    totaling approximately $1 million each year to ITOs. These grants were
    created to enhance the nutritional knowledge of participants and to
    foster positive lifestyle changes for eligible household members
    through intensive, integrated nutrition education interventions.
        Additionally, we are currently working in conjunction with USDA's
    Food and Nutrition Information Center to develop a nutrition education
    training module for FDPIR staff providing nutrition education to
    recipients. The module will be available via the Internet. It will
    provide tips on making nutrition education fun, advice on serving low-
    literacy recipients, and information on reading food labels, nutrient
    basics, food safety, and other topics. We are also developing a
    depository site where nutrition education and technical assistance
    materials for FDPIR recipients, and best nutrition education practices
    can be shared by ITOs and states. FNS is committed to working with
    Tribal governments to ensure that the administrative and delivery
    mechanisms for FDPIR ensure to the greatest extent possible the dignity
    and self-worth of those receiving package benefits.

    Administrative Costs
        Funding for administrative costs in FDPIR has been a concern for
    the ITOs and, in 2005, FNS convened a FDPIR Funding Work Group
    comprised of FNS staff and representative of the tribally- and state-
    appointed Program Directors to develop a funding methodology that would
    be fair and easy to understand.
        This was a large and difficult undertaking--bringing divergent
    perspectives together to solve a common problem. The result was a
    funding methodology that allocates funding among the FNS Regional
    Offices, with 65 percent of the funds allocated based on each Regional
    Office's share of the national number of FDPIR participants, and 35
    percent allocated according to the number of FDPIR programs in the
    region. Each Regional Office continues to negotiate with individual
    FDPIR administrators on the approval of their annual program budgets,
    within the amount of funds allocated to the Regional Office.
        Another important enhancement for FDPIR was $5 million in American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funding last year to
    purchase equipment and improve facilities. Funds were used for the
    purchase of trucks and warehouse equipment and needed upgrades or
    repairs to heating and cooling systems, roofing, and warehouse
    structures.

    Comparison to SNAP
        I mentioned earlier that FDPIR was intended to be an alternative to
    SNAP. In fact, household eligibility is very similar between the two
    programs. For example, under both programs, a household's net monthly
    income must be less than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
    However, under SNAP, states have options like waiver authority (where,
    for example, the requirement for face-to-face interviews could be
    waived), categorical eligibility, and other rules allowing for
    flexibility. In FDPIR, the original design goal was to keep the income
    and resource limits at the same level as SNAP so that most households
    would be eligible for both programs. Month-to-month switches between
    the programs are allowed. The more complex features in SNAP were not
    carried over to FDPIR so that the program would be easier to
    administer. The benefit delivered also makes the two programs differ.
    In SNAP, as household income rises, the amount of SNAP benefit
    decreases up to the minimum allotment. In FDPIR, there is no benefit
    reduction from the full food package amount, making the food package a
    better deal for those with net monthly incomes close to the income
    limit.
        There are also practical and cost limits to what is available for
    delivery in FDPIR. While USDA does work continuously to improve the
    healthfulness and variety of the foods we offer, large grocery stores
    can offer thousands of items that can be purchased with SNAP Electronic
    Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards; this variety of food choices is one
    widely reported reason that households switch from FDPIR to SNAP. Under
    the Recovery Act, the law raised the Thrifty Food Plan allotment by
    13.6 percent starting in April 2009, giving households in SNAP
    increased purchasing power and improving the comparative attractiveness
    of SNAP to FDPIR.

