[Senate Hearing 115-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-382
BREAKING NEW GROUND IN AGRIBUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 17, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-783 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JON TESTER, Montana,
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
STEVE DAINES, Montana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho TINA SMITH, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer Romero, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 17, 2018................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 23
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 31
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Hoeven...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 2
Witnesses
Berrey, Hon. John L., Chairman, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Cullo, Diane, Advisor to the Secretary; Director, Office of
Partnerships and Public Engagement, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Haskie, Lionel, Operations and Maintenance Manager, Navajo
Agricultural Products Industry................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Hipp, Janie Simms, Director, Indigenous Food and Agriculture
Initiative, University of Arkansas School of Law............... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Appendix
Anderson, Keith B., Vice-Chairman, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community, prepared statement.................................. 43
Baker, Hon. Harlan, Chairman, The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boy's Reservation, prepared statement.................... 125
Begaye, Hon. Russell, President, Navajo Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 69
Cleveland, Wilfrid, President, Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 87
Ferguson, Camille, Executive Director, American Indian Alaska
Native Tourism Association, prepared statement................. 41
Floyd, Hon. James R., Principal Chief, Muscogee (Creek) Nation,
prepared statement............................................. 123
Gasco-Bentley, Hon. Regina, Tribal Chairperson, Waganakising
Odawak, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indian, prepared
statement...................................................... 82
Goudy, Hon. JoDe, Chairman, Yakama Nation, prepared statement.... 123
Iyall, Hon. William P.E., Chairman, Cowlitz Indian Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 73
Jackson, Ryan, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, Chickasaw Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 114
Lewis, Cheryl Jackson, Division Director, Nutrition Promotion and
Technical Assistance Division, prepared statement.............. 121
Lummi Tribe of Indians (Lummi Nation), prepared statement........ 61
Miles, Hon. Mary Jane, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 79
Palmer, Carole M., Food Systems Specialist, COPE, prepared
statement...................................................... 107
Payment, Hon. Aaron, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians, prepared statement.................................... 51
Racine, Ross, Executive Director, Intertribal Agriculture
Council, prepared statement.................................... 44
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Diane Cullo.................................................... 130
Riley, Sr. Joshua, Policy Analyst, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 85
Siow, Hon. Virgil, Governor, Pueblo of Laguna, prepared statement 51
Torres, Hon. Amber, Chairman, Walker River Paiute Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 72
Trahan, Hon. Ronald Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, prepared statement..................................... 75
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET
SPF), prepared statement....................................... 53
Valencia, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 110
Watchman, Pete, President, Navajo Nation Soil and Water
Conservation District, prepared statement...................... 127
Weston, Hon. Troy Scott, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, prepared
statement...................................................... 57
Wildcat, Hon. Joseph, President, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, prepared statement.......................... 90
Yellowbird Stevens, Hon. Brandon, Vice-Chairman, Oneida Nation,
prepared statement............................................. 109
Zorn, James E., Executive Administrator, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, prepared statement.................... 81
*ROUNDTABLE--Advancing Native Food Traditions in Indian Country*. 133
BREAKING NEW GROUND IN AGRIBUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. I call this hearing to order. Good afternoon.
Today, the Committee will hold an oversight hearing on
Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian
Country.
Agribusiness is of particular importance in Indian Country.
The National Congress of American Indians has noted that
approximately 35 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives
live in rural communities, and nearly 40 percent of tribal jobs
are dependent on agriculture.
According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, there are
nearly 59,000 Indian farmers and ranchers in the United States
with 35,000 farms principally owned and operated by Indian
farmers. In my home State of North Dakota, over 83 percent of
farms on the Turtle Mountain Reservation are tribally-operated.
Agribusiness is critical for Indian Country, and it is a
growing industry. According to the most recent USDA Census of
Agriculture, between 2007 and 2012, there was a 9 percent
increase in American Indian principal farm operators. That is a
good sign. This increase occurred in Indian Country while we
saw a national decrease in principal farmers.
This Committee has worked to reduce the regulatory burden
in Indian Country and it is time we do the same for the growing
industry of Indian agribusiness. We are here today to discuss
just that and to examine how tribes and their members can
capitalize on opportunities in agribusiness.
We have a diverse group of witnesses who are joining us
today to review how Congress, the Administration, tribes, and
other stakeholders may work together to find common ground and
help Native Americans continue to have success in agribusiness.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. As a
North Dakotan and a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am
particularly interested in Indian agribusiness. I look forward
to hearing your testimonies.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I want to turn to
Senator Udall for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Chairman Hoeven. I really
appreciate working with you on this hearing.
We are going to have our new member join us later today. I
will welcome her when Tina arrives.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to Lionel Haskie from
NAPI. I am looking forward to hearing more about NAPI's efforts
to expand access to traditional foods, workforce development
for Native youth, and innovative stewardship. NAPI is doing
tremendous work.
Once every five years, Congress sets Federal nutrition,
agricultural and conservative policies in the Farm Bill
reauthorization. These policies naturally have significant
impacts to Indian Country.
Tribal lands, natural resources, foods and economic
development opportunities are all affected by Federal food
policy. For many decades now, Indian Country has been summarily
excluded from both discussions that shape these policies and
the policies themselves.
That is why I am thankful to the Chairman for calling this
hearing today. Indian Country's interest in agribusiness is
real and growing. There are over 56,000 Native farmers and
ranchers operating on 57 million acres of land.
In 2012, Native farmers bought more than $3 billion worth
of products to the market. I hope to hear more from our
witnesses today about how Congress can better support these
efforts to get Native agricultural products on the grocery
store shelves all across America.
Market value is only one piece of what Native farmers and
ranchers bring to Indian Country. These hardworking folks help
their communities address issues related to nutrition, cultural
revitalization, climate change mitigation and research
innovation. In fact, the testimony from our witnesses today
underscores this point.
This Committee must take a broad approach to its review of
Federal agricultural policy. That is why tomorrow afternoon,
Chairman Hoeven and I will convene a bipartisan roundtable to
discuss the many ways Congress and the USDA can support tribal
efforts around traditional foods, especially in light of the
new Farm Bill actively being considered by the Committee on
Agriculture.
I have seen the important cultural, health and economic
roles traditional foods play for tribes of my home State of New
Mexico. Many of my fellow members on this Committee can
probably attest to the same in their home States.
It is important that the record fully reflect this
priority. I request the transcript from tomorrow's roundtable
be included in the record for today's hearing.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Both today's hearing and tomorrow's roundtable represent a
solid start when it comes to the Farm Bill in Indian Country. I
am calling upon everyone on this dais today to share what we
learn from our colleagues who do not sit on this Committee and
to work together to see the legislative changes we can secure
for tribes and Native farmers in the upcoming Farm Bill
reauthorization.
For too long now, Indian Country has been knocking at the
door of the Farm Bill asking for a seat at the table with
States, counties and other stakeholders, asking for their due
as sovereign governments. We all need to come together to push
that door open and make room at the table.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for
calling today's hearing and working with me on tomorrow's
roundtable. I am very encouraged by our joint efforts. I look
forward to working with you and the leadership of the Ag
Committee where you and several other Indian Affairs members
also sit on the legislative side of things.