    Future Considerations
        As we move forward, we will continue to look for opportunities to
    support the nutrition needs of Native Americans, not only through FDPIR
    but our other nutrition programs as well. For example, we are currently
    exploring strategies for encouraging greater use of traditional native
    foods through the school meals program. The 2008 Farm Bill gave schools
    greater flexibility to preferentially purchase locally-produced
    unprocessed agricultural projects. USDA is now working with Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education to improve school lunch
    offerings in BIA schools, while encouraging farm-to-school market
    opportunities for farmers and ranchers, increasing access to
    traditional foods, and implementing the First Lady's `Let's Move'
    initiative focused on reducing childhood obesity within BIA schools.
        FNS remains committed to meeting its responsibilities as identified
    in the Presidential Memorandum regarding Tribal Consultation and
    Collaboration, and the Secretary's Action Plan for the Department with
    regard to implementation of E.O. 13175. We recognize the
    responsibilities USDA and FNS hold with regard to Tribal governments
    and their citizens and we respect the government-to-government
    relationship. USDA's Strategic Plan additionally recognizes and
    incorporates these important responsibilities. To those ends, FNS is
    working with Department officials to craft a plan to actively engage
    with Tribal governments in consultation with regard to FDPIR. We would
    be glad to brief the Committee at a future date concerning the outcomes
    of those consultation sessions.
        Looking forward, it is clear that FDPIR continues to fulfill a
    unique place in the Federal food safety net. No other nutrition
    assistance program combines the reach into Indian Country with the
    opportunity for local administration. Yet we are always looking to
    improve the program and will continue to work closely with partners
    such as ITOs, state agencies, and Congress to ensure that we are doing
    all we can to assist the Native American community.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
    answering any questions that you may have.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony this
    morning.
        Before I begin with the questions, I would like to welcome
    Kathy Dahlkemper from Pennsylvania to our Committee.
        With that, I will begin with some of the questions. We will
    have 5 minutes, and then at the end of 5 minutes I will turn it
    over to other Members here to ask additional questions.
        Under Secretary, one of the questions that I have is
    pertaining to diabetes. With the high rate of diabetes among
    Indian populations, is there a way to combine the nutritional
    goals of FDPIR with the health needs of those with diabetes?
        Mr. Concannon. Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed. And again, I was
    fortunate to fly up to Minnesota last week to observe firsthand
    an Ojibwe Reservation's efforts and initiatives in the FDPIR
    program. And while I was there, I also got to meet
    representatives from the Indian Health Service, from the tribal
    leadership itself, and from the FDPIR program operated in those
    communities; in this case, White Earth. And they had a specific
    focus on education, both preventive education to prevent
    diabetes, and they showed me some very culturally aligned, very
    appropriate versions of the food, My Food Pyramid that had been
    adopted--or adapted, I should say--to the tribal community. It
    was a tepee-shaped MyPyramid that showed in each of the
    categories of MyPyramid the specific FDPIR foods and where they
    fit in: the grains, the fresh vegetables, et cetera. And they
    showed me some, again, efforts that they make with families
    when they come in. And I was particularly pleased to see the
    engagement with the Indian Health Service and the commitment of
    the tribal leadership itself on the nutrition education side.
    They were very much aware of it. This was an outstanding
    example to see it firsthand.
        So I know, as I mention in my testimony, when we select the
    foods for this, we have participation from that advisory group
    from the Centers for Disease Control that has a pretty
    significant initiative, as it pertains to diabetes in the
    Indian community. We link our education funds, and, in fact, a
    person, a Native representative who was there last week, who is
    actually part of the SNAP education program. So, in this
    particular community, there is a lot of integration of the
    various education efforts, recognizing the terrific challenges
    that are there with the very high rates of diabetes that you
    mentioned in your statement.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Have there been any studies that
    have been done? Because we should look at nutrition and
    diabetes and the effects on our children and adults, and on the
    life span of individuals on our reservations.
        Mr. Concannon. I am not directly aware myself. I know there
    have been studies done by us under CDC auspices around diabetes
    in the Native Community, but I am unaware directly. I will have
    that checked out in terms of life span. But I would expect it
    would adversely affect life expectancy, just because of those
    very high rates.
        The Chairman. Right. A lot of our children are dying a lot
    sooner because of obesity. That has led to a lot of interest
    around the issue of nutrition and changing the culture in terms
    of eating. I know that you addressed that in part of your
    testimony, that we need to begin to change the culture of what
    we eat. It doesn't mean that we can't eat some of the same
    food, but we have to eat in moderation. It impacts us. And it
    impacts the type of food distribution on our reservations, too.
        Mr. Concannon. You know, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
    reference to the food that is distributed on the reservations.
    I took the occasion to spend some time in the warehouse of this
    tribal organization, and the warehouse manager, as well as the
    FDPIR director for the tribal community, were pointing out to
    me the individual items that are now available through FDPIR.
    And as I mentioned in my testimony, it is no longer the surplus
    food program that it was when it started back in the 1970s. The
    food has been markedly improved in terms of less sodium, less
    sugar. There is much more focus on nutritious foods, more whole
    grains.
        And the staff in the warehouse pointed that out to me as
    they were filling orders for individual families. Less salt,
    for example, in the canned vegetables that were available. They
    brought me into the freezer to show me the fresh produce that
    is available through the Department of Defense as part of the
    FDPIR program, which are additions to the program in recent
    years. So we know the food package is getting healthier.
        But I was also reminded by a tribal nurse that they have
    the same challenges in tribal communities that the rest of the
    country has with young people not exercising enough. We spend
    too much time watching television, playing computer games,
    working on computers. And interestingly enough, this particular
    tribal community had a program they run in the summertime, a
    camp that is very much focused on nutrition, but also activity.
    But you have to physically be active.
        The Chairman. Okay, thank you. You mentioned at the
    beginning of your testimony, if I am correct, that in the food
    distribution allocation for 2011, the President has allocated
    $110 million. Is that correct?
        Mr. Concannon. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Is that enough for food distribution on our
    reservations in light of the high unemployment, and in light of
    the economic situation that we are in right now?
        Mr. Concannon. That is a fair question to ask. But it
    reflects our best belief that this will be adequate to cover
    the needs, because there has been a slight decline in the
    actual number of FDPIR recipients because, as I think you and
    the Ranking Member realize, Native Americans have the option of
    either participating in FDPIR program or in the SNAP program.
        And I have asked internally at FNS that in the next year,
    whereas we are now developing our research agenda, that we look
    at the interaction between SNAP and the FDPIR program.
        I believe that some individuals are moving from FDPIR over
    to the SNAP program because, in the stimulus bill, if you will
    recall, the average monthly benefit in SNAP was increased, and
    that same increase was not accorded to the FDPIR program. So I
    believe there are individuals who are making decisions to move
    into SNAP.
        Of the 40 million people in the U.S. currently on the SNAP
    program, 1.4 million of that 40 million identify themselves as
    Native Americans.
        Personally, that's unfortunate because the FDPIR program
    offers a particularly relevant and healthy set of food choices.
    But, its average monthly value may be viewed as less than
    should that family be on the SNAP program in areas where they
    have access to other food stores. And in many places, as I
    think the Chairman and Members are aware, tribal communities
    are located in isolated regions, and they don't have good
    access to supermarkets. They are in virtual ``food deserts,''
    as the term has come to be used.
        The Chairman. What can be done to create the awareness of
    what is available to many of our tribes in the reservations?
    This is money that has already been allocated in our past farm
    bill. Yet, there is lack of participation. Individuals are
    still not applying and utilizing the SNAP program the way they
    should be.
        It is not like it is going to cost the state or the
    reservations or anyone additional dollars. These are dollars
    that are already allocated that are just sitting there that are
    not being used.
        What do we need to do to educate our communities and create
    the kind of awareness that will make our tribes a lot
    healthier? What can be done, either through education programs,
    awareness programs, outreach programs?
        Mr. Concannon. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think clearly one of
    the areas in which more effort and more focus has to be devoted
    is to communicate to the tribal communities that the food
    package, the 100+ foods that are available through the FDPIR,
    indeed, are not the surplus commodities of old. It is a much
    improved food package. And we suffer, frankly, from the sort of
    stereotype or the legacy of that old-line surplus food program.
        These are much healthier foods. And I know that is an area
    that we are very interested in, in basically communicating a
    more up-to-date brand, if you will, on the fact that these
    foods are healthier, they have less salt, less sugar. You no
    longer can purchase or receive certain commodities in this
    because they were out of compliance with the dietary
    guidelines.
        Interestingly enough, Congress directed the Food and
    Nutrition Service in the 2008 Farm Bill to assess the health
    quality in the FDPIR food package. And four measures were used.
    Those were the dietary guidelines for all Americans, the
    MyPyramid, the thrifty food plan that we rely upon, and the
    healthy eating index that has been developed by the Center for
    Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
        And interestingly enough, the food package available in the
    FDPIR program received a composite score of 81. The food that
    the average American eats in all income levels received a score
    of 58. And the SNAP program participants received a score of
    52. So actually, this program, FDPIR, both on the basis of the
    foods available and the foods selected by recipients, has moved
    much further in the direction of better nutritional eating.
        So part of it is our goal to overcome the stigma, if you
    will, of the history of the past program. But also, we need to
    make sure that we keep the program in alignment in terms of
    eligibility and benefits with the SNAP program because that has
    historically been the intent of Congress: to make sure that
    this program parallels the SNAP program.
        The fact that with the stimulus additions to SNAP, SNAP may
    be viewed in certain communities across the country as more
    financially beneficial than the FDPIR. And I think that would
    be an important area to look at in the reauthorization of the
    next farm bill.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        At this time, I would like to turn it over to our Ranking
    Member, Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very interested in the last comment you made, because
    it is related to what I have been interested in finding out.
    Whether or not there is a correlation with this subset of food
    delivery program, as a part of our larger nutritional programs
    to improved outcomes in health, reduced costs, while we are
    protecting vulnerable persons. It is more than just us talking
    about how effective this is, this program that is being
    delivered, how it is meeting the mandate of Congress. Can it be
    viewed as a trial subset of a paradigm shift potentially, in
    the way in which all nutrition programs are potentially
    effective and then delivered? So can you speak to that?
        Have you run any studies that, again, try to look at this
    methodology and compare it to other methodologies of food
    distribution, measured by improved healthcare outcomes, reduced
    costs, as well as the proper protection for vulnerable persons?
        Mr. Concannon. Mr. Fortenberry, I understand your question.
    To my knowledge, I don't think there are any current studies
    that incorporate all of those elements. I am very mindful that
    we are about to award a healthy eating pilot that Congress
    authorized in the last farm bill that is intended to test
    creating incentives for individuals enrolled in the SNAP
    program to purchase more fruits and vegetables. And we are very
    interested in that.
        And actually, earlier this week I had a meeting with a
    coalition of organizations that are deeply committed to locally
    grown foods, but also encouraging low-income folks to have
    better access to farmers markets and healthier foods. And I
    know there are private sector initiatives that we are watching
    very closely through organizations like Wholesome Wave, where
    they are creating additional incentives for people to buy
    healthier foods.
        I am also mindful that one of the largest food chains in
    the country is tracking very carefully the purchases made under
    the SNAP program. And they indicate to me that purchases made
    by the SNAP enrollees aren't significantly different from the
    rest of us. And so I think that brings us back to the need to
    do a better job of both educating and nudging people in the
    direction of eating healthier.
        The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is part of
    our mission area at USDA that I have responsibility for. And I
    was reminded months ago by the director that only two percent
    of Americans--unfortunately, only two percent of Americans--
    fully adhere to the dietary guidelines for all Americans. And
    even though we intellectually may know we should eat better,
    not enough people really live up to that. And I think it is a
    challenge for us.
        We have lots of professional nutritionists and dieticians,
    but we are also beefing up our capacity with more behaviorists,
    more people who have some understanding. I am confident that
    the supermarket chains know what motivates us to pick up an
    item from one shelf versus the other. And we don't have that
    corresponding knowledge capacity on the Federal level. I think
    we need to develop more of that.
        And we are also, currently, very actively involved in the
    recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines, the next version
    which will come out late this year, 2010. And there are no
    surprises in it. It suggested all of us consume too much
    sodium, too much sugar, too much fat, not enough vegetables,
    not enough whole grains. There are the basic things. So we are
    very interested in trying to redirect people back to fewer
    processed foods and eating healthier.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, that is a commendable goal that we
    share as well. And part of the answer that you gave to my
    direct question actually touches upon some of the hearing
    topics that we have held in other formats. It strays a bit from
    our topic today, but I understand you are trying to give a
    holistic answer to the overview of this question.
        But I do think we have an opportunity here to think about
    what I proposed earlier; that if this program could be analyzed
    further to see if it meets that threefold test of, again, as a
    novel program, basically improving healthcare outcomes,
    reducing costs as compared to other delivery mechanisms, as
    well as protecting vulnerable persons, we should think through
    that more carefully.
        I think that, if you would, Mr. Secretary, I think that is
    a recommendation I would like to give you to take back to the
    Department. We may have a data set available here that, again,
    could give us evidence of how to shift some of the nutrition
    programs to meet that threefold test, which I think we all
    share.
        Let me ask you another quick question. If the tribe grows
    fruits and vegetables, or has livestock production, or grows
    other commodities, could these products actually become part of
    the Food Distribution Program, again, enhancing the option for
    locally grown foods and creating more vibrant local economies
    through agricultural entrepreneurship?
        Mr. Concannon. Thank you. I believe we have that authority
    now from a prior, more recent farm bill. Its access has been
    very limited to date, in part because of the challenges of if
    you have too much variation across the country in those 100+
    foods, is it going to be a challenge to track? But it is a
    direction we want to go both as an agency, and we recognize, to
    your point, fresher local foods plus helping the economy, we do
    two goods things in the process.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much. That is all I have,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now I would like to turn
    it over to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Mrs. Dahlkemper.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you Mr. Concannon. I want to follow up on Mr. Fortenberry a
    little bit here and ask you about the nutrition education
    portion of the FDPIR program, and maybe if you could tell me
    how that compares to SNAP recipients' nutrition education.
        Mr. Concannon. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, the
    program now expends about $1 million a year through the tribal
    organizations focused on nutrition education, with the FDPIR
    program specifically. And the tribal community that I recently
    visited actually had adapted a number of the MyPyramid graphics
    to a tribal, culturally, appropriate sort of applications.
        One was literally a tepee shape--each panel on it reflected
    one of those triangles currently on the MyPyramid. So they do
    education. In this case, they do education with children who
    appear to be overweight. They run a camp as part of their
    summer camp.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. Mr. Concannon, can you compare that to me,
    for example, to a culturally specific group in an inner city,
    here in Washington? I guess I am just trying to find out if
    some of the improvements that we are seeing through this
    program have more to do with having a cohesive group culturally
    who you are able to work with on this nutrition education
    versus a SNAP program here in Washington, D.C., in which you
    have people from all over, different cultures, whether they are
    white, African American, Hispanic, from many other countries.
        And so I am just wondering if you think that there is any
    correlation with the fact that you have a very specific subset
    of people that you are dealing with.
        Mr. Concannon. I don't have any evidence that I am aware of
    or can point to saying that the nutrition education focused in
    these communities is more effective than SNAP education,
    generally. But I am aware that it is very much tailored across
    the country in these tribal communities.
        During the visit that I made, one of the educators was paid
    for through FDPIR education. But there was also a SNAP Ed
    representative there as well. And she said, ``I am paid for by
    SNAP Ed. I work with the schools in terms of their nutrition
    education as well as here.''
        So I guess what I would say is there was a much more
    cohesive, coordinated effort in the tribal community than we
    often see in urban areas, or in other parts of the country.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. I think as we look forward, and if we are
    going to look into this and the effectiveness, that is
    obviously one of the factors.
        I wanted to ask you a little bit about the fruits and
    vegetables brought in, the supply chain on that, how difficult
    that is to get into these fairly remote areas; because,
    obviously, that is one of the issues why we have the program
    versus SNAP.
        And then is there any incentive for local production, and
    how that then is tied into the program? Because, obviously, I
    think that is very important in terms of the culture and the
    foods that the individuals are accustomed to eating.
        Mr. Concannon. Yes. To your first question, we rely upon
    the Department of Defense actually, the same contract that we
    piggyback on, so to speak, nationally, for distribution of
    fresh fruits and vegetables. And in this tribal visit I saw
    them firsthand. The tribal leadership told me they were
    demanding and making sure that the products they received met
    their standards. They referred to the first delivery not
    meeting their standards. They sent them back and they said,
    ``We haven't had that problem since.'' So they were very
    positive about the fruits and vegetables on that question.
        And as far as the supply chain, we are about to make
    changes in how communities can order electronically. We are
    about to convert to a web-based ordering system that will be
    effective the 1st of July, a couple of weeks from now, that
    actually will allow communities to order today for delivery
    within the next few days. Right now in our system, they have to
    order weeks ahead on the fresh fruits and vegetables. So we are
    making changes that will be better and easier.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. Do they all have the capability for that
    web-based ordering?
        Mr. Concannon. I believe they do. Yes.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. That is good. Well, thank you very much. I
    appreciate it.
        And the other question, I have is about local production
    and if there are incentives to do any local production of food
    on the reservation?
        Mr. Concannon. There is authority for us to do that. I
    don't think we have done enough of it, to be perfectly frank
    with you. I think there is interest in the community. Wild
    rice, for example, as a purchase that is grown locally. And one
    of the challenges we have in that regard is balancing the
    average cost. Some of these locally produced items, like bison
    meat or wild rice, in this case, cost more.
        So in order to accommodate that, we would have to reduce
    other items in the package and we haven't figured out how to
    balance both goals. But we definitely want to encourage more
    local production, more local foods. And one of the areas we may
    be able to link that up with are the school-based programs.
        We are encouraging farmers to grow at scale. If they know
    they are going to get an order from the school system as well
    as from the USDA FNS, for example, then we think it is more
    likely we would be able to both produce sufficient quantities
    but also price. Price is an issue.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. Can you do that scale in terms of across
    the whole program? You know, where one group could produce the
    bison, for example, and then that would be utilized throughout
    the whole system with that economy of scale that you are
    looking for?
        Mr. Concannon. My understanding on the bison, it is
    occasionally made available, but for the most part it is a
    price issue. And I don't know. I will have that question
    researched.
        Mrs. Dahlkemper. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. I have some additional
    questions that I am going to ask, and then if any other
    individuals here would like to ask any additional questions
    they are also welcome.
        While I am happy to hear that FNS is moving forward with
    new technology advancement, like the Web-Based Supply Chain
    Management System, I do have some concerns as to how this
    transition will affect the FDPIR.
        As you are aware, many of the tribal communities and
    reservations that take part in FDPIR are extremely rural areas.
    Do these areas all currently possess broadband infrastructure
    necessary to effectively use the web-based ordering system?
        Mr. Concannon. I don't believe that they all have broadband
    at this point. But, I think they have it, in the program area
    access to the Web, to be able to request foods. And the intent,
    obviously, is to make it easier for the tribal communities.
    Rather than several weeks where they have to plan now, this
    will allow them on a quick turn-around, within a matter of
    days, to order these foods. So it is on hold, and there has
    been a lot of work done for this very time period we are in.
        The Chairman. Well, how do we plan on accommodating these
    tribes or these organizations that lack the appropriate
    Internet access technology?
        Mr. Concannon. The program directors, I am advised, are
    able to order even if they don't have a full range of current
    electronic capacity.
        The Chairman. I hope that we can continue to do that until
    everybody becomes modernized and has the kind of technology to
    make sure we provide the same kind of service.
        Let me ask as a follow-up question, I understand that one
    significant difference between SNAP and FDPIR is high
    administrative costs associated with food storage and
    transportation, that participating tribes and states must
    absorb in FDPIR. What has been the reception from states and
    tribal organizations with regards to the 2005 working group
    decision to change the administrative funding formula?
        Mr. Concannon. I know it has been negotiated. As I mention
    in my testimony, it is a portion, those administrative funds,
    about $37 million in the upcoming year, that are apportioned by
    the USDA regions and then apportioned to tribal organizations
    or states based on the number of FDPIR enrollees in that area.
    And, formulas are always challenging, but I believe it is
    working.
        The Chairman. Okay. And how does USDA coordinate the
    efforts of FDPIR to serve nutritional foods with the efforts of
    Indian Health Services and other agencies that look after the
    health of Native Americans?
        Mr. Concannon. Mr. Chairman, we have an advisory group that
    advises us on this. And that advisory group includes
    representatives from the Native American FDPIR providers. But
    it also includes a representative from the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention and also a representative from the
    Indian Health Service. So the intent is to reflect the best
    science, if you will, across the government.
        But I have also mentioned in my testimony that we are
    committed. The President has issued an Executive Order and the
    Secretary has made it unequivocally clear to us, the various
    mission areas within USDA, of his commitment to do tribal
    consultation on these matters. And that is an area that we
    haven't done as well as we should have in the past. We are in
    the process right now of devising a plan that extends across
    all the mission areas within USDA to do tribal consultation on
    matters such as the engagement with tribes in FDPIR.
        The Chairman. Okay, thank you. One final question: What
    steps can be taken, either by USDA or Congress, to improve the
    public image of the USDA's commodity foods?
        Mr. Concannon. I certainly believe that, as I mentioned, we
    suffer under a stigma of the past in that regard. I think
    better branding, really making it clear, in the same way we
    communicate changes and improvements to these tribal
    communities of the healthier package that it represents. I
    think a number of things can be done that way, certainly. But
    first, importantly, education to the affected communities that
    it is not your commodities program of old. It is a better
    program.
        The Chairman. Thank you. At this time I will turn it over
    to Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. The only thing I would like to add is an
    answer to the Chairman's questions: Is it improving health care
    outcomes? Is it helping reduce costs? And is it protecting
    vulnerable persons? I think if we get an answer to all of those
    things, the appropriate benefit costs compared to other
    delivery systems, this will market itself and, again, perhaps
    become a type of paradigm shift in the way in which we think
    about delivering nutritional programs as social safety nets.
        Mr. Concannon. Thank you.
        The Chairman. With that, that concludes our questions of
    the Under Secretary, so thank you very much for your testimony
    this morning. Thank you.
        At this time, we would like to welcome our next panel.
    Thank you. We have Honorable Andy Joseph, Chairman of the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Tribal Council
    Member, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and
    Chairman of the Health Committee of the Affiliated Tribe of
    Northwest Indians, Portland, Oregon.
        And then we have Norma Merriman, Group Leader, Cherokee
    Nation Human Services.
        Mr. Joseph, you may begin when you are ready.

             STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW JOSEPH, Jr., COUNCIL
              MEMBER, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE
              RESERVATION; CHAIRMAN, HEALTH SUBCOMMITTEE,
      AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS; CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST
            PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD, PORTLAND, OR

        Mr. Joseph. My name is ``Badger'' in my language. I am a
    councilman from the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
    Reservation. As you stated my different titles, I also am an
    Executive Committee Member of the National Indian Health Board.
        Good morning, Chairman Baca and Ranking Member Fortenberry.
    Thank you for allowing me to give this testimony today. I am
    here on behalf of ATNI and represent the 57 tribes from the
    States of Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
    and Washington.
        The United States has a Federal trust responsibility that
    is based on numerous treaties and active Executive Orders.
    These legal instruments cede millions of acres of land to the
    U.S. in exchange for certain reserved rights and basic
    provisions that include programs such as the Food Distribution
    Program on Indian Reservations. The Food Distribution Program
    on Indian Reservations is very important for Indians and, in
    many cases, it is the sole source of food for Indian people
    that live on isolated Indian reservations.
        The fact is that Indian people live in desperate poverty
    and are among the poorest in the United States, 25 percent of
    Indians in the U.S. live at or below poverty level, and this
    rate is substantially higher on Indian reservations. As an
    example, for Indian reservations in South Dakota, as many as 44
    percent of Indians live below the poverty level. In the seven
    poorest counties in the U.S., five consist of Indians that make
    up the majority of the population.
        This poverty causes food insecurity and leads to other
    medical and public health issues, as well as affecting the
    learning ability of our Indian children when participating in
    the educational system.
        The drastic shift from help subsistence and traditional
    foods to foods high in sugar, starch, and fat created a
    healthcare crisis in Indian Country. High obesity and diabetes
    have resulted in a kind of cardiovascular disease, the number
    one killer in Indian Country.
        Because of these reasons, it is critical that this program
    be continued and improved and provide quality nutritional
    products. If this program is reduced or eliminated, it would
    have a devastating impact on the food security of Indian people
    throughout the United States.
        Our recommendations: One, for decades USDA's answer to
    tribal questions for the inclusion of healthier and more
    traditional native foods in the Food Distribution Program food
    packages has been that the program has insufficient funds. The
    FDPIR is a crucial program for Indian tribes, and it is
    imperative that Congress provide increased funding needed to
    improve the nutritional content of the food packages and offset
    rising transportation and maintenance costs.
        Two, tribes have always been concerned about efforts to
    establish a more equitable methodology for allocating the FDPIR
    administrative funds among the Independent Tribal Organizations
    and state agencies, with many voicing concerns about the
    potential funding cuts and some proposed provisions to protect
    against funding cuts. Again, it is critical that Congress
    provide adequate funding for the FDPIR, so that such
    administrative issues do not reduce the level of food and
    services provided to American Indians and Alaska Native people.
        Three, integration of health promotion and disease
    prevention, along with the nutritional counseling, should be
    incorporated with the FDPIR, along with increased funding to
    carry out these functions. This would assist to address the
    high rates of obesity, diabetes in tribal communities.
        Four, many tribes have requested and support including
    traditional food choices such as Indian corn, bison, smoked
    salmon, accounting for differences among tribes as permanent
    items in the food package.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. And I
    remain ready to answer any questions to provide additional
    information.
        One thing I would like to include, on my reservation, we
    did a survey, and 37 percent of our youth in the nine school
    districts on our reservation, 37 percent from K-8 were at the
    pre-diabetic stage. And you know, this program would help. The
    nutritionists really do a good job on helping teach our people
    how to use these foods also.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrew Joseph, Jr., Council Member,
       Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Chairman, Health
        Subcommittee, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Chairman,
           Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Portland, OR

        Good morning, Chairman Baca, Ranking Member Fortenberry, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Joseph, Jr.,
    and I serve as a Tribal Council Member for the Confederated Tribes of
    the Colville Reservation. I also serve as the Chairman of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, which serves as the Health
    Subcommittee for the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. I am
    pleased to provide views on the ``Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations'' on behalf of ATNI's Health Subcommittee and the
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.

    Background on ATNI
        Founded in 1953, ATNI represents 57 tribal governments from Alaska,
    California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. As the
    Subcommittee may be aware, ATNI and its member tribes in the Pacific
    Northwest have been outspoken supporters about the manner in which the
    Federal Government administers its Federal trust responsibility and
    resources that emanate from that fact. ATNI has established its Health
    Subcommittee comprised of Northwest Tribal leaders, health directors,
    and technical staff to monitor health issues that affect Northwest
    Tribes including food nutrition programs. ATNI's support for advocacy
    is grounded in its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the
    Federal trust responsibility that is based upon the historical cession
    of millions of acres of ancestral lands by the tribes. Against this
    backdrop, ATNI appreciates this opportunity to provide its views on the
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).

    Discussion on the FDPIR
        The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
    program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an
    agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The FDPIR is administered
    locally by either Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) or a state
    government agency. Currently, there are approximately 271 tribes
    receiving benefits under the FDPIR through 99 ITOs and five state
    agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchases and
    delivers commodities to the ITOs or state agencies based on their
    selection from a list of available foods. These administering agencies
    store and distribute the food, determine applicant eligibility, and
    provide nutrition education to recipients. USDA provides the
    administering agencies with funds for program administrative costs.
        For Indian Country, the FDPIR is more than a supplemental program,
    in many cases it is the sole source of food for low income American
    Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) people living on or near
    geographically isolated reservations. According to census data,
    approximately 1.5% of the United States population is comprised of AI/
    AN people. Poverty disproportionately affects AI/AN people, with
    approximately 25% living with an income at or below poverty level. The
    median income of AI/AN in the U.S. is just over $30,000, relative to
    the median income of $41,000 for all Americans. The rate of poverty is
    substantially higher on Indian reservations. As an example, on Indian
    reservations in South Dakota as many as 44% of AI/AN people live below
    the poverty level. In fact, in the seven poorest counties in the
    nation, five consist of AI/AN people that make up the majority of the
    population. This stands to reason that AI/AN people are affected by
    poverty and food insecurity at a greater rate than most in America. The
    consequence of these poor economic standards is that 43% of AI/AN
    children under the age of 5 are also living in poverty. This poverty
    causes food insecurity that leads to other medical and public health
    issues, as well as affects the learning ability of our Indian children
    when participating in the educational system.
        Historically, food packages have included what remains of Federal
    commodity programs, such as bleached flour, sugar, potatoes, corn, and
    butter. The immediate and drastic shift from healthy subsistence and
    traditional foods to foods high in sugar, starch and fat created an
    epidemic of obesity and diabetes across Indian Country. Overall, AI/ANs
    have the highest age-adjusted prevalence (percent) of diabetes among
    all U.S. racial and ethnic groups. It has been documented that over 16%
    of all AI/AN adults have diabetes and that AI/AN mortality from
    diabetes is 4.3 times higher than the general U.S. population. Even
    though Type-2 diabetes used to be rare in individuals under the age of
    40, the prevalence (percent) of diabetes among AI/ANs aged 25-34 years
    increased 112% from 1994-2004. Because of this it is imperative that
    food assistance to Indian tribes be improved to deliver healthier
    alternatives to improve health for tribal members receiving foods from
    FDPIR.
        The FDPIR is a critical program that assists to meet the
    nutritional needs of many AI/AN people. While access to grocery stores
    in many parts of the country have improved, the remote distances and
    the lack of reliable and economical transportation for most AI/AN
    people continues to be a barrier to accessing grocery stores and
    nutritional food sources. In most instances if the FDPIR were to be
    reduced or eliminated it would have a devastating impact on the food
    security of large numbers of eligible families residing on Indian
    reservations and risk starvation.
    Recommendations to Improve the FDPIR

        1. Given the importance of this program to Indian Country, tribal
            leaders have long stressed the importance of following
            appropriate government-to-government protocols and respecting
            existing treaty agreements when making changes to FDPIR.

        2. For decades the USDA's answer to Tribal requests for the
            inclusion of healthier and more traditional Native foods in the
            FDPIR food packages has been that the program has insufficient
            funds. The FDPIR is a crucial program for Indian tribes, and it
            is imperative that Congress provide increased funding needed to
            improve the nutrition content of food packages and offset
            rising transportation and maintenance costs.

        3. Many tribes have suggested the need for improvements in the
            quality of the food package to ensure that it meets dietary
            guidelines and for improvements in delivery to ensure that food
            products are distributed before their expiration dates.

        4. Tribes have always been concerned about efforts to establish a
            more equitable methodology for allocating FDPIR administrative
            funds among the Independent Tribal Organizations (ITO) and
            state agencies, with many voicing concerns about potential
            funding cuts and some proposing provisions to protect against
            funding cuts. Again, it is critical that Congress provide
            adequate funding for the FDPIR so that such administrative
            issues do not reduce the level of food and services provided to
            AI/AN people.

        5. Integration of health promotion and disease prevention along
            with nutritional counseling should be incorporated with the
            FDPIR along with increased funding to carry-out these
            functions. This will assist to address the high rates of
            obesity and diabetes in Tribal communities.

        6. Many tribes have requested and support including traditional
            food choices such as Indian corn, bison, and smoked salmon
            (etc., accounting for differences among tribes) as permanent
            items in the food package.

    Conclusion
        Given the improved state of health most Americans are benefiting
    from, the lingering health disparity among AI/ANs is troubling. Food
    insecurity, poverty and health problems continue to disproportionately
    affect AI/AN people. Food assistance programs continue to be a key
    factor in building healthy and economically strong communities.
    Strengthening Federal nutrition programs requires enhancing and not
    reducing benefits.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, and I remain
    ready to answer any questions or provide additional information you may
    require.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At this
    time I would like to call on Norma Merriman for her testimony.
    You may begin.

               STATEMENT OF NORMA MERRIMAN, GROUP LEADER,
             CHEROKEE NATION HUMAN SERVICES, TAHLEQUAH, OK;
             ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY SNELL, DIRECTOR OF FAMILY
              ASSISTANCE; AND BUD SQUIRREL, MANAGER, FOOD
                          DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

        Ms. Merriman. Good morning, Chairman Baca, Ranking Member
    Fortenberry, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for
    allowing us to be here today. I bring the thanks of the
    Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chad Smith for convening this
    hearing on a service program that is of vital importance to
    Cherokee people and Indian Country as a whole, as Mr. Joseph
    has so eloquently described.
        I am Norma Merriman. I am the Group Leader for Cherokee
    Nation Human Services which is a social service branch of our
    tribe. I am accompanied today by Mr. Jerry Snell, Director of
    our Family Assistance Programs, and Mr. Bud Squirrel, who is
    the Food Distribution Manager for our tribe.
        The Cherokee Nation appreciates the opportunity to submit
    testimony regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations. I would like to take just a moment to give you an
    overview of the Cherokee Nation Food Distribution Program. Our
    program consists of 52 members in staff, including store
    managers, clerks, warehouse workers, inventory, data personnel,
    nutrition aids, and truck drivers.
        The Cherokee Nation currently operates five food
    distribution centers at strategic locations throughout the
    Nation's 14 county jurisdiction. In addition to these strategic
    hubs, the Nation also operates seven tailgate sites where food
    is delivered to the most remote communities on a monthly basis.
    At this time, our Food Distribution Program currently serves
    approximately 10,000 participants every month.
        Chairman Baca, you have received our written testimony
    prior to these proceedings, and I would request that our
    testimony be entered into the record of the hearing. And to
    that end, I would simply summarize our statements this morning.
        In summary, the Cherokee Nation supports the following
    propositions: Proposition A, excluding household funds held in
    educational savings accounts; Proposition B, clarification
    regarding the resource exclusion for qualified retirement
    accounts; Proposition C, clarifying the application of SNAP net
    income standards to FDPIR; D, excluding combat pay.
        Mr. Chairman, it is well recognized that, historically,
    Native Americans have the highest record of service per capita
    when compared to any other ethnic group in the United States in
    our military services. So aligning FDPIR and SNAP provisions
    regarding combat pay is simply a necessity.
        Additionally, we want to emphasize our strong support for
    parity between SNAP and FDPIR funding. We also recommend the
    following actions be taken under consideration by this
    Committee.
        First, a tribal liaison be named to enhance communication
    between Food and Nutrition Services and the FDPIR National
    Association. This action will be a major step to assure FDPIR
    representation is at the table when SNAP and FDPIR concerns are
    being discussed and negotiated. I think you, Chairman Baca,
    when you talked about the squeaky wheel, this would allow us to
    squeak a little better if we could do this.
        Second, consideration should be given to increasing
    cultural foods in the food package, such as salmon, wild rice,
    buffalo and blue corn, to name a few.
        Third, that Food and Nutrition Services consider allowing
    tribes to carry over, at a minimum, five percent of their
    annual FDPIR administrative appropriations, which would be very
    helpful, I know, to our tribe.
        In conclusion, we would like to acknowledge the initiative
    on the part of the Committee to provide low-fat and low-sodium
    food choices in the FDPIR food packages. These additions
    address the epidemic of diabetes, hypertension, and heart
    disease in the Native population by providing healthy choices.
        Once again, thank you for convening this hearing and for
    allowing the Cherokee Nation to comment on these important
    issues. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Merriman follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Norma Merriman, Group Leader, Cherokee Nation
                         Human Services, Tahlequah, OK

        Chairman Baca, Ranking Member Fortenberry, Members of the
    Committee, I bring the thanks of Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chad
    Smith for convening this hearing on a service program that is of vital
    importance to Cherokee people and Indian Country as a whole. My name is
    Norma Merriman and I am the Group Leader for Cherokee Nation Human
    Services. I am accompanied by Jerry Snell, Director of Family
    Assistance, and Bud Squirrel, Food Distribution Manager. The Cherokee
    Nation appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
    Overview of Cherokee Nation Food Distribution Program
        The Cherokee Nation Food Distribution Program consists of 52 staff
    members including store managers, clerks, warehouse workers, inventory
    and data personnel, nutritionists and truck drivers. The Cherokee
    Nation currently operates five food distribution centers (FDCs) at
    strategic locations throughout the Nation's 14 county jurisdiction. In
    addition to these strategic ``hubs'', the Nation also operates seven
    tailgate sites where food is delivered to the most remote communities
    on a monthly basis.
        The Food Distribution Program currently serves approximately 10,000
    participants every month and has been one of the largest, most
    successful FDPIR programs in Indian Country. The Cherokee Nation was
    the first FDPIR to implement the ``grocery store'' concept where
    clients are allowed to shop at their leisure in a retail environment.
    Our patrons enjoy the convenience of choosing their products like
    everybody else instead of receiving boxes of food from the back of a
    truck.
        The Cherokee Nation currently has one additional FDC in planning
    that will be built and fully operational in 2011. The Nation also has a
    long-term plan to develop three more strategically located FDCs so that
    all clients in the 14 county jurisdiction are no more than thirty
    minutes away from a distribution center. This will eliminate the need
    for tailgate sites altogether.