I see that our newest member has joined us, Senator Hoeven.
I want to recognize her. Senator Smith is present.
I also want to say there is a special connection with Tina
because she was born and raised in Albuquerque and I believe
graduated from high school there. I share that with her,
obviously, and in a sense, adopt her.
I would also like to begin by giving her a very warm
welcome today. We are glad to have you join us. I look forward
to working with you to advance the priorities of the Minnesota
tribes and Indian Country as a whole in the Senate.
I know you want to work and have a very good relationship
with your tribes. I am willing to work hard with you on that
behalf. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Tester, for joining us today. When we
talk about farming, there is nobody that has his hands in the
dirt more than Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Seven fingers.
Senator Udall. Seven fingers, got it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall.
Welcome to Senator Smith. Did you have opening comments,
Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman Hoeven.
Senator Udall, I appreciate very much being on this
Committee. I want you both to know that serving on this
Committee was very important to me. It was something I
specifically asked to do because I know it is so important and
especially important to Minnesota and our 11 sovereign Nation
tribes.
The Chairman. Again, welcome, Senator Smith. It is good to
have you with us.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, thank you and
the Vice Chairman for holding what I think is a very important
hearing.
There is incredible opportunity in Indian Country for
agriculture. I have seen it firsthand but I think today is an
opportunity to find out what is holding it back and what are
the impediments. Is it a lack of capital, input costs, not
having adequate mentorship or communication between Federal
agencies, lenders and tribes? We need the answers.
This is so important today because we have a Farm Bill
coming up. We might be able to address some of those issues in
the Farm Bill if you can point us in the right direction. We
are looking to your for guidance from the Native community's
perspective.
I think if we have a particularly good hearing today, we
will be able to transfer that information over to the Ag
Committee and hopefully have some influence on that bill as it
is being written.
Thank you all for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester. I agree. I think
that sentiment is very appropriate. We want any and all good
ideas as we write this Farm Bill.
Senator Crapo, any opening statement?
Senator Crapo. No.
The Chairman. I would like to again welcome our witnesses.
Today, we will hear from Ms. Diane Cullo, Advisor to the
Secretary and Director, Office of Partnerships and Public
Engagement, U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Honorable John
L. Berrey, Chairman of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma; Ms. Janie
Simms Hipp, Director, Indigenous Food and Agriculture
Initiative, University of Arkansas, School of Law,
Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Mr. Lionel Haskie, Operations and
Maintenance Manager of the Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry, Farmington, New Mexico.
Again, welcome to all of you.
Ms. Cullo, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DIANE CULLO, ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY AND
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PARTNERSHIPS AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Cullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Udall and
members of the Committee.
My name is Diane Cullo. I am the Director of the Office of
Partnerships and Public Engagement at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on how USDA is
addressing agribusiness opportunities for tribal Nations and
citizens. Thank you for your leadership and insight to be able
to highlight the need to support new agricultural and economic
enterprises in Indian Country.
Based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture data, we know that
the average reported age of Native agricultural operators is
58. A study the NCAI reported that over one-third of the Native
population is under the age of 18. There is a rising Native
youth cohort that USDA is poised to help address so that Native
American agriculture continues to thrive.
I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with many young
tribal members last month at the Intertribal Ag Council's
annual meeting. I look forward to working with this Committee
on identifying areas where we can provide more support to help
feed our population and create a sustainable livelihood for
Native youth.
We also know that by 2020, 39 percent of new openings in
the agriculture, food and natural resources sector may not be
filled by graduates with the necessary degrees. That is almost
23,000 jobs nationwide.
One of the ways USDA is addressing this is through a
cooperative agreement with the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium to develop a career ready curriculum for tribal
colleges and universities. We continue to seek other
opportunities to collaborate with Native and non-Native youth-
serving organizations.
One of Secretary Perdue's highest priorities is customer
service. Through that, USDA programs are bridging need with
opportunity. Through our Rural Business Development Grant
Program, Rural Development awarded over $520,000 in fiscal year
2017 to Native projects helping support agribusiness jobs and
fortifying those community-based economic markets.
Those projects include forestry, establishing a greenhouse
incubator, providing technical assistance and developing a
commercial market for local tribally-produced foods. Also,
through USDA's network of boots on the ground in the Farm
Service Agency, Native farmers and ranchers received over $29
million in financing to support their operations since
September 2017.
Of that, over $15 million directly supported Native
producers becoming owner-operators of farms, expanding current
operations, increasing agricultural productivity, and assisting
with land tenure.
USDA is committed to establishing a network of lasting
success. Agricultural operations take time, capital and energy
to ensure the production model thrives. USDA welcomes the
opportunity to work with this Committee to attain our mutual
goal of increasing the number of Native producers in Indian
Country.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize our tribal
partners who continue to broaden the footprint of agriculture.
Last year, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma announced the grand
opening of the first tribal-owned and operated meat slaughter
facility in the Country.
USDA actively consulted with Quapaw to ensure a full
understanding of USDA regulatory requirements and under
Chairman Berrey's leadership, the tribal is now serving as a
resource for other tribes interested in doing the same.
Other tribes have met with us and expressed interest in
pursuing similar ventures in other production areas like
seafood. Just last week, KivaSun Foods, a Native-owned company,
was approved to participate in USDA's salmon products program,
specifically for salmon destined for the FDPIR program. This is
a perfect example of a Native-owned enterprise working with a
USDA program that supports feeding families in Indian Country.
Within the first month, Secretary Perdue, Deputy Secretary
and several Under Secretaries met with tribal representatives
to discuss critical issues. We will continue to have these
important conversations.
With the upcoming Farm Bill, we look forward to working
with Indian Country. I will take this opportunity to announce
that Secretary Perdue and USDA will hold a tribal consultation
meeting on the 2018 Farm Bill in Oklahoma in April.
I am here to reaffirm USDA's commitment to partnering with
Indian Country. I thank you for your time. I am happy to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diane Cullo, Advisor to the Secretary; Director,
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Ranking Member Udall, and Members
of the Committee. My name is Diane Cullo and I am the Director of the
Office of Partnerships & Public Engagement (OPPE) and an Advisor to the
Secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Prior to
joining USDA, I served as Executive Director for the White House
Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, as well as at the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, so the issues regarding
access and education across Indian Country are close to my heart.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs on how USDA is addressing new agribusiness
opportunities for tribal nations and citizens. Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Udall, thank you for your leadership and for highlighting the
need to support new agricultural economic enterprises in Indian
Country.
Based on 2012 Census of Agriculture data, we know that the average
reported age of Native agricultural operators is 58 years old. A study
by the National Congress of American Indians reports that over a third
of the Native population is under the age of 18. There is a rising
Native youth bubble that USDA is poised to help address, so that Native
American agriculture continues to thrive. I had the pleasure of
interacting with many young tribal members in attendance at the
Intertribal Agriculture Council's annual meeting this past December.