    Recommendations for Proposed Rule Changes
        The Cherokee Nation appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
    following proposed rule changes governing the FDPIR. I would like to
    preface our comments by generally expressing our support for
    streamlining the regulations governing the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) and the FDPIR. In April 2009, USDA increased
    the SNAP benefits for their participants an average of $20 per client
    by using funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    of 2009. Unfortunately, there was not a corresponding pro rata increase
    for FDPIR participants. The Cherokee Nation is enthused by this hearing
    and the proposed rule changes as they present a great opportunity to
    improve parity of these two programs and allow greater access to
    nutrition assistance for Indian Country.

    Proposition A: Excluding Household Funds Held in Education Savings
            Accounts from Consideration as a Resource
        Education has always been a major priority to the Cherokee Nation.
    We have a vested interest in the education of our citizens as evidenced
    by the many scholars and leaders that adorn our history. The Nation is
    very supportive of this measure as it would encourage the higher
    education of our citizens and provide greater ability for those
    citizens in impoverished and needy communities to pursue greater levels
    of self-reliance.

    Proposition B: Clarification Regarding the Resource Exclusion for
            Qualified Retirement Accounts
        The Nation is supportive of provisions protecting the retirement
    accounts of our citizens and ensuring that those funds are not
    interpreted to be a detriment to their access to the FDPIR. In addition
    to improving access, allowing resource exclusion for properly setup and
    administered retirement accounts will undoubtedly encourage our
    citizens to save for retirement regardless of their financial status
    and participation in the FDPIR.

    Proposition C: Clarifying the Application of SNAP Net Income Standards
            to FDPIR
        The Nation supports equitable consideration for both SNAP and
    FDPIR, and is supportive of the provision to consider net income, as
    opposed to gross income, as the qualifying standard to participate in
    the FDPIR. The Nation appreciates this clarification as it will provide
    consideration for pre-tax deductions from salaries and reduce confusion
    around standards of enrollment in the program. Similar to proposition
    B, this proposal will increase the willingness of our citizens to
    establish deductions in their payroll to provide for their retirement.
    Proposition D: Excluding Combat Pay from Income
        Aligning FDPIR and SNAP provisions regarding combat pay is simply a
    necessity. Some of our Cherokee service members come from impoverished
    communities and while they are compensated for their service overseas;
    their pay is simply not on par with the risks they face during
    deployment. The Cherokee Nation appreciates this consideration for
    military personnel as it will help to provide assistance to military
    families while their loved ones serve abroad.

    Proposition E: Amending the Dependent Care Deduction
        Allowing participants to claim the full cost of their dependent
    care deductions would be a welcome benefit. The nature and intent of
    the FDPIR and the Cherokee Nation Food Distribution Program is
    primarily focused on the care and protection of Indian families.
    Naturally there is a strong emphasis on nutrition and healthy rearing
    of our Indian children. Removing regulatory language focused on
    dependent care would be a welcome adjustment to the current policy and
    this provision would inevitably improve the health and well-being of
    many of our Nation's children.
        Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for convening this hearing and
    allowing the Cherokee Nation to express comment on a highly successful
    program that helps to improve the lives of Indian people on a daily
    basis. The Cherokee Nation is committed to FDPIR and appreciates your
    interest and enthusiasm for the program. We are dedicated to elevating
    our indigent and impoverished communities so that they may adequately
    pursue our declaration of designed purpose to become a happy, healthy
    Nation through our initiatives in jobs, language and community. The
    FDPIR is an essential element to improving the wellness of our most
    needy population and we appreciate your regard for the importance of
    this issue.
        This concludes my testimony. Should you require further information
    on any of the Cherokee Nation's programs and services, I invite you to
    contact the Cherokee Nation Washington Office, [Redacted].