Native youth are part of the future of American agribusiness. I look
forward to working with the Committee on identifying areas in which we
can provide more support and help to not only feed our population, but
create a sustainable livelihood for Native youth.
We also know that by 2020, 39 percent of new openings in the
agriculture, food, and natural resources sector may not be filled by
graduates with those degrees. That is nearly 23,000 jobs nation-wide
not only in farming, but also in STEM and bio-materials production,
communication, government, and education. One of the ways USDA is
actively addressing this is through a cooperative agreement with the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. We are supporting the
Consortium's efforts to develop career-ready curriculum for tribal
colleges and universities. This partnership is still early, and USDA is
continuing to explore other opportunities for collaboration with
Native- and non-Native youth serving organizations, such as internship
opportunities and targeted resources.
One of Secretary Perdue's highest priorities is to enhance USDA's
customer service, and I am pleased to report that USDA programs are
helping bridge need with opportunity. Through its Rural Business
Development Grant program, Rural Development awarded over $520,000 in
fiscal year (FY) 2017 to Native projects, helping support jobs in
agribusiness and fortifying those economic markets in their
communities. Those projects included forestry, establishing a
greenhouse incubator, providing technical assistance for tribal
producers, and developing a commercial market for local, tribally
produced foods.
Furthermore, through USDA's network of boots on the ground in the
Farm Service Agency, Native farmers and ranchers received over $29
million in financing to support their own operations since September
2017. Of that total, more than half--which is over $15 million--
directly supported Native producers becoming owner-operators of farms,
expanding current operations, increasing agricultural productivity, and
assisting with land tenure. Equally worth noting, the Farm Service
Agency lent more than $250,000 to youth aged 10-20 to finance income-
producing, agriculture-related projects, up to $5,000 each. These
Native youth now have the opportunity to see exactly what they can do
with their own hands.
USDA is committed to establishing a network of lasting success.
Agricultural operations are ultimately business endeavors and, as such,
they take time, capital, and energy to ensure their production model
thrives. USDA welcomes the opportunity to work with this Committee to
attain our mutual goal of increasing the number of current and future
Native producers in Indian Country.
We are also appreciative of our tribal partners who continue to
broaden the footprint of agriculture across Indian Country. Last year,
the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma announced the grand opening of the first
tribal-owned and -operated meat slaughter facility in the country.
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service actively consulted with
Quapaw to ensure a full understanding of USDA regulatory requirements,
informing the Tribe's decision to operate as a federally-inspected
facility. Under Chairman Berrey's leadership, the Tribe is taking it a
step further, serving as a resource for other tribes interested in
establishing their own facility.
Other tribes have met with us and expressed interest in pursuing
similar ventures in other areas of production, such as seafood. As of
last week--January 11th--KivaSun Foods, in partnership with Odyssey
Foods, a seafood processing and distribution company based in Seattle,
Washington, was approved to participate in the Agricultural Marketing
Service Salmon Products Program, specifically for salmon fillets
destined for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
There is currently a solicitation out for 12 loads--which comes out to
432,000 pounds--of salmon fillets. KivaSun is a Native-owned food
company that reintroduced traditional foods to tribal communities in
the form of bison and wild pacific salmon. This is a shining example of
a Native-owned enterprise working with a USDA program that supports
feeding families in Indian Country.
Additionally, USDA's ongoing partnership with the Intertribal
Agriculture Council (TAC) is expanding agricultural market access for
tribal producers through two courses, amongst others. First, USDA has a
cooperative agreement with TAC to provide technical assistance on land-
management practices and to help interested producers navigate through
the diverse array of USDA programs and services available to meet their
needs. Second, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service has regularly
awarded TAC under the Market Access Program, or MAP. In FY 2018, the
IAC received $737,270 in MAP funds to promote products and secure
export sales of American Indian and Alaska Native agriculture and food
products. Under IAC's American Indian Foods program, USDA saw combined
on-sites sales of $8.2 million (and estimated 12month sales of $12
million) at trade shows around the world in FY 2016.
On Secretary Perdue's first day in office in April 2017, President
Trump called on USDA to lead a concerted effort identifying issues
important to rural and agricultural prosperity. This led directly to
the Report to the President from the Task Force on Rural Prosperity. We
will continue seeking to identify these barriers and support their
resolution. A copy of the report is posted online at www.usda.gov/
ruralprosperity.
Within Deputy Secretary Censky's first 10 days in office, he met
with Tribal Leaders at NCAI to consult on the Secretary's intended
reorganization of USDA, and just last month, one of our Acting Under
Secretaries consulted with Tribal Leaders to identify how we can come
together in improving the USDA food package. One of the important
points of discussion was how USDA can work with tribal agribusinesses
to include their food in the package that feeds so many Native
families. The KivaSun foods example I previously mentioned is one small
step in that direction.
With an upcoming Farm Bill on the horizon, we look forward to
working collectively with Indian Country. I would like to take this
opportunity to announce that Secretary Perdue and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture will hold a Tribal Consultation on the 2018 Farm Bill in
Oklahoma in April.
In the short month following Secretary Perdue's appointment to
USDA, he fulfilled his promise to meet with tribes. When he visited
Oglala Lakota College to hear from Tribal Leaders and Tribal College
Presidents on how we can leverage our resources, he walked away from
that meeting affirming that USDA is here to partner with Indian
Country, and I echo that sentiment. I would like to thank the Committee
for your time and look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now we will turn to Chairman Berrey.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA
Mr. Berrey. Good afternoon, Chairman Hoeven and Vice
Chairman Udall. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak to you all today.
I want to acknowledge that you have two Razorback alumni
sitting before you so if we break into a calling of the hogs,
please forgive me. I also want to recognize Senator Lankford
who has been very good to the Quapaw Tribe. We are sorry that
he is not here today.
I want to tell you a little bit about who we are. We are
the O-Gah-Pah people, the indigenous tribe of Arkansas. We are
a Sioux Tribe and speak a Siouan language. Back in the day,
there was a buffalo herd on the Grand Prairie in southwest
Arkansas which we chased. We also grew crops along the
Mississippi and the Arkansas River, so we have a very long
history of agriculture within our DNA, our cultural background
and history. We are very proud of that.
Fortunately, we are right on Interstate 44 which has about
10 million cars going past our reservation in Oklahoma. We have
a very successful casino resort. The tribe has pointed me in
the direction of taking that money and investing it in
agriculture.
Agriculture is our history, it is our future and we are
dedicated to that in many ways. We are a 638 tribe. We do self
governance. We do everything that the Bureau was doing for
ourselves except for IIM account management. We leave that up
to the Office of the Special Trustee.
We have courts, law enforcement, four full service fire
stations and all of our work is community broad and spread. We
are an Oklahoma tribe so we are a little more integrated than
you would find tribes in the Northern Plains and other parts of
the Country. It works well for us to be very much a part of the
community. We have mutual aid agreements, cross deputization
agreements and work daily with the local community trying to
feed people, trying to protect people and trying to make life
better in our community.