        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        First of all, USDA is seeking public comment on the
    proposed rule, regarding the counting of education accounts,
    retirement accounts, and combat pay. The comment period is open
    until June 28th, next week. Comments should be submitted at the
    USDA and FNS. So with that, I would like to thank you.
        This proposed rule that should become final later this year
    will make all of the adjustments in reference to the proposals
    that you mentioned. These changes make FDPIR in line with the
    SNAP eligibility, so hopefully that will be done.
        I will begin with some questions. Chairman Joseph, you
    mentioned that the poverty level in South Dakota is 44 percent
    and the national poverty level is about 25 percent. When you
    average it out, the poverty level amongst the Food Distribution
    Program on Indian Reservation is probably, if you average them
    out, it is about 35, 30 percent overall poverty level, below
    poverty level? Which means almost everyone is eligible,
    basically, within that area, yet, how many are actually even
    taking advantage of the FDPIR or SNAP program within Indian
    Reservations?
        And Mr. Fortenberry has continued to be a strong advocate
    in the area of obesity and the cost to our consumers and
    others; and if we can provide adequate nutrition and food, then
    we are reducing our costs overall. Ultimately, we end up paying
    in the long run because of either heart conditions, diabetes,
    the high cost of healthcare.
        So on one hand we want to make sure that, as Mr.
    Fortenberry says, on being cost effective so that in the long
    run, it is a savings.
        But let me ask you this question, Mr. Joseph. According to
    the experts at the Congressional Research Service, the average
    person enrolled in the FDPIR receives about $55 per month in
    commodity assistance. From your experience working with various
    tribes in the Northwest, is this an adequate amount of food
    assistance?
        Mr. Joseph. I would say that it isn't. You know, a lot of
    our people are living in poverty. You know, when I was a young
    man and I was raising my three younger children, being able to
    help them grow up, a lot of times we would run short on some of
    the commodities, foods that we would be getting from our Food
    Distribution Program, and we had to rely on some of our own
    foods that we gather. We still have some places where we gather
    our traditional foods, our roots and our berries, and we would
    have to really rely on those as much as we could.
        Currently our tribe is working with the conservation
    program to set aside some of our traditional lands that we
    gather some of these foods, our roots and berries. Before it
    was moved to the reservation, a lot of these sites where our
    people were actually from, we were moved onto the reservations
    and there are not big food sources out there that grow
    naturally, the different bitter roots and the different berries
    that we gather. Some of our choice hunting grounds were taken.
        Earlier, in the testimony I heard, the cost for including
    bison and salmon, different things like that. It is a little
    more expensive. But to me it would save more lives because it
    is more natural to our physical body and what we intake. And
    that would save a lot more lives.
        Bison, they are a leaner animal and chemically our bodies
    take it better. The same with the salmon. Our people lived off
    of salmon in the Northwest, and it is something that we really
    need. The gardens too, if we work with, through the EQIP
    program, if there could be more funding in EQIP for equipment
    to grow our own gardens, I think that would really help.
        The Chairman. Thank you. In your testimony you mention, Mr.
    Chairman, the need of improvement of deliveries in the FDPIR to
    ensure that food products are distributed before their
    expiration dates. In your experience, is it common for food
    that has expired to be delivered to tribal communities through
    FDPIR? If this is indeed the case, it is a shameful failure on
    the part of the Federal Government. Can you respond to that?
        Mr. Joseph. Well, my tribe is a timber tribe, and right now
    we had to lay off a lot of our people. And, just the
    transportation to go out to go to the food distribution site to
    pick up the food is a hardship.
        And, if it was funded more where some of these foods could
    be distributed out to our members, some of our elders that use
    the program that are raising their children and grandchildren,
    can't afford to come in and pick up their supply like they
    normally would. So I guess if that part could be used to help
    distribute the foods, it probably wouldn't be expiring.
        The Chairman. Ms. Merriman, can you please give us some
    additional details as to how the Cherokee developed the system
    and how it operates for the average Cherokee and FDPIR
    recipients that integrate the innovative grocery concept that
    you mentioned in your testimony?
        Ms. Merriman. We do a couple of things, and I hope I am
    answering your question correctly. One of the things that we do
    monthly is that we have nutrition aids who assist in providing
    nutritional recipes using the food distribution foods,
    specifically to make tasty meals and nutritious meals, to show
    people how they can be used and encourage them to eat in a more
    healthy way. They even make samples so that when the people
    come in to get their food packages, there will be samples there
    so it is not just merely a recipe laying out, because some of
    us might not pick that up.
        We also do a monthly calendar showing when certain things
    will be happening in the program. And also there are
    nutritional recipes on that calendar.
        I would like to ask that Mr. Bud Squirrel, who operates the
    daily operation of our food distribution, join me if that is
    all right with you. I believe he can be more specific than I,
    since I am kind of the boss and he does the everyday stuff.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Squirrel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Approximately in
    1980 the Cherokee Nation did a 25 year plan on how we were
    going to set up our deliveries of the different services that
    we offered, and food was included. Health and other social
    services was included. And we picked out certain communities in
    the Cherokee Nation area such as Bonita, Nowata--I know you are
    not familiar with these places but just to name a few--
    Sallisaw, Stilwell, that were geographically located where
    there was a density of population that would justify building
    something there that is kind of a one-stop service center for
    the different services that we offered.
        And that is how this concept came into being, to develop a
    grocery store where they could come in and not have to drive
    more than 30 minutes or 30 miles. We developed 60 mile radiuses
    with the center being in the middle of this territory. And we
    currently have five of these. We would like to have eight. We
    are going to build a sixth one this fall which will be in
    operation in 2011, which will leave us a couple of centers
    short. And these are in conjunction with our health centers and
    other social service provision centers.
        So that is where the concept got started. And what we do is
    we bring in the clients to an area where they fill out their
    applications, make sure they are eligible, certify them. Then
    we give them a list of the items, the foods that they are
    eligible for--we currently have 79 items that we provide--and
    give them a list of what they are eligible for. Then they just
    go into the store, the adjoining store, and get them a cart or
    two--if they are a big family they will need two or three
    carts--and just go down the aisles. This list is kind of
    configured so the aisle of the first four items are on aisle
    one, the next items, they are all coordinated where you just go
    up and down these aisles. And then you will check out on your
    way out.
        And we have computerized scanning systems also. Instead of
    doing it on a manual basis, writing down everything they decide
    to take, they are checked out, they are scanned when they go
    out the door. So that is how the stores, the grocery store
    concept was developed about 30 years ago.
        The Chairman. In some of these areas it becomes so
    difficult for many of these individuals to go to these stores
    to get what they need. What is being done to make sure that we
    reach some of these areas where they don't have the
    transportation? And what can be done in terms of the delivery
    to make sure that nutrition is also provided to some of these
    families that don't have a mode of transportation and need the
    services, or, if weather conditions impact receiving the kind
    of nutrition that they need.
        Mr. Squirrel. We utilize what we call Community Health
    Representatives, CHR program, that is funded through the Human
    Health Service. There may be a community transportation system
    that goes through that area and brings them to our centers to
    pick up their food on a monthly basis. Or as a last resort, we
    have a system where they can call in to us and tell us that
    there is no way, ``I don't have any friends or family that can
    take me either, I can't drive, I am almost bedridden.'' And we
    will make a list of these and wait until the last week of the
    month when we are not so busy and we can spare the staff. We
    send them out to do home deliveries to these people. So they
    can get on the list and we do home deliveries.
        The Chairman. But that is waiting towards the end. When are
    they eligible to receive it? Is it the beginning of the month?
    Are they waiting a week or 2? Are they trying to survive on
    what they have, until someone goes there?
        Mr. Squirrel. That is correct; they get it once a month. We
    try to make sure they get it every 4 weeks. Once we get them on
    the schedule, they usually stay on the schedule and then we try
    to do it every 4 weeks. So it is just 4 weeks, or once a month.
    We don't make them wait 50 days. So it is a regular interval.
    There is a 30-31 day interval in between.
        The Chairman. Ms. Merriman, in your experience working with
    Human Services with the Cherokee Nation, do people frequently
    switch between SNAP and FDPIR? If so, how does that complicate
    administering the program?
        Ms. Merriman. They do switch. And I want to echo what Mr.
    Concannon said earlier: that when we had this disparity arise
    between SNAP and FDPIR's first funding recently, people did
    switch. And of course any time people switch, it is more
    difficult on staff and on that person because they have to do
    more paperwork, they have to go to a different location. As far
    as what the volume is of people switching back and forth, I
    would probably have to ask Mr. Squirrel to respond to that, but
    we have seen that recently.
        Mr. Squirrel. That volume has not been drastic, but it has
    been noticeable. I would think out of the 10,000 people that we
    serve a month, probably a couple of hundred a month switched
    over. And we can tell it in our monthly totals, the total
    number of clients served every month when we do a final count.
    So they have impacted our program noticeably.
        The Chairman. A question to any one of you three up there
    now. In your opinion, what effects is the nutritional,
    educational component of FDPIR? Do we need to do more? What is
    the level of awareness? What else can be done? Do we need to do
    it differently? If so, how? Do we need to utilize other
    individuals in assuring that the FDPIR qualified people are
    aware of SNAP or other programs? In your opinion, do you feel
    that it is effective, the educational program component, or do
    we need to do something else?
        Mr. Joseph. I would say that it is really important. Our
    nutritionists do these trainings where they teach our young
    parents. In Indian Country, we have some really young parents
    that need to learn how to prepare these meals. As a former
    boarding school student, we weren't really raised in the home
    where we could watch our mothers do the cooking.
        So to me, it is really important that that kind of training
    come back into our families. And as they are young mothers or
    fathers, some of them are single parents, they might be able to
    pass this training on to their children. And that would be a
    real benefit. And to me I think that it would save a lot of our
    people's lives and make us live a lot longer. Thank you.
        Mr. Squirrel. If I may, sir. I think the initiative is on
    the right track. All of the things that they mention, the
    demonstrations, the recipes that we do and the screenings that
    we do. The only thing that I might suggest, with the money that
    we get at the Cherokee Nation with the amount of people that we
    serve per month, we have only two nutrition aides on staff.
    Next year we hope to be able to get at least one more. We call
    them nutrition aides. They are not certified, they are not
    college educated. They are just their own peers that have been
    taught to go out and talk to their neighbors, sometimes their
    own families, on how to wisely use these foods as far as
    nutritional value and benefit is concerned.
        So, I think there is not enough. We are putting a Band-Aid
    on a hemorrhage. We need something that is a little bit more
    effective. And to do that, maybe to double that $1 million
    nationwide to $2 million, something like that; which probably
    is insignificant money when it comes to where I am sitting
    today, but that would help us to do twice as much from what I
    can tell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Joseph. Could I add one more thing to that? I believe
    it would be saving the government a whole lot of money from
    doing amputations for diabetics and for having to have our
    people doing open-heart surgeries, which costs the government a
    whole lot more money, nationally, for our people.
        And, as you know, the Indian Health Service is only funded
    at about 50 percent of what its real need is, based on a
    comparison of other Federal programs. A Federal penitentiary
    inmate receives twice the amount of healthcare per capita than
    a Native American.
        Anyway, we are all here to try to save the government a lot
    of tax money, and prevention would be a big part of that.
    Nutrition is a big part of the overall health plan. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony and
    response to the questions. And this is what we are all trying
    to do right now, is look at preventive measures and also look
    at services that need to be provided to promote longer and
    healthier lives, along with how we can reduce our cost, and
    improve the quality of life for many of our youth and our
    adults, as well.
        And that is what Mr. Fortenberry has constantly been
    striving and pushing for; the effects it has and the costs. But
    if we do more preventive care, we actually end up reducing our
    costs in the long run.
        So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At this time I will
    turn it over to our Ranking Member, Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, your comments were very
    germane following up on what Mr. Joseph was speaking of, which
    is part of the core issue here. When we think about nutritional
    programs, we are clearly trying to protect persons who are in a
    vulnerable or fragile position.
        But to think about the larger policy implications on health
    care, on local economies, on the preservation of, as you
    suggested, traditional tribal recipes in a traditional culture,
    is I think an appropriate finding for this hearing. I think
    that Committee hearings should be about looking at difficulties
    and solving problems and the technical aspects of delivery, and
    a lot of the things we talked about today.
        But in this regard, you as tribal leaders, potentially, can
    be very, very helpful in terms of leading this program's effect
    on multiple-policy objectives.
        Mr. Joseph, you also talked about the difficulties, given
    that reservation land is not often--is sometimes not the same
    land that people originally arranged to find their food
    sources, and so it would be a little bit difficult to fully
    integrate the traditional or original Native American diet into
    a food distribution program.
        With that said, however, if there is a willingness on your
    part to think creatively, and the Under Secretary had mentioned
    earlier, the very eager openness in the Department to the idea
    of combining policy objectives to ensure that, when possible,
    local food production is integrated into food distribution so
    that we are achieving, again, a winner on a lot of different
    levels, creating more local economic opportunity, increasing
    nutritional delivery of foods in a most convenient and
    efficient manner, and again protecting vulnerable persons with
    the core part of the program.
        So I would encourage you as well to--although this hearing,
    this is a bit beyond the parameters of what we originally
    intended for the hearing, I think this is an opportune time to
    think creatively. We all have the problem; we are all in
    government and tend to stovepipe programs and define them by
    narrow outcomes, but how they can be more fully integrated to
    meet these multiple objectives of protection of people,
    increased healthcare outcomes and a strengthening of local
    economic opportunities.
        So I just want to leave that comment with you all, and I
    appreciate your testimony today. I am glad the Under Secretary
    is still here to hear this. And he did indicate earlier an
    eagerness on the Department to look at meeting those
    objectives, and potentially it is possible through this
    program. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis from Wyoming.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    expand a little more, if I could, with all three of you about
    the FDPIR versus SNAP in terms of why a clientele would choose
    FDPIR over SNAP when the Food Distribution Program provides
    fewer benefits than SNAP. Could you enlighten me about why that
    occurs, anyone?
        Mr. Joseph. The Food Distribution Program, the way it is
    packaged, probably would have a little longer shelf life. When
    I used to use the program with my family, sometimes we could
    get certain types of foods in one program. It would be like,
    kind of like a storage for when you really needed that type of
    food. And then you switch, I guess, over to the SNAP.
        Our people probably would want to have a little more choice
    on what their intake is. My kids really loved the cheese, and
    they craved that stuff. But, in the store system, there might
    be a different type of cheese that they would use for different
    ingredients. I think it is a combination of just the choice and
    having something a little bit different would be my guess.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
        Mr. Squirrel. On my reservations, if I may, on some
    reservations it is the only option, realistically, insofar as
    your decent grocery store may be 120 miles away. Economically
    it is the main option, the only option on the reservation
    because of the remoteness.
        Another thing that we have already established is that it
    is nutritionally better. If you recall, the scores were like 81
    for the foods that we have in our program and SNAP got a 52, I
    believe. I have read that a few times before, and I proudly
    mention that to anybody that will listen to me.
        The other thing is Native Americans identify with this
    program, they grew up with it. I remember it when I was a
    little kid. I was one of the people that was too remote or too
    poor to even afford to go and get commodities because it was 30
    miles away. And back then they only had four, five or six
    things that you could pick up. But, we didn't have a car. My
    mother wouldn't drive, couldn't drive, and my father was off
    working wherever he could. So we didn't have a way to go over
    there to get it. So we were too poor to get commodities. Now,
    what does that tell you?
        Another thing is it is a social get-together nowadays for
    people. I can hear elderly, ``I will see you next month on the
    23rd,'' whenever they leave our stores. They get to see family
    and friends. We get 50 to 140, 150 families a month come
    through these stores. And it is kind of a social get-together
    for them. They look forward to it. It is a one-stop shopping
    for them. They come and get their groceries, they go to Wal-
    Mart to get other things they need, then they go stop by the
    clinic or whatever. So they try to plan it all in 1 day so it
    only costs them $12.50 for gas, instead of going 4 days and
    paying $50 a month for gas. So that is the way it goes at the
    Cherokee Nation.
        Ms. Merriman. I am going to talk about the other side,
    about people who may choose SNAP over FDPIR. Young people don't
    cook like our families used to. And if you use FDPIR, you would
    need to cook for a lot of the items in the food package, which
    we know that usually means it is more nutritious and well
    balanced, especially if they are cooking the food in the food
    package. So I think that is one thing with maybe some of our
    younger families.
        Also, I think their children may want the tastier, which
    are usually fattier and more sugary, saltier-type things that
    they would get under the SNAP program. That is not a good
    choice, but that is what some people choose, want, or desire.
        I think there is still some misinformation. I think this
    was mentioned a little earlier, but maybe not in this aspect.
    When the program first started, it was not unusual if you were
    driving on some of the back roads to see some of the items that
    people were given without choice dumped, because they would
    become wormy or they just could not use that much meal or
    flour. And, you are not supposed to give that to anybody else
    or sell it. So it is much different now. I think still there
    are people who believe that that is still the way, that you
    don't have a choice.
        And I know Mr. Squirrel in our program has been in the
    trenches for a long time and fought for choice and for labeling
    of food so that they don't look like mystery meat or, really
    pale some kind of labels; that now they are more lively. Tony
    the Tiger is there and other things.
        I think there are some of those things that would have
    people going to SNAP versus FDPIR. We always try to encourage
    people in our other social service programs to try FDPIR
    because we know that it is going to be healthier for them.
        Mr. Joseph. I might add one more thing. In food
    distribution some of our people would get the buffalo burger,
    and we don't have that in our stores. So to me, a lot of them
    would probably be wanting to get as much of the buffalo as they
    can, to have something different; then they might switch over
    to SNAP, to get something else versus the buffalo. But, they
    really crave that meat because it is lower in fat and it is
    actually healthier for our bodies.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in a year and
    a half in Congress, those are the most practical responses to
    any question I have ever asked, so thank you. It is a pleasure
    listening to you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And we want to thank all
    of you for your testimony. And I appreciate Chairman Joseph,
    when you talked about your family and others. I know what it
    was like because my family also received the commodities. And I
    remember us having to go to get them when I was in New Mexico
    to get commodities during that period of time as a young child.
    And because of the lack of education that we had, we knew that
    the commodities that we received versus SNAP--and that is a
    problem that we have even now, is to begin to educate. We know
    there is a better opportunity, because now you can eat a lot
    healthier.
        At that point we knew what we were going to get, so we
    always made sure that we had a lot of tortillas and frijoles
    and some of the other good food that I loved eating.
        I want to ask one final question, and any one of the three
    of you can answer. Do you think that FDPIR eligibility
    guidelines should take into consideration some of the expenses
    such as heating costs, electric bills, medical expenses that
    are not currently allowable deductions, and if so, can you
    elaborate on that?
        Mr. Joseph. I live up in the Northwest and the temperatures
    get really cold and learned through e-mails that the area in
    the Dakotas had the severe weather this past year, even over on
    the coast, on the coastline we have had some severe weather.
    And so the heating and transportation costs are really extreme.
    And when all of a sudden you get laid off from work, like
    probably around a thousand of the members of my tribe, due to
    the housing market experienced a real hardship. And like I
    said, some of our elders trying to raise grandchildren on a
    fixed income, they are really low income, and heating expenses,
    and just trying to get the kids to school and everything is a
    real hardship. And if there could be some guidelines to waive
    some of those for some of our people it would help bring up our
    children a lot healthier. And to me I think that should really
    be looked at. Thank you.
        Ms. Merriman. I would concur. We all know that the cost of
    utilities and medical care are very high and not going down. So
    I believe there really should be some consideration in looking
    at those issues. And I appreciate you bringing those up.
        I don't know if Mr. Squirrel wants to add to that, but I
    know we see that all the time.
        Mr. Squirrel. I think we should support it. The only thing
    I would add is I am a person that believes very strongly in
    equity, parity. So I would suggest that these be considered for
    a SNAP program, any program that is funded by Agriculture to be
    considered for SNAP or WIC, or any of the programs that are
    administered by the Department of Agriculture. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. This concludes our hearing for
    today, but is there anything that any one of you would like to
    state in how we could better provide better coordination, look
    at the services that we need that we are providing now, and
    then what can we possibly do as we look at reauthorization of
    the 2012 Farm Bill as it pertains to nutrition?
        Are there any additional comments that any one of you would
    like to make at this point, just for the record, in areas that
    we should begin to look at? I know that on both sides we are
    very much interested in having improvements in these areas, and
    how can we best provide the services that are being cost
    effective. Under the PAYGO legislation, as we try to comply
    with that, do we have the funds? Are there areas that we need
    to provide some services? So if any of you would like to make a
    statement, any additional statement at this point.
        Mr. Squirrel. Yes, I would like to respond to that. But
    first I would like to tell you that the Cherokee Nation program
    is in better shape in the last 2\1/2\ years than it has been
    the previous 22 years because of the funding formula that they
    developed 2\1/2\ years ago.
        The Chairman. Well, Jeff and I weren't on the program
    before, and we have been on there so that is why it has
    improved.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Very well said.
        Mr. Squirrel. Anyway, sometimes we were the leading program
    in the United States as far as the number of clients served,
    and sometimes we were number two. But whenever the funding
    program came along, it increased our annual budget by $1
    million.
        So at that time with disparity, there wasn't funding even
    though we were the leaders in service and serviced a number of
    clients, but that change put us in great shape. But we still
    have a couple of frustrations. And this one has been mentioned.
        The reason our client participation has been going down
    since April of 2009 is because some of those people that have
    the option of choosing us or SNAP; they went to SNAP, and they
    would come in and tell me why. ``You know, it is $20, it is $80
    a month more for my family.'' And I would tell them, ``I don't
    blame you, that is a good decision for you and your family.'' I
    would support that. So they would come in and kind of apologize
    for switching programs.
        And these are only the ones that have the option to. Some
    reservations don't have the option because there is not a store
    within a reasonable distance. So there was a disparity there.
    But if we had gotten some kind of pro rata increase in the
    number of items that we could offer, we could have been
    competitive and kept our clients.
        But the second one is the fact that we are not allowed to
    carry over any of our funds at the end of the year. If I have a
    couple hundred thousand dollars left, I have to give it back
    and get looked at as a bad financial manager, because I
    couldn't get rid of all my money to the penny. If we could
    carry over, I could carry over that $200,000 and combine it
    with the next year's money and be able to buy a new truck or a
    new freezer, or something like that. A tractor-trailer rig
    costs $220,000, by the time you get all the amenities that you
    need on there, like a freezer, a refrigerator trailer and that
    sort of thing. So that would allow us to buy major equipment
    that we need maybe every 6, 8, 10 years, if we could have
    carry-over and combine it with 2 years' worth of money. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Joseph. I would say, if there could be more work with
    the Department of Agriculture and getting tribes funding for
    those little rototillers or tractors that could help our people
    actually farm some of the fresh produce to mix in with the Food
    Distribution Program, I think it would help.
        Actually you have to get some physical labor in doing that;
    and that would promote some physical activity. And training, if
    there are training sources for our young people to learn how to
    be farmers, to grow their own produce, it would be good.
        Protecting our natural food sources is another thing I
    would like to really see. I was talking with a lady earlier,
    and on some of the coastal waters, you see the oil spill that
    is out there, and we want to protect our water, our foods that
    come from those areas also. My wife is from Port Gamble
    S'Klallam Tribe, and they really rely on their oyster beds and
    the clams and different foods that they gather on the coast.
    And we would want to do everything we can to protect that and
    those food sources.
        Anything that we could do to, preserve our root digging
    grounds. We are working with the conservationists to set aside
    some of these grounds and keep them safe from people that might
    be spraying weeds or running cattle out there and grazing in
    some of these areas where our natural foods grow. If we can
    protect those lands and set some aside, that would really help.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
    testimony this morning. And I know that there is a lot of work
    that we still need to do in a lot of the areas as to how we can
    improve on nutrition and services in the areas. And I know that
    we talked about also farming fresh fruits and vegetables and
    having our own gardens, too. As we look at even providing
    training, we must make sure that water is available. And that
    is something that we need to begin to start looking at as we
    begin to cultivate our own land. As I mentioned to the Ranking
    Member here, it becomes a U.S. product. It is not coming from
    somewhere else, but it is actually being produced here in the
    United States versus something that we are buying at our
    grocery stores that we don't know where it is coming from. And
    the safety of it too.
        So thank you very much. I would like to thank each of our
    witnesses for your participation in today's hearing and your
    thoughtful testimony, your knowledge, your ideas, your
    expertise. I hope it will be used by Congress to find better
    policy solutions for improving nutrition health of America's
    tribal communities.
        We all know the importance of the links between nutrition
    and health. We must do all we can to make sure that FDPIR
    programs and other tribal programs are more effective.
        Again, I want to thank the witnesses and the Members for
    their time today. With that, I would like to adjourn the
    meeting. So at this time, under the rules of the Committee, the
    record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days
    to receive additional materials and supplemental materials,
    written responses from the witnesses, to any questions posed by
    Members.
        The hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations,
    Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry is now adjourned. Thank you
    very much for coming.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

    Submitted Statement By Judy Goforth Parker, Ph.D., R.N., Administrator,
                Nation Division of Health, The Chickasaw Nation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
    invitation to present testimony today. My name is Judy Goforth Parker,
    Ph.D., R.N., administrator for Chickasaw Nation Division of Health. In
    this capacity, I oversee the operations of all of the health programs
    and facilities within the Chickasaw Nation. This includes, but is not
    limited to, Carl Albert Indian Health Facility in Ada, OK, satellite
    clinics in Ardmore, Tishomingo, Durant, and Purcell, OK as well as the
    wellness facilities and nutrition programs. I served as a legislator
    for the Chickasaw Nation for fifteen years. I am pleased and honored to
    be invited to testify today. I bring you greetings from Governor Bill
    Anoatubby of the Chickasaw Nation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to ensuring the
    viability, strength and quality of federal nutrition programs, many of
    which have benefited the American Indian tribal governments and their
    citizens.
        The Chickasaw Nation has administered a number of USDA nutrition
    programs for many years, including four of those addressed in the Farm
    Bill. We serve over 10,000 individuals and work with approximately 95
    farmers, all benefiting from either the Chickasaw Nation Food
    Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the SNAP Nutrition
    Education Program, Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program or the
    Summer Food Program.

    Background Information Regarding Factors in Health of Native Americans
        Poverty disproportionately affects the Native American population,
    with some 25% living with an income at or below poverty level. The
    consequence of these poor economic standards is that 43% of Native
    American children under the age of 5 are also living in poverty.
        With poverty being the principal factor causing food insecurity,
    the Native American community suffers from a much higher incidence of
    food insecurity and hunger than the general population. In fact, on
    average, rates of food insecurity in Indian communities are twice as
    high those of the general U.S. population. Nearly one in four Native
    American households is hungry or on the edge of hunger. Food insecurity
    and hunger take a serious toll on the health and well-being of the
    Native American community. These circumstances, which include the
    inability to afford nutritionally adequate and safe food or the ability
    to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways, can profoundly
    impair physical and mental health status.
        Certainly, poverty also imposes barriers on transportation options.
    Isolation and financial constraints have forced families in some rural
    areas to rely on less expensive, often high-fat foods, and few fruits
    and vegetables.
        Paradoxically, at the same time that Native Americans experience
    hunger and food insecurity, obesity has been declared an epidemic. Both
    obesity and hunger can exist in the same families and the same
    individuals within that family. A paper called, ``The Paradox of Hunger
    and Obesity in America,'' developed by the Center on Hunger and Poverty
    and the Food Research and Action Center, discusses this dilemma. Though
    it sounds contradictory, those with insufficient resources to purchase
    adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons that researchers are
    now beginning to understand. It is especially so in many American
    Indian communities and families. We need to better grasp this paradox
    if we are to grapple with these parallel threats to the well-being of
    so many, and avoid potentially damaging policy development in our food
    assistance programs.
        The fear of running out of food causes people to reduce the quality
    of their diets and/or reduce the quantity of food they consume.
    Therefore, the lack of adequate resources for food could result in
    weight gain in several ways:

       Low income families, in an attempt to stretch their food
            dollars, consume lower cost foods with typically higher
            calories to stave off hunger, affecting the overall energy
            density of the diet;

       Research shows that food insecure households are willing to
            trade food quality for food quantity as a coping strategy;
            after all, the stomach registers satiety rather than
            nutritional value;

       Obesity can be an adaptive response to periods when people
            are unable to get enough to eat, as people tend to eat more
            than they normally would when food becomes available, and, over
            time, this cycle can result in weight gain; and

       Physiological changes may occur to help the body conserve
            energy when diets are periodically inadequate, basically
            storing more calories as fat.

        Both obesity and hunger/food insecurity require solutions that
    include regular access to nutritionally adequate food. Suggestions that
    food allocations in Federal nutrition programs should be reduced, on
    the grounds that they contribute to obesity among the poor, are without
    scientific merit.
        While Native Americans have experienced certain declines in the
    rates of anemia, growth stunting, underweight and maternal and infant
    mortality over the last 25 years, there is still much work to be done.
    Chronic diseases now account for six of the top ten leading causes of
    death of Native Americans, with the epidemic of obesity and diabetes
    affecting every community. Diabetes is most common among American
    Indians at alarming rates throughout United States. Diabetes is a major
    risk factor for cardiovascular disease in all Native American
    populations, and cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death
    in this group. Of equal concern is the prevalence of obesity in Native
    American children and adolescents, reported at almost 40%. This is
    attributed to a number of factors, including the paradox described
    earlier and reduced activity in lifestyles. It seems that parents are
    not necessarily making the connection between childhood obesity and the
    high health risks later in life.
        Life expectancy has increased by 10 years since 1955 for American
    Indians, leading to a rapid increase in the number of elders. The
    incidence of food insecurity and hunger may be even more prevalent
    among the elders as they are often left to raise their grandchildren,
    resulting in their doing without as they struggle to make sure the
    children are fed.
        Nutrition and food assistance programs can help Native American
    communities in addressing some of these devastating diseases. Health
    promotion and disease prevention is key--gratefully, many USDA programs
    are targeted toward this end.
        I would contend, however, that guidance on proper selection and
    preparation of foods is every bit as important as just making food
    available. Education and empowering caretakers with the ability to make
    healthy food choices are critical if Indian youth are to achieve the
    successes available to the non-Indian population. Although SNAP
    benefits have increased the total dollars spent on food in households,
    the rate of obesity has increased as well--again, an education
    challenge. If participants purchase higher priced but healthier foods
    that were previously out of reach, programs could have a positive
    effect on weight. Data indicates, however, that SNAP recipients do not
    necessarily tend to purchase more fruits, vegetables and grains, quite
    possibly because they still fear that possible shortfall at some point
    each month. Nutrition education must accompany food benefits in every
    food delivery venue.

    The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) Today
        The FDPIR program has seen a number of enhancements in recent years
    through the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables, frozen chicken and
    beef, as well as reduction or elimination of many of the high fat, high
    sodium foods. Additionally, the recent increase in variety of fresh
    fruits and vegetables, made available as a result of collaboration
    between FNS and ITO representatives via the Food Package Review
    Committee, is highly anticipated and should be available later this
    summer. On an administrative front, the establishment of a long awaited
    Funding Methodology in 2008 to assure fair and equitable funding to
    programs across the country was another tremendous partnership endeavor
    between FNS and tribal leaders. We are very grateful for these
    advancements, allowing FDPIR to serve our clients in more meaningful
    ways.
        In our area, because we have very few reservations in Oklahoma,
    eligible Native American families can access either the SNAP program or
    the FDPIR at their convenience, as long as they are only enrolled in
    one program at a time. We serve our Chickasaw Nation clients in a
    friendly and attractive grocery store setting, for which we were
    recognized with the 2000 USDA Pyramid of Excellence Award. We feel
    strongly that families should be served with dignity and respect and
    thus, we continue to expand the availability of FDP grocery stores
    across our 13 county area. We constantly offer education to make
    customers aware of the enhanced value of participating in the FDPIR,
    including more total volume of food (80 lbs./person/month) and maximum
    nutrient benefit of food choices, i.e., fresh produce rather than
    canned, heart healthy substitutions.
        Federal policy should encourage rather than discourage tribes from
    taking their own creative initiatives. A rubber stamp approach will not
    meet the needs of all tribes in Indian Country. Given the food
    insecurity, poverty and health problems disproportionately affecting so
    many Native Americans, it is only sensible that nutrition and food
    assistance programs will continue to be a key ingredient in building
    healthy communities. Tribes need to be allowed the flexibility to
    implement programs in an innovative and culturally appropriate manner.
    Recommendations for Further Enhancing FDPIR Effectiveness
        We encourage the Subcommittee to provide policy changes and
    adequate funding authorization that enables tribes to:

       Continue to improve the nutritional quality of the food
            package by offering foods with lower fat content, higher whole
            grain content and lower sugar and sodium content. Foods that
            are convenient to serve and culturally appropriate are key with
            many families we serve today.

       Provide a method in the SNAP (Food Stamp) Act for tribal
            governments to directly access SNAP Nutrition Education (SNAP
            NE) funds, just as individual state governments do. This
            Federal Government-to-government partnership has been correctly
            extended to most of our nutrition programs, i.e., FDPIR, WIC
            and Farmers' Market Nutrition programs. The current posture of
            forcing tribes to negotiate through the various state
            department of human services/other agencies for SNAP NE is
            contrary to the basic tenants of tribal sovereignty, and also
            makes it more difficult to help families with special needs due
            to extensive delays in approval decisions.

       Provide more nutrition education monies to the FDPIR
            grantees, as an alternate to tribes directly accessing SNAP NE
            funds.

       Provide infrastructure funding to facilitate one-time
            funding needs for the FDPIR. Many needs of tribes in
            administration of this program could be met if there was
            opportunity to compete for infrastructure grants, much like
            those provided in the WIC program, to address the periodic
            equipment need, renovation of space to better meet client
            needs, expansion of a warehouse or to create a grocery store
            setting with a food demonstration kitchen for education, all of
            which enhance program service delivery.