We think there are ways you can help us to grow. Our
promise to other tribes has been, come see what we do, let us
show you how we got to where we are, and let us provide you any
help or assistance we can provide to spread this to the other
Native Nations.
We have been approached by 20 tribes that have come to
visit our facility. It is a state-of-the-art facility. It is
USDA inspected. We have a tribal member going through a USDA
grading school so we will have a tribal member who is a USDA
grader that will work in our facility.
It is a jobs program but more than anything, it is bringing
hope and opportunity to young people in my tribe and our
community that is outside of the gaming industry. We see that
gaming is not the end all but it helps us with what our future
will be. We see that in agriculture.
We are dedicated to that. We are looking at land in
Arkansas, our homeland, to purchase more land for agriculture.
We grow our own feed for our feeding program for our animals.
We feed other animals with feed we grow.
We have actually taken land at a Superfund site and
converted it to agricultural land. We test the plant life to
make sure it is not uptaking any heavy metals. We have been
very successful working with Administrator Scott Pruett and
Senator Inhofe in turning what was at one time the worst
Superfund site in the United States to now a site that is
transforming into an agricultural opportunity.
We do not want to bring people back to live on that
Superfund site, but we want to make it productive land. We see
it as capping and fencing, capping and institutional controls
as a reduction of the size of our land base but we see if we
can convert that land to viable agricultural land. That is
where we want to go.
A phase that I think would help us from you would be to
look at the way environmental law works for tribes to be
treated as a State under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air
Act. I have had a conversation with Secretary Perdue about
that. We would like to pursue that conversation.
Even at our plant, if we had a Quapaw stamp right next to a
USDA stamp, that would be movement in the right direction. We
think it is incumbent upon us as Native people who care for the
land we live on culturally to be very much a part of turning
that land into helping people feed themselves.
Under Title VI, for instance, we supply bison for free to
our Title VI program which feeds over 600 people a day and most
are non-tribal members, so they can concentrate on other parts
of the plate than protein.
It saves their budget tremendously because we donate bison
to the program. We have 400 Meels on Wheels a day and about 200
sit-down meals a day. It is interesting that the elderly people
now prefer bison over beef. They are converted now because of
the health benefits of the bison itself.
It is a good program and we would like to share those other
programs with other tribes. We have made comments that we will
submit for the Farm Bill and look forward to Secretary Perdue
coming to see our USDA-inspected beef and bison facility on
trust land.
We want to continue to help your Committee in any way we
can to help promote and ensure that Native Americans can be
very much a part of doing good things and feeding people for
this Country.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John L. Berrey, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe of
Oklahoma
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and members of
the Committee. My name is John Berrey and I am the Chairman of the
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah).
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk
about agriculture and my Tribe's activities in these fields. This
hearing is very timely and particularly important given the
reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year.
Background on the Quapaw Tribe
The Quapaw Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe with a
mature, sophisticated government providing a full menu of programs and
services to its tribal members as well as to surrounding communities.
The Tribe has also demonstrated the kind of strategic vision and
business savvy that has generated employment and incomes for tribal
members and others, and has put the Tribe on a path to real economic
self-sufficiency undreamed of in years past. In addition to a world-
class gaming facility and accompanying resort, the Tribe has launched a
USDA-certified, tribally-owned bison and cattle operation to grow,
process and market Quapaw products both domestically and, shortly, in
the international markets.
A Brief History of the Downstream People
Historically, the Tribe was located in the American southeast, and
our name --``O-Gah-Pah''--(anglicized as ``Quapaw'') means the ``people
who went downstream'' or the ``Downstream People.'' The Tribe's
homeland for many centuries was near the confluence of the Mississippi
and Arkansas Rivers in present-day State of Arkansas.
Not satisfied with its earlier removal and other actions vis a vis
the Quapaw people, the United States removed the Quapaw, this time to a
location along the present-day Oklahoma-Kansas border, where the Quapaw
have resided ever since. Under the Treaty of May 13, 1833, the United
States set aside a reservation for the Tribe, consisting of 150
sections of land west of the Missouri state line, largely located
within present-day Oklahoma, but with some twelve sections of land in
present-day Kansas, which became known as the ``Quapaw Strip.''
Following removal, the Tribe faced new hardships and mistreatment.
The Quapaw resettled themselves, only to have the federal government
discover a ``survey error'' and force many of them to move again. This
time, many Quapaws left the reservation, some settling in Kansas and
others in present-day central Oklahoma, while others fled to Texas. At
the outset of the American Civil War, the United States withdrew the
federal troops protecting the tribe, and the reservation--located in a
crossroads--became a lawless place.
At the end of the Civil War, the reservation was devastated, and
the Quapaws were also unfairly accused of siding with the Confederate
States of America. Under the Treaty of February 23, 1867, the Tribe
sold to the United States most of the tribal land within the Quapaw
Strip. Under the same treaty, the Tribe also sold approximately 18,500
acres in the western part of the reservation to the United States for
use by another tribe.
As a result of these forced relocations and treaties with the
federal government, the Tribe's present-day reservation consists of
approximately 92 square miles.
The Quapaw Tribe's Long Road to Self-Determination
Indian tribes are not only culturally and ethnically unique, they
are functioning governments. Through the first half of the 20th
century, the Tribe's leadership attempted to avoid increasing federal
involvement. In 1956, the federal government forced the Tribe to re-
organize as a condition to payment of its claim representing the loss
of its land in Arkansas. Since then, the Tribe has been governed
pursuant to the ``Resolution Delegating Authority to the Quapaw Tribal
Business Committee to Speak and Act in Behalf of the Quapaw Tribe of
Indians,'' its primary organic document.
Beginning in the late 1960s, federal Indian policy changed and
began to encourage and support Indian self-determination and self-
governance. In view of its lack of resources and capital, however, the
Tribe's return to self-governance after more than 150 years of federal
domination was a long and slow path.
A decade ago, in addition to focusing on generating revenues to
fund tribally-provided services to its members, the Tribe's leadership
began a legal initiative to regain control of its governmental
functions. Under federal law, tribes that meet certain basic criteria
have the right to withdraw from federal management the control of their
basic governmental functions, including law enforcement, courts,
probate, realty, trust services, and others.
I very much believe that the vast array of programs and services
offered by the USDA can and should be made available for tribal
management through the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (Pub.L.93-638) or similar legal authority. I can assure
you that my Tribe would take every advantage of such an opportunity.
The larger structural barrier Indian tribes have in getting
meaningful access to the USDA programs is the fact that the agency has
settled on a state-centric method of operation. Despite good efforts by
some in the past, this has led to the agency's unfamiliarity with and
reluctance to engage with Indian tribes on par with the states. On this
score, I have met personally with Secretary Perdue and we have
discussed ways to foster better federal-tribal collaboration.
The Quapaw Tribe Today
The Tribe has succeeded in developing its Downstream Casino Resort,
which is one of many initiatives in the last decade to develop a
revenue stream to fund tribal governmental services. With the resort
and other enterprises, the Tribe has begun funding governmental
functions that are providing an unprecedented level of services to its
members. The Tribe operates or provides:
Law enforcement services;
A Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, which was
one of the vital first-responders after the 2011 Joplin
tornado;
Tribal courts;
A water utility;
A tribal library;
A tribal cultural center and museum;
Modern day care centers, which serve tribal and surrounding
families;
A tribal wellness center; and
The Quapaw Counseling Services, which offers free and for-
profit substance abuse programs and other forms of treatment.
The Tribe also owns and operates commercial enterprises, including
Downstream Casino Resort. including the Downstream Q Store;
Eagle Creek Golf Club;
Quapaw Services Authority, a construction business;
Saracen Solutions, LLC, a tribally chartered company
developing federal contracting opportunities.
The Tribe, which provided less than 50 jobs in 2002, has become one
of the largest employers in the Tri-State area, with the result that it
is offering jobs to many tribal members as well as to members of the
surrounding community. With its revenues, the Tribe funds not only
basic governmental services, but also provides health insurance to all
of its some 4,500 enrolled members, and which includes life insurance
and death benefits. This, and other services and benefits, have
markedly begun improving the quality of the lives of tribal members.
The Quapaw Tribe's Agricultural Activities
The Tribe is very active in the fields of agriculture and
agribusiness. We operate a substantial nutrition program for our tribal
members, focused on traditional foods and healthy lifestyles.
The Quapaw Tribe's Beef and Bison Processing Plant
In September 2017, the Tribe opened its $5 million, 25,000 square-
feet Quapaw Processing Plant--the nation's first USDA-inspected
processing plant owned and operated by an Indian tribe.
The meat processing facility is part of the Tribe's agricultural
programs aimed at community and economic development for the tribe and
the surrounding communities. The new plant, equipment, and feed lot
were funded through a combination of federal grants and tribal
contributions.
Because the Tribe is located in an agriculture-heavy region, the
Tribe is intent on building an agriculture-based economy to support
local businesses and feed local people.
The Quapaw now have over 5,000 acres of cattle grazing land, by
next year 2,000 acres of row crops.
The processing plant is both an outlet for our own bison and beef
products, but also an opportunity to take other peoples' product and
process it. The plant includes processing equipment, smokers, a test
kitchen, packaging rooms, coolers that hold 200 head, a quality control
office, as well as a USDA inspector's office and a training area.
Currently employing nine, once at full capacity it will employ up to 30
people.
Once the Tribe developed herds of top quality, genetic-registered
Black Angus cattle and bison, it was only logical to build the plant to
process meat from tribal herds and others. The Tribe uses most of the
meat in its restaurants and but also sells beef and bison products
through the tribe's Quapaw Cattle Company and at a store located in the
town of Quapaw.
The plant serves these objectives, but also collaborates with the
University of Arkansas, Oklahoma State University, Missouri State
University and Northeastern Oklahoma University as a training facility
for their agricultural departments.
The Tribe continues to work closely with Ms. Janie Hipp, the
University of Arkansas's director of Indigenous Food and Agriculture
Initiative. She has been an advocate for Indian agriculture for many
years and helped with the processing plant and other projects.
Conclusion
Improving tribal access to USDA programs is a noble and worthy goal
of this committee. But what is upon us is even more significant: the
reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year presents a rare opportunity
to restructure the federal-tribal relationship when it comes to USDA
programs and services.
In an appendix to this prepared statement, I have included a number
of capital and credit-related proposals for the committee's
consideration. At this point I would be happy to answer any questions
you might have.
Appendix--No Cost Proposals Related to Credit and Capital
Included in the June 2017 report entitled ``Regaining Our Future:
An Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the
2018 Farm Bill,'' prepared by Janie Hipp and Colby Duren of the
Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, are many thoughtful and
business-minded proposals for legislative and policy changes to aid
Indian tribes take better advantage of agribusiness opportunities.
These include the following:
Structuring Loans to Suit the Business. For example, currently the
FSA will lend 100 percent the cost of bred livestock. It will then
subordinate its lien position to a local commercial lender for annual
production costs, increasing the amount of debt secured by the same
amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If the first year
of operating expenses could be included in the original loan, and
amortized over the life of the secured asset, producers would end the
year with cash in the bank, allowing producers to take advantage of
pricing opportunities on input materials, replacement stock, or
expansion opportunities. Such an approach would incentivize operating
from available resources, instead of what could be borrowed on an
annual basis.
Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices. When commodity price
cycles run contrary to the mandated FSA Planning Prices, despite a
producer's inclination to plan conservatively, producers are often
faced with choice of accepting a plan based on those planning prices or
shutting down their operation. In cases that FSA planning prices are
more than 20 percent higher than the actual prices, a producer should
be able to restructure their debt in a way that will not count towards
lifetime limits on loan servicing.
Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rates. By updating the Socially
Disadvantaged Rate (SDR) interest rate for FSA loans from a static
number (currently 5 percent) to be indexed to the prevailing rate and
set a commensurate proportion of that rate, 50 percent of the standard
rate. The current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest
rate was in the double digits.
FSA Food Loan Authority. Under current program guidelines, there is
some latitude for producers whose production will take a period to
fully ramp up. Initial payments can be made at an 18-month mark rather
than within the first year. This same methodology should be employed
for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next step in the
value chain.
Remove the FSA Program Graduation Requirement. Due to the general
lack of credit availability on and near Indian reservations, it is
difficult to access viable credit rates for even experienced producers
operating farms and ranches on trust lands. Removing the statutory
requirement for producers on Indian reservations to have graduated from
FSA programs would allow agriculture operations to be more stable and
assist other producers who farm and ranch in areas where credit access
is tenuous at best.
Remove the FSA Requirement for Private Credit Denials. The lack of
private lending available in Indian Country renders this requirement
onerous and unduly burdensome, and it can be overcome by exempting
tribal producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining three denial
letters from private credit sources in order to participate in an FSA
loan program.
Create a Commonly-used Definition of ``Land Owned by Indian
Tribes.'' Currently, there is no common definition of ``land owned by
Indian Tribes'' across all USDA programs, creating inconsistent program
access even within programs run by a single agency.
GAO Study and Report on Credit and Access to Capital. In 2001 the
U.S. Treasury's CDFI Fund issued its ``Native American Lending Study''
which identified a lot of barriers to credit access and capital
accumulation. The GAO, or similarly equipped entity, should revisit and
update the 2001 study and report into the nature of credit in Indian
Country, specifically examining compliance with the Community
Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian reservations.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Berrey.
Ms. Hipp.
STATEMENT OF JANIE SIMMS HIPP, DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Hipp. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman
Udall. It is a pleasure to be here with all of the members
today.
I am here today in my personal capacity and I have comments
I hope will be made a part of the record. My opinions and
insights today are going to be based on 30-plus years in the
area of agriculture and food law and Indian law.
I may hold the medal for having been in this space the
longest but also my thoughts today are going to be informed
also by my time in the Bush Administration as a national
program leader at NIFA at USDA but also in the Obama
Administration as a senior advisor to Secretary Vilsack for
tribal relations for the department and the director of the
Office of Tribal Relations.