       Allow Native American families living outside of tribal
            reservations, but close to FDPIR distribution sites, to elect
            to participate in the FDPIR rather than SNAP, recognizing that
            they will likely receive far more nutrient-dense foods in the
            80 lbs./person/month.

       Recommend the USDA facilitate study of the causes for
            decline in FDPIR participation over recent years. Decrease in
            FDPIR caseload is of great concern. It appears that FDPIR is
            losing many households to SNAP. It is our belief that the main
            reason is the lack of restrictions on food items purchased with
            SNAP funds. FDPIR continues to make great strides in improving
            the nutritional value of the food package while there are no
            nutritional requirements concerning the use of SNAP benefits.
            It is of additional concern that the recent ARRA increase in
            SNAP benefits, while seemingly a positive move, has resulted in
            a direct impact in FDPIR households further leaving FDPIR for
            SNAP, and ultimately consuming more convenient, low nutrient-
            dense foods, perpetuating the advancement of chronic diseases
            we hope to negate.

    Barriers To Accessing Other USDA Nutrition Programs
        There are significant barriers for many tribes to access some of
    the very best nutrition and food assistance programs USDA offers,
    including a number of those addressed in the farm bill: the Farmers'
    Market Nutrition Programs, the SNAP Nutrition Education program and the
    Summer Food Service Program. There are simply too many people in Indian
    Country and on reservations who do not have the opportunity to
    experience the health and economic benefits these programs offer.
        I urge you to consider the following recommendations to eradicate
    access barriers to USDA nutrition and food assistance programs and to
    take the following actions:

       Facilitate tribes' direct access, through a government-to-
            government agreement, to participate in the Summer Food Service
            Program and At-risk After School Snack Program, as recommended
            above with the SNAP ED program. Both of these offer terrific
            opportunities to address hunger for children in a meaningful
            way. Again, only accessible through the state education
            department and very limited in administrative funds, these
            programs present an access challenge for tribes. The program
            encourages partnering and community involvement for
            administrative in-kind, but the training burden is high for
            these individuals.

       Expand funding for WIC and Senior Farmers Market Nutrition
            programs to allow more tribes to participate in these programs.
            Funding levels have varied little for several years, in spite
            of the programs' tremendous popularity, thus preventing any new
            applicants to participate. Only a handful of tribes in the
            entire country currently have FMNP grants. This program helps
            produce fruits and vegetables and addresses one of the primary
            objectives of all nutrition education efforts today. The
            Chickasaw Nation Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SR
            FMNP) has brought a considerable infusion of potential funding
            to growers in the area--over $1.5 million since inception, thus
            creating opportunity for Native American farmers. Approximately
            2,600 Native American low-income seniors benefit from
            participation in our FMNP each year. Native American seniors
            appreciate and utilize the FMNP benefits as evidenced by the
            redemption rate of more than 80%.

       Promote the recruitment and retention of registered
            dietitians to support programs at the tribal level. Employing
            nutrition professionals in the Native American nutrition
            programs could help in developing culturally appropriate
            nutrition education materials, shaping policy or counseling
            program participants toward healthier choices.

       Improve the use of information technology in nutrition
            programs to enhance service delivery and program management.

       Continue promoting breastfeeding as the method of choice for
            infant feeding.

       Update Meal Pattern Requirements in the Child and Adult Care
            Food Program (CACFP) to be more congruent with current
            nutrition recommendations and allow comparable substitutions
            for fluid milk, i.e., yogurt or cheese. Cultured milk products
            are often better tolerated by the Native American population.

    Conclusion
        Given the improved state of health enjoyed by many Americans, the
    lingering health disparity among American Indians and Alaskan Natives
    is troubling. Food insecurity, poverty and health problems continue to
    disproportionately affect more than 65% of Native Americans.
    Strengthening Federal nutrition programs continues to be a key factor
    in building healthy and economically strong communities.
        Investment by Federal nutrition programs in foods of high
    nutritional quality and the educational support to assist families in
    using those optimally is far less costly than funding care for the
    chronic diseases many develop in the absence of sound nutritional
    status. Nutrition education and provision of foods high in nutritional
    value can do much to ward off hunger and food insecurity, as well as
    combat increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. Improving the health
    and food security of Native American families must ever be present in
    the minds and hearts of Congress as it establishes policy and fulfills
    the Federal trust responsibility to the native people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I remain
    ready to answer any questions or provide more information you may need.
                                     ______

    Submitted Statement By Gloria Goodwin, Secretary, National and Regional
    Board of Directors, National Association of Food Distribution Programs
                             on Indian Reservations

    6/20/10

        Good morning, Members of Congress,

        My name is Gloria Goodwin from Minnesota's White Earth Indian
    Reservation. I've worked with Food Distribution for 28 years. I serve
    on the National and Regional Board of Directors as Secretary for Food
    Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations. Currently NAFDPIR
    represents over 200 tribes in the Food Distribution Program. There are
    115 agencies that distribute foods in FDPIR.
        It's an honor to be able to advocate on behalf of the people that
    access the program. My heart really goes out to the people.
        I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Under Secretary Kevin
    Concannon and his staff for visiting White Earth Reservation Food
    Distribution Program to witness first hand how services are applied to
    our people.
        The Commodity feeding program has been in existence for more than
    30 years. White Earth and Leech Lake Reservations in Minnesota were the
    first programs to operate in 1979. White Earth served approximately
    2,000 customers when the program began.
        Participation has significantly declined since then.
        Issues and concerns that I feel needs to be addressed:

        1. Declining participation rates.

        2. Inequities between SNAP & FDPIR.

        3. Nutrition Education grant matching requirements.

        4. Cultural food offerings.

        5. The discontinuation of Butter.

        6. Administrative dollars.

         This program has a significant impact on our membership.
                FDPIR participation continues to decline. The numbers will
                tell you that this is a national trend. USDA recently
                increased the SNAP benefits for participants on average of
                $20 per household member using additional ARRA funds. This
                caused a number of FDPIR participants to choose to switch
                programs resulting in the decline in FDPIR participation.
                Both programs are funded by USDA and should be governed by
                the same policies regarding food benefits. Consumers are
                often seen purchasing unhealthy food choices with SNAP
                benefits, such as buying pizza, pop, potato chips, candy
                and the list goes on. We've come a long way to make our
                FDPIR food package healthy and nutritious. Products are now
                much lower in fat, sodium and sugar. Labels are more
                appealing and attractive. The stigma of the generic
                government labels are a thing of the past.

         There are many inequities between SNAP and FDPIR. We are
                asking that guidelines increase and deductions expand in
                parallel with our sister program, SNAP.

         We need to invest more in Nutrition education and provide
                an easier method to access funds. Many programs do not
                staff Nutrition Educators and there is a great need for
                tribes to employ full time FDPIR nutrition educators.
                Nutrition Educators are vital assets to our programs. The
                25% matching requirement is a common barrier for some
                tribes. Program Directors are often intimidated by the
                grant writing and reporting process, so we need to find
                ways to make the process much easier. We need to make a
                unified effort to encourage healthy eating and provide more
                incentives to keep health care costs down. Customers need
                to eat and live well. Diseases are prevalent on the
                reservations. We recognize the health crisis of diabetes,
                obesity and other health related issues that impact the
                clients that we serve on a daily basis. Native Americans
                suffer from the highest rate of diabetes in the nation and
                the incidence of this disease has more than doubled in the
                last two generations. We need to combat this ongoing
                problem. We need to educate and encourage our clients how
                to eat better. I ask that we examine waiving the 25% match
                to make the process easier to access nutrition education
                funds.

         I believe we need additional food dollars to expand our
                nutritional profile to include native foods such as wild
                rice, bison, salmon and cranberries. Native foods provide
                significant sources of high nutritional value. Native foods
                can serve as a return to the traditional dietary habits
                that can prevent the onset of diseases and expensive
                medical costs. The food additions will enhance the variety
                of foods which will encourage participants to apply and
                reapply for commodity foods. Tribal cultures vary greatly
                within each Region and sometimes within each State. As
                cultures vary, so do food preferences.

         Customers want their butter back. FNS Headquarters made a
                decision to discontinue the butter product because of the
                high fat content. This decision has been made without
                Tribal consultation. Shortening has also been discontinued.
                Customers now have a choice between low fat margarine and
                vegetable oil--or--both for bigger households. Research
                will prove that butter is better for you because it is a
                natural product without all the additives. The low fat
                margarine has limited uses and is not recommended for
                baking. With education and encouragement to eat healthier,
                butter is a healthier option when eaten in moderation.

        I believe you recognize there is poverty in America and in many
            instances our people are still the poorest of the poor.

        This is a very good program that serves many tribes but it gets
            increasingly difficult to deliver to our people because of
            costs and availability of food product. This program serves as
            the tribes most basic need which is Food.

        And last but not least, additional discretionary dollars are always
            a priority to effectively and efficiently administer programs.

        We are seeking your assistance in resolving some of these issues to
            better deliver the food package to some of the nation's poorest
            people.

        NAFDPIR's partnership with FNS has resulted in significant
    improvements to the FDPIR food package and we look forward to continue
    working together in the future to better service our customers. Thank
    you for your time.
                                     ______

      Submitted Statement By Susie Roy, Food Distribution Director, Leech
     Lake Band of Ojibwe; Member, Board of Directors, National Association
              of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations

    6/21/10

        Good morning Committee Members,

        My name is Susie Roy and I am from Minnesota, I am also the Food
    Distribution Director for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the elected
    President for the Midwest Region. I also sit on the board of the
    National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian
    Reservations (NAFDPIR) representing the Midwest Region.
        Thank you for inviting me. This is an honor to be here, I must
    admit that I am a little nervous here in front of all of you, but I am
    going to do my best.
        I feel that we have come a long ways with the Food Distribution
    Programs on Indian Reservations since 1979 but we still have a long
    ways to go to be able to provide quality service to our people.
        Some of our reservations sit in remote areas with only one grocery
    store or one convenience store and gas station and the business owners
    can charge what they want for their products, this has been a big
    concern as some of the low-income households can't afford to feed their
    families healthy food items.
        We need to look at increasing our food package guide rates so
    families that choose to participate on the Food Distribution Program
    can have enough healthy foods to feed their families all month.
        The eligibility guidelines are a big issue that also needs to be
    looked at closely. The 20% standard deduction for earned income has
    been there since 1979 we need to move the Food Distribution Program
    along with inflation. We live in an area where in the winter months it
    gets to 40 below zero sometimes and people have high heating cost,
    electrical bills and medical expenses and these are not allowable
    deductions for eligibility for the Food Distribution Program. Sometime
    families are only $1 to $5 over the income guidelines. All Social
    Security clients should also be automatically eligible.
        The SNAP program continues to raise their benefits for clients to
    purchase unhealthy food choices for their families this is a known fact
    that they purchase pizzas, potato chips, pop, candy and other unhealthy
    foods.
        To increase our food packages to low income households on Indian
    Reservations we would need to have an increase in our appropriated food
    dollars.
        With the healthy food packages we provide on the Food Distribution
    Program we need a significant amount of Nutrition dollars to provide
    each Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations with Nutrition
    Educators on a daily basis.
        I think that everybody in Indian Country has had a loss of a family
    member to cancer or diabetes. We have a significant amount of Native
    American people just on my reservation with diabetes and some of my own
    family members. Diabetes is now being detected at an alarming rate in
    young children on reservations.
        Nutrition Educators need to start providing healthy choices now. A
    handful of Food Distribution Programs might have access to Nutrition
    Educators but not on a full time basis.
        Nutrition funds should not be competitive for programs it should be
    a given when it comes to nutrition, we should not have to compete over
    funds with other programs.
        Native foods for each region should be allowed on our food packages
    they are high in nutrition for Native people.
        I could go on and on but I will end here.
        Thank you for giving me this opportunity to voice my concerns on a
    very needed program on Indian Reservations.
                                     ______

         Submitted Statement Ahniwake Rose, Policy Analyst, Health and
                Education, National Congress of American Indians

    Background of NCAI
        The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and
    largest American Indian organization in the United States. In 1944,
    NCAI was created by tribal leaders as a response to termination and
    assimilation policies that threatened the existence of American Indian
    and Alaska Native tribes. Since then, NCAI has fought to preserve the
    treaty rights and sovereign status of tribal governments, while
    ensuring that Indian people may fully participate in the political
    system. As the most representative organization of American Indian
    tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of tribal governments across
    the nation