We work, at our Initiative, across all tribes across the
Country on all matters related to tribal governments, economic
development related to food and agriculture and, beginning
farmers. Thank you, Diane, for mentioning beginning farmers.
They are very important in our hearts. We also work on
strategic planning on anything that a tribe, tribal leader or
tribal food business picks up the phone and calls us to ask.
I cannot imagine anything I do not having the Intertribal
Agriculture Council there with me at our elbow as a partner. It
is very important that organization continue to be supported by
USDA and we recognize this is a partnership of all of us, not
just our initiative or the Intertribal Ag Council, the tribal
leadership themselves and most importantly, the Native farmers
and ranchers who are out there on the land every day actually
getting it done.
I wanted to also point to a few other things in my written
testimony. You may know by now that there is a Native Farm Bill
Coalition that has been stood up. The Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community in Minnesota is very active and involved in
helping that get stood up. Over 30 tribes have passed
resolutions to be a part of that coalition to have a voice, as
both of you said earlier.
I am not going to go over the data. Diane has already done
that. It is important though to note that scaling up is
happening everywhere. It is happening with the Alaska Tribes,
all over the southwest and all over the Great Plains.
It is not just small producers anymore. It really is tribes
stepping up and being that significant player we have always
known we were and now fully are and can be. I think we are just
beginning to realize the importance of agribusiness in Indian
Country.
I will tell you this from my time at USDA. USDA's
authorities are the most powerful way that tribal governments,
tribal citizens and Native farmers and ranchers can achieve
success. The powers and authorities of USDA are critical to
this conversation.
We cannot do this just with the powers and authorities of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is not possible. We have to
have access that is easier to accomplish with USDA itself. In
the past, I think USDA could have done a better job.
I think we are poised right now to have a full partnership
with USDA and can realize such success that I think our
ancestors would be stunned. I will tell you also that there are
a lot of things I could bring up but I will leave it to the
questions from the Committee to tease out some of those
specific issues.
I want to share with you that treatment as a State is
extremely important to this conversation. Chairman Berrey
mentioned it. It has not yet happened at USDA and it must
happen. It must happen not just so the powers of the
conservation title, the credit title and the commodities title,
and all those other titles happen but it also needs to happen
for the nutrition title.
We have to be able to feed our people. We cannot do that if
we work through another governmental entity. As Chairman Berrey
shared with you, tribal governments are best suited to actually
be able to deliver on the nutritional needs, food access and
food security needs of our people.
In closing, I would give a shout out to all of the Native
youth who I know are tuning in today because we could not do
any of this without them. We need their leadership. We are
going to be pushing them forward to step into these spaces.
I can tell you right now from our work with Native youth,
they are ready, willing and smart as a tack. They can get this
accomplished but we need your help to actually bring life to
the amendments, powers and authorities that are going to be the
key that unlocks the door.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hipp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janie Simms Hipp, Director, Indigenous Food and
Agriculture Initiative, University of Arkansas School of Law
Introduction
Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman, and members of the Committee, my
name is Janie Simms Hipp, and I am a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation
and Director of the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the
University of Arkansas School of Law. I am appearing today solely in my
personal capacity. My university affiliation is provided for
identification purposes only; the views expressed are my own and not
those of the institution where I am employed.
I would like to thank the Committee for asking me to testify today
on the very important topics of agriculture, agribusiness, and the Farm
Bill. Agribusiness is and has always been important to Indian Country,
but we must recalibrate these critical U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs so that we can capitalize on current successes in
Indian Country agriculture and agribusiness and ensure these successes
continue into the future and are scaled up in new Tribal communities
throughout Indian Country. Guiding my work at the Initiative on a daily
basis is the need to feed the people who live in our most rural and
remote places, create jobs, and stabilize economies for Native people
who we all know have deep connections to the land on which they live,
to farming and ranching, and to the foods they produce every day. In
addition, Tribal governments and Tribal communities have always been
and are continuing to rise in importance as the providers of essential
governmental services in countless rural, remote, and isolated
communities throughout the United States.
I am here to provide practical insights based on my almost 35 years
of working as an agriculture lawyer in Indian Country, a lawyer and
policy advisor in the broader food and agriculture sector, as a former
national program leader at the USDA National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, and as a Senior Advisor to Secretary Tom Vilsack and
former Director of the Office of Tribal Relations at USDA. In my career
as an ag lawyer, I have found that, as most of us here know, food and
agriculture is a bipartisan issue. Today, I want to talk about creating
job opportunities and contributing to greater food security for people
all across Indian Country.
Thanks to data collected by the USDA and the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) for the Census of Agriculture every five
years, we have a glimpse of what we know exists today. Their work in
researching, gathering, and compiling data in Indian Country
agriculture has been improving every year, but they will readily tell
you that they inherited a census process that was fundamentally flawed.
They have diligently focused on improving Indian Country ag data. In
the 2012 Census of Agriculture, NASS counted over 56,000 American
Indian and Alaska Native Farmers and Ranchers, working on more than 57
million acres of land, with a market value of products producing
reaching over $3.3 billion--including $1.4 billion in crops and $1.8
billion in livestock and poultry. \1\ If you talk to experts in this
area, like Ross Racine and Zach Ducheneaux at the Intertribal
Agriculture Council, you will know that the data is undercounted by
half, as is also acknowledged by NASS itself. What the data also
reveals is that Indian Country operations are twice the size of non-
Native operations but with half the income and involvement in federal
farm security programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture
Statistics Service, 2012 Census of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers tell us that with the proper focus that whole arena
of food and agriculture could be a huge economic driver for Tribes, the
entirety of Indian Country, and the rural communities in which their
communities are found. It could equal the revenue generated by gaming
at some point and provide opportunities for Tribes that will never
benefit from gaming because of their location and isolation. Further,
if properly calibrated and approached with a practical plan with
realistic deadlines and unique approaches, it is possible to lower the
number of people who participate in federal food assistance programs as
they would be feeding themselves and food secure and self-sufficient,
through jobs in communities that are land-based, resource rich, and
meeting opportunities in a food sector that is hungry for connecting
with the producers of their food. The whole world is feeling
disconnected from their farmers and their food. Indian Country, as much
any one, has a unique role to tell stories around the food it produces
and has produced for millennia and has a unique ability to help feed
people in our communities as well as around the world.
There are a number of opportunities in the Farm Bill and at USDA
where programs or authorities can be strengthened or expanded to
support Native farmers and ranchers. A full list can be found in the
Regaining Our Future: An Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for
Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill report, a report drafted with
the support of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and in
partnership with the Intertribal Agriculture Council, National Congress
of American Indians, and the Intertribal Timber Council. That report is
attached to my testimony along with one-page summaries of the
opportunities discussed within the report.
I would like to focus my testimony on several key provisions and
themes which could have the greatest impact to support and grow
agriculture and agribusiness in Indian Country if implemented in the
2018 Farm Bill reauthorization.
Treatment as a State for Tribal Governments and Recognition of Tribal
Departments of Agriculture
One of the largest steps that can be taken in the 2018 Farm Bill is
for Congress to permanently recognize the role Tribal governments and
Tribal Departments of Agriculture have in furthering agriculture on par
with State governments and State Departments of Agriculture. Tribal
Departments charged with administration of agriculture and food systems
must have the authority to interface with all agencies within USDA and
the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA and with other offices
of the federal government. This would include full treatment as a state
for Tribal governments thus recognizing their Tribal laws, authority,
and jurisdiction.
The simple act of including ``Tribal governments'' in the existing
intergovernmental approaches through which many of the USDA programs
are delivered will not only create parity and acknowledge Tribal
government's sovereignty and importance, but will work to help expand
the reach of programs, create jobs, and build more food businesses in
Indian Country. Many Tribes are taking steps to create ``Tribal
Departments of Food and Agriculture'' within their tribal governments.
These departmental offices at the Tribal level must be incorporated
into the existing intergovernmental relationships honored for decades
by USDA. Most USDA programs have not begun to be seriously utilized by
Tribes because, for the most part, we are invisible in those relevant
Farm Bill sections authorizing the programs. But we need to and can act
now to change that. Tribal governments are in the process of adopting
complete food and agriculture laws and regulations, just as their state
and local counterparts have adopted. As an agriculture lawyer, I can
share with the committee that this is an important step which must be
taken as agriculture and food (and health law for that matter) hinges
on state and local regulatory interface. If those pieces are missing at
the Tribal government level, then things are disjointed and confusing,
not just for Tribal communities but for those residing close by or
those with whom Tribal governments already interact for purposes of
buying food, engaging in joint agriculture enterprises, or planning for
food safety, animal health, plant health, and related functions of
government.
Treatment as a State and supporting Tribal Departments of Food and
Agriculture are important ways to place ourselves squarely in an
intergovernmental position vis- . . . -vis the USDA. It is equally
important as these steps realize the existing trust and treaty
obligations, which are still relevant today, and which are necessary to
stabilize Tribal communities and accelerate the ability of Tribes to
meet their economic, food, infrastructure, and health needs. We need to
cut out the inefficiencies, but not the trust and treaty relationship.
Tribal Government Management of All Nutrition and Food Assistance
Programs
Simply put, Tribal governments need to directly manage all federal
nutrition and food assistance programs, especially the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Tribal governments know where the
hungry people are in their communities, they know the resources they
have to feed those people, they know the venues to feed people in, and
they know their challenges of their disabled, elders, and single
parents. Tribes know whether they have grocery stores, convenience
stores, or any food retail outlets. Tribes also know who needs food in
emergencies and disasters, both within their own Tribal communities and
the broader rural communities as well.
Tribal citizens have high usage rates of all federal feeding and
nutrition programs. In some rural and remote reservation communities,
25 percent of all community citizens are taking part in the feeding
programs, and in other communities those numbers can climb as high as
60 to 80 percent. These participation rates remain high because of the
relative unemployment rates of individuals in the communities that are
directly caused by the lack of meaningful employment opportunities,
poor transportation options to not only jobs but to food sources or
food retail, the age and population characteristics of the individuals
in the communities, and the prevalence of chronic health problems,
among other issues. Because the rate of obesity, diabetes, chronic
heart diseases, cancer, and rated health problems is so high in so many
communities in Indian Country, participation rates in the feeding
programs when coupled with the prevalence of persistent poverty create
a fragile system of food security and food access across Indian
Country. Yet, most of these feeding program participants live on the
lands that could feed them yet those lands are used to grow foods that
must either be made into some other food item or are destined for far
away markets. Calibrating this equation to address food security while
not ignoring the market is critical; it can't be done overnight but it
can be done in much more efficient and effective ways that ensure
people can feed themselves and also engage in a meaningful career.
A consistent, comprehensive, and Tribal government-led approach
that is tailored to the needs of Indian Country is paramount. Linking
or ``coupling'' the feeding programs to the food production 4 that
occurs on Tribal lands will do two things simultaneously. First, it
will ensure that over time (conceivably less than two decades) the use
of feeding programs in Indian Country will precipitously decline and in
some regions, could disappear altogether. Second, it will ensure that
food produced on Indian lands are focused on three simultaneous goals:
(1) retaining enough food products that Tribal citizens will be fed by
food produced locally or regionally; (2) ensuring that fresher foods
are available to Tribal citizens needing access to feeding programs;
and (3) ensuring the stabilization of food businesses because the foods
are being used to feed people who lack food access and, at the same
time, offering a consistent, albeit federal, market and anchor contract
that gives food producers the economic stability to confidently access
additional markets off tribal lands.
However, key and vexing issues remain that are critical to the
future of the feeding programs and how those programs are delivered to
or serve Indian Country citizens and these must be addressed in the
2018 Farm Bill.
In a report authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, USDA reviewed the
feasibility of Tribal administration of federal food assistance
programs. Nearly all Tribes participating and more than 90 percent of
all respondents expressed interest in administering federal nutrition
assistance programs as an expression of sovereignty and to provide
direct service to Tribal citizens in need of assistance. These
respondents felt the ability to provide flexibility in the management
of nutritional quality of the food provided and culturally appropriate
programming and service delivery were also critical.
While there are many additional infrastructure needs identified to
achieve these interrelated goals, the report states that USDA, and its
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), does not have the requisite ``638-
like authority'' that explicitly provides Congressional support for
executing contracts between federal agencies and Tribes to coordinate
the management of specific federal programs. This can be achieved by
introducing legislative language modeled after the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93-638, as
amended, or by providing treatment as a state for Tribes to manage
these programs within the context of the Farm Bill.
Further, we must continue the model of Tribal consultation that has
existed since 2014 between the FNS at USDA and Tribal elected officials
regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
Our team has assisted this consultation work since its inception. What
we have found, in what has been the only standing consultation activity
between USDA and elected Tribal leadership, is that we can work
together to address many of the systemic issues with these programs.
This working consultation group has systematically tackled many long-
standing problems in the FDPIR program. We have seen that such
successes are also possible for every single title and agency within
USDA structure. Let's get people in the room talking to each other
about how to make these programs better, because there are
opportunities all across the titles of the Farm Bill and all across
USDA agencies to do so and those opportunities have not been
systematically pursued except in isolated ways. We know the importance
of consultation because we have seen it. It has solved longstanding
problems in the FDPIR but also shown USDA the power of actually getting
Tribal governments in the room to problem-solve in a deeper and more
meaningful way.
However, Tribal governments must directly manage all the nutrition
and feeding programs, because they are best able to ensure that food
security needs in their reservation, rural, and very remote communities
are met and they are more capable of directly linking agribusiness food
production to the long-term vision of getting people off feeding
program participation and into the local job market, which in many
multitude of locations around Indian Country can and should have as its
centerpiece a strong and viable agribusiness approach. For Tribal
governments, you have to marry the food security needs of the people
with food job opportunities at the Tribal level so that you can better
calibrate food security and economic diversification in Indian Country.