    American Indian and Alaska Native Economic Disparities
        Many American Indian and Alaska Native families depend on the food
    that is provided by the Food Distribution Program on Indian
    Reservations (FDPIR). The economic situation on Indian reservations is
    significantly challenging, resulting in many American Indians and
    Alaska Natives having limited access to nutritious and quality foods.
    Twenty-five percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives are living
    in poverty, while 13% of the U.S. lives at or below the poverty
    line.\1\ While the unemployment rate is reaching 9.5% for the overall
    population, some tribal communities are suffering from a 70%
    unemployment rate.\2\ Additionally, most reservations lack the
    infrastructure and urban environment to attract business development.
    As such, local grocery stores are unable to offer affordable, fresh,
    and nutritious foods for the impoverished community they serve. In the
    Sioux Standing Rock Reservation, for example, one grocery store serves
    2.5 million acres. As a result, the cost of food increases, and the
    variety of fresh produce is reduced.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Census, 2000; Energy Information Administration, Energy
    Use and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands, 2000;
    2006 GAO 06-189 Report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving
    Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands.
        \2\ U.S. Census, 2000; Energy Information Administration, Energy
    Use and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands, 2000;
    2006 GAO 06-189 Report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving
    Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To further complicate this situation, many American Indians and
    Alaska Natives do not have the resources to maintain fresh and
    nutritious foods within their homes. Fourteen percent on Indian people
    do not have electricity, a necessity for refrigeration, freezing, and
    cooking. An additional 13% do not have access to clean water, which
    creates a hazardous obstacle for cleaning and cooking fresh foods.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Census, 2000; Energy Information Administration, Energy
    Use and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands, 2000;
    2006 GAO 06-189 Report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving
    Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On reservations, these economic challenges create additional
    barriers to obtaining fresh produce and healthy foods. As a result,
    American Indian and Alaska Native communities are suffering from the
    highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the country.\4\ American
    Indian and Alaska Native adults are 1.6 times more likely as White
    adults to be obese, which is equivalent to 34% of American Indian and
    Alaska Native adults and 21.3% of White adults.\5\ More alarming,
    however, is the rapid proliferation of obesity among Native youth. More
    than 39% of low-income American Indian and Alaska Native children ages
    2 to 5 are overweight or obese.\6\ Also, the obesity rate among
    American Indian and Native Alaskan 4 year olds is 31%, which is double
    the obesity rate of their White counterparts.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ American Diabetes Association.
        \5\ CDC 2005. Health Characteristics of the American Indian and
    Alaska Native Adult Population: United States, 1999-2003. Advance Data
    (356), Table 2.
        \6\ Polhamus B., Dalenius K., Borland E., et al. Pediatric
    Nutrition Surveillance 2006 Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.
        \7\ Anderson S.E. and Whitaker R.C. ``Prevalence of Obesity Among
    U.S. Preschool Children in Different Racial and ethnic Groups.''
    Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(4): 344-348, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A natural result of obesity and poor eating habits is the
    development of diabetes and other health complications. According to
    the Indian Health Service (IHS) Diabetes Program, there was a 161%
    increase in diabetes in young people aged 25 to 34 years of age, and a
    110% increase in diabetes in youth between the ages of 15 to 19.\8\ The
    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation also released a recent report that
    highlighted a 68% increase of diabetes cases among American Indian and
    Alaska Native adolescents over a 10 year period.\9\ These alarming
    statistics result in Native people dying from diabetes at a rate of
    189% higher than other Americans.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ IHS Diabetes Program Statistics.
        \9\ Acton K.J., Burrows N.R., Wang J., et al. ``Diagnosed Diabetes
    Among American Indians and Alaska Natives Aged < 35 Years--United
    States, 1994-2004.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(44):
    1201-1203, 2006.
        \10\ SAMHSA, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benefits Obtained from FDPIR
        For the past 20 years, FDPIR has been working to create a food
    package that offers a variety of nutritious and healthy foods that meet
    the dietary guidelines for Indian people. To support this endeavor, the
    FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group was created to monitor customer
    satisfaction and continually improve the food package by recommending
    healthy, nutritious, and flavorsome foods. In comparison to the
    Supplemental Nutritious Assistance Program (SNAP), another food program
    that tribal members have the option of choosing, FDPIR scores 29 points
    higher on the USDA's Healthy Eating Index. Out of 100, FDPIR scored 81,
    the average American followed with 58, and SNAP participants trailed
    with a rating of 52.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ USDA FNS, Office of Research and Analysis, FDPIR Food Package
    Nutritional Quality: Report to Congress, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Based on these nutrition statistics, some tribes are concerned that
    SNAP participants are not spending their food stamps wisely. Instead of
    choosing nutritious foods that will benefit their health and overall
    well-being, they are opting for fast, processed, and unhealthy foods.
    In addition, many SNAP participants are exhausting all of their food
    benefits before the month expires.
        In terms of convenience, many FDPIR programs have identified the
    individuals who lack transportation. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, for
    example, offers home delivery to the elderly, the handicapped, and
    those who lack transportation each month. Alternatively, SNAP is not a
    realistic option for reservations where the only grocery store is
    located a hundred miles away. Even for those reservations where a
    grocery store is conveniently located, the food options are limited to
    what is practical for a rural store to have delivered.

    Improving the FDPIR
        The following recommendations were gathered from tribal FDPIR
    agencies and tribal leaders who have shared their concerns with NCAI.
    NCAI, however, is still in the process of establishing a task force to
    develop additional FDPIR policies recommendations.
        Permanent implementation of traditional Native foods. Before
    processed foods entered the diets of American Indians and Alaska
    Natives, tribal communities lived from traditional hunting, fishing,
    gathering and agriculture. By doing so, they had few diseases, and
    maintained healthy and strong lives. Many tribal leaders have voiced
    their support in returning to these traditional foods that encourage
    healthy living and cultural sustainability. A major element is ensuring
    that traditional foods are permanently included in FDPIR.
        Encourage local food production and markets. Establishing and
    supporting local food markets would support the local economy,
    encourage the production and consumption of tribal traditional foods,
    and offset additional costs for the delivery of fresh foods to rural
    tribal communities.
        Eliminate asset tests. USDA has traditionally aligned FDPIR rules
    with those governing SNAP, both for administrative convenience and as a
    matter of fairness. By maintaining parallel eligibility standards
    between the two programs, USDA ensures that the program is a comparable
    alternative to SNAP. Tribes, however, do not have the same option as
    states to lift the asset test on eligibility. Further, it does not
    ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native families living in states
    that have lifted the asset test for SNAP, are free of an asset test
    administered by FDPIR. If not addressed, FDPIR will be the only federal
    nutrition program that requires an asset test as part of eligibility.
        Interagency collaboration. While FDIPR remains an important food
    source for Native communities, it is also important to seek
    collaborative efforts with other government agencies that continuously
    distribute food. For instance, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau
    of Indian Education distribute school breakfasts and lunches to Native
    students. Encouraging interagency collaboration with local producers
    will assist in efforts to regularly secure healthy and nutritious foods
    for Native communities.
        Educate tribal communities. FDPIR still maintains a negative
    stereotype from its establishment in the 1960's, thus many tribal
    members are hesitant in returning. As a result, tribal communities need
    specific outreach to inform them of the updated and modernized program.
    The image of FDPIR needs to be changed, where it aligns with the
    nutritious, healthy, and flavorsome foods it offers. Several tribes
    have taken on this work themselves, presenting cooking demonstrations,
    offering cooking classes, and producing cook books. Each of these
    solutions provide a way for tribal members to become familiar with the
    new food packages that are being provided, while teaching them skills
    that will encourage a nutritious and healthy lifestyle. In addition,
    many of the youth do not possess the skills to cook, so these are
    educational skills for them to develop as well.
        To ensure maximum outcomes for these innovative practices,
    appropriate staff is needed to educate FDPIR participants. Recruiting
    and retaining registered dieticians and nutrition professionals would
    assist tribal communities by developing culturally appropriate
    nutrition education materials, shaping policy, and counseling FDPIR
    participants toward healthier choices.
        Allow unused funds to be carried over to the next year and increase
    funding. Additional funding would allow tribal programs to upgrade
    facilities and purchase new equipment, such as trailers, trucks, and
    freezers. These funds would also allow tribal programs to create
    educational programs and hire additional staff.

    Tribal Consultation
        A unique government-to-government relationship exists between
    federally-recognized tribes and the Federal Government. This
    relationship is grounded in numerous treaties, statutes, and executive
    orders, which reinforce the legal status of tribal governments. An
    integral element of this government-to-government relationship is that
    consultation occurs with Indian tribes. President Obama recently
    reaffirmed this relationship with an Executive Memorandum, which
    requires each federal agency to develop a plan to implement
    consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments as
    required by Executive Order 13175.
        Because FDPIR is administered by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, tribal governments should be consulted before any changes
    are made to the existing program. Moreover, FDPIR is a program that was
    established to specifically meet the food shortage of Native people.
    Conclusion
        Although FDPIR has significantly improved, the alarming rates of
    diabetes and obesity continue to grow within Indian Country. Therefore,
    it is vital to address the need for fresh, healthy, and traditional
    foods. As policies and recommendations are being considered, NCAI
    encourages the Committee to seek further comments as needed.

                                   Attachment

    Diabetes and Obesity in Indian Country Fact Sheet
    Diabetes
       American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest
            prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic
            groups.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ American Diabetes Association.

       In some American Indian and Alaska Native communities, more
            than half of adults aged 18 and older have diagnosed diabetes,
            with prevalence rates reaching as high as 60%.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ IHS Report to Congress, 2007.

       Between 1990-2009, among American Indians and Alaska Natives
            there was a 161% increase in diabetes in young people aged 25-
            34 years and a 110% increase in diabetes in youth aged 15-19
            years.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ IHS Diabetes Program Statistics.

       Native people die from diabetes at a rate of 189% higher
            than other Americans.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ SAMHSA, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.

       American Indians and Alaska Natives are twice as likely to
            be told by a physician that they have diabetes as their non-
            Hispanic white counterparts.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ CDC 2005. Health Characteristics of the American Indian and
    Alaska Native Adult Population: United States, 1999-2003. Advance Data
    (356), Table 4.

       In 2005, American Indian and Alaska Natives were 1.9 times
            as likely as non-Hispanics white to die from diabetes.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ CDC 2007. Health United States, 2007. Table 29.

       Over a 10 year period, the number of diabetes cases
            increased by 68 percent among American Indian and Alaska Native
            adolescents.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Acton K.J., Burrows N.R., Wang J., et al. ``Diagnosed Diabetes
    Among American Indians and Alaska Natives Aged < 35 Years--United
    States, 1994-2004.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(44):
    1201-1203, 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Obesity
       More than 39% of low-income American Indian and Alaska
            Native children ages 2 to 5 are overweight or obese.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Polhamus B., Dalenius K., Borland E., et al. Pediatric
    Nutrition Surveillance 2006 Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.

       American Indian and Alaska Native adults are 1.6 times as
            likely as White adults to be obese, which is equivalent to 34%
            of American Indian and Alaska Native adults and 21.3% of White
            adults.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ CDC 2005. Health Characteristics of the American Indian and
    Alaska Native Adult Population: United States, 1999-2003. Advance Data
    (356), Table 2.

       A national survey found that 31.2 percent of American Indian
            and Native Alaskan 4 year olds are obese. The obesity rate
            among American Indians and Native Alaskans was higher than that
            of any other racial or ethnic group studied and almost double
            the rate among White 4 year olds.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Anderson S.E. and Whitaker R.C. ``Prevalence of Obesity Among
    U.S. Preschool Children in Different Racial and Ethnic Groups.''
    Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(4): 344-348, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

     Submitted Paper By Roxanna Newsom, President, National Association of
               Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations

    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
    Farm Bill 2012
    Position Paper
        We greatly appreciate recent visits made to reservations: Secretary
    Vilsack's visit to Chickasaw Nation and Under Secretary Kevin
    Concannon's visit to White Earth Reservation. We want to point out that
    ``one size doesn't fit all''. There are vast geographical differences
    between ITO's and for many of our citizens nothing has changed since
    the inception of the program.
        When comparing FDPIR to SNAP,* FDPIR is the healthier alternative.
    With the epidemic proportions of Diabetes, Heart disease and obesity,
    NAFDPIR submitted a resolution requesting establishment of a Food
    Package Review Committee consisting of Program Directors, Tribal
    Dietitians and FNS staff. This collaboration has resulted in
    improvements in the food package, including a decrease in fat and
    sodium and an increase in fresh produce. Whereas SNAP has no
    restrictions on any foods purchased.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * FDPIR Food Package Nutritional Quality: Report to Congress--
    Summary, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis,
    November 2008. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FDPIR requests re-alignment of income guidelines based on the
    poverty level since FDPIR operates only on reservations, near
    reservations and Oklahoma where SNAP operates in all states. Separate
    guidelines are offered for Alaska due to their economic status, and
    according to Per Capita Personal Income by State and County, many
    reservations are located in the lowest ranked areas.
        The lack of affordable housing is forcing Tribal members to seek
    housing in larger communities near reservations. The current 10,000
    population cap regulation prohibits us from serving many Native
    families that would benefit from FDPIR services. Although we have the
    opportunity to submit a waiver to serve this eligible population the
    process is cumbersome and determination is often inconsistent. If this
    regulation was amended a majority of the programs currently have the
    capability to provide services to these families.
        Although the $1,000,000 Nutrition education grant has been
    beneficial to programs awarded funds, the grant process is cumbersome
    and inefficient. Many ITO's do not have the resources to successfully
    apply for competitive grants. All regions have established Nutrition
    Education committees providing NE resources to all ITO's in their
    respective region; it would be more practical to allocate the funds to
    regions by current funding methods with the exclusion of the 25% Tribal
    match.
        FDPIR requests our annual funding level be at 100% and eliminate
    the 25% match.
        FDPIR requests authorization to allow the carryover of
    administrative funding as allowed in other FNS programs.