Improve Credit Access in Indian Country and Support Authority for Farm
Service Agency and the Farm Credit System
Due to the capital-intense nature of farming and ranching and
agribusiness in general, the many titles have long been important parts
of the Farm Bill: credit, commodity, conservation, crop insurance.
Farming, ranching, and agribusiness are high-risk enterprises. Good
times for agriculture can very quickly be followed by bad times.
Agribusiness activities are linked to production systems that are risky
and which have unique regulatory requirements and challenges. Having
access to a lending entity willing to understand these financial
realities is critical. During turbulent times, Indian Country is always
hit as hard or harder than most other areas of the country because of
the remote and isolated nature of our farms, ranches, and
agribusinesses and the reality that in most reservation communities a
``credit desert'' exists alongside food deserts.
First, our important partners in lending in rural areas, like those
in the Farm Credit System (FCS), must have no questions concerning
their authority to lend to Indian Country agribusinesses and Tribal
governments. Making sure that Tribal governments, tribal producers, and
groups of producers, who often organize their business engagement in
ways not required of non-Tribal entities and governments (because of
unique issues associated with federal Indian law) are clearing entities
to borrow under FCS laws and regulations is important. Due to the
nature of landholding and land ownership in Indian Country, which is a
matter controlled by federal law, some clarification of this
requirement is in order to help provide certainty for the FCS in
lending in Indian Country.
Additionally, the improvements the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has
made in the extension of credit to farmers and ranchers in Indian
Country in the post-Keepseagle era must continue, but separate programs
that allow for unique training and technical assistance concerning
financial issues and loan servicing for tribal producers must be
included in future Farm Bills. Access to credit through FSA and Rural
Development must not be hampered by outdated program rules that do not
match our credit needs. Further, we must make sure that the program
officers at RD and FSA have deep awareness of the way in which Tribal
governments, Tribal agribusinesses, and Tribal producers do business,
and ensure they are not constrained by an additional regulatory burden,
and are not shut out of lending opportunities available to all other
types of producers.
Many smaller producers who are not yet ready for FSA or FCS lending
relationships utilize the services of smaller retail banking entities
at the local level, community development financial institutions (or
CDFIs), credit unions, or other means of acquiring needed capital.
Native CDFIs must be included in all FSA and Rural Development lending
authorities in order to leverage access to credit for Indian Country
producers and Tribal governments. Ensuring that Native-owned banks can
easily interface with FSA, RD, and FCS lending institutions on
agribusiness and agriculture infrastructure business opportunities is
also important.
Improving Interdepartmental Coordination with USDA and the
Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs
In this Farm Bill and through the work of this Committee, we must
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of how Tribal governments and
Tribal producers are served by improving the coordination between USDA
and the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs/Office of
the Special Trustee or its successors. This will ensure that meaningful
assistance is provided by those who have deep familiarity with Tribal
governments, Tribal law, Native communities, and the challenges unique
to us. We cannot expect people who have no knowledge of agriculture to
manage agriculture; we also cannot expect people who have no knowledge
of Indian law to manage Tribal programs. Everyone at both Departments
need to forge new interdepartmental relationships and rely on each
other to serve Tribal governments, Tribal communities, and individuals
in better ways.
This can be achieved by authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to develop a technical committee made up of Tribal
government representatives from each of the BIA regions to formulate a
set of initiatives and programs that can be carried out under existing
laws as well as a set of programs that may be needed under future
conservation program authorities to improve the conditions of Tribal
lands and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the United States.
Other topic areas could be included. This needs to be a working
committee, not a committee that comes together to meet for an hour
every quarter and say they did something. When I was at USDA we had an
informal gathering of individuals who were senior enough to identify
needed improvements and execute on those identified needs. Our work led
to a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill that did away with duplicate
appraisals--something that had been in existence for far too long that
was more time-consuming and more expensive for Tribal producers than
anyone else in the U.S. But that ``fix'' is just one of many.
Establishing this type of committee will be able to work through
the many systemic issues that have faced Native farmers and ranchers,
such as issues with appraisals and mortgage documentation and
approvals, conservation plans and easements, coordination of
Agriculture Resources Management Plans under the American Indian
Agricultural Resource Management Act of 1993 with NRCS, U.S. Forest
Service, or other agencies' plans for access to conservation programs
like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and many
others.
Ensure the Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Farm Bill Titles
Support Indian Country and Native Producers
The Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Titles of the Farm
Bill all work together to provide not only farm security for producers,
they also support the health of our lands that will continue to provide
food for the world and our communities. The programs in these titles
must be improved to take into consideration the unique jurisdictional
and agribusiness/product needs of Tribal governments and Tribal
producers.
First and foremost, many Tribal governments and Tribal farming,
ranching, and food businesses are already engaged in producing covered
commodity crops of wheat, corn, soybeans, and are deeply engaged in
livestock operations impacted by the Commodity Title. We must ensure
equitable access to these programs for Tribal producers, including
making sure that federal or Tribally chartered corporations, especially
those created under Tribal law or Section 17/Section 3, are
acknowledged as eligible for Title I disaster assistance programs.
Further, the definition of ``livestock'' must be amended to include
commonly raised livestock like ``reindeer,'' ``caribou,'' ``elk,''
``horses,'' or other animals raised or harvested in Tribal communities.
All of these animals must be recognized as livestock and eligible for
full protection and program participation Department-wide.
Additionally, due to the lack of fair and reasonable access to credit,
and redlining by lenders, Native producers do not have the ability to
use their land as collateral to secure financing.
Since the Conservation Title programs are often the gateway to
participate in other USDA programs, it is vital that Tribal governments
and producers are provided with parity through all of the program
authorities and funding. All sections of the Conservation Title must
recognize that Tribal governments, Tribal producers, and Tribal
entities or organizations created for conservation and natural resource
protection purposes have full access to every program. Wherever there
is a reference to ``state'' or ``local'' or ``regional'' agricultural
producer, the terms ``tribal'' should be inserted into that section to
ensure that any inadvertent failure to list Tribal governments, Tribal
producers, or Tribal organizations does not preclude them from
participating or relegate them to a lesser importance or priority
within the relevant section. This also includes making sure any
reference to ``state law'' in the Conservation Title says ``state law
or tribal law'' to acknowledge the conservation laws and codes our
Tribal governments pass and enforce each day with regard to the lands
over which they have jurisdiction.
Crop insurance is an important tool of risk management and the
products in place now must be examined to ensure they are suitable for
Tribal food production systems. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) must
conduct a study to ascertain the efficacy and applicability of the
current crop insurance products as they relate to Indian Country
agriculture production. If that study reveals that either the specific
crop insurance products or the general guidance documents of RMA do not
adequately consider unique tribal production issues, a separate
administrative guidance or notice should be issued by RMA to solve
these concerns, and unique crop insurance products and crop insurance
administration systems should be pursued. Regardless, the goal should
be to make sure that crop insurance products are utilized more fully in
Indian Country and that there are no inadvertent barriers to such
usage. USDA must engage Native-owned insurance companies and Native
CDFIs and other entities to encourage the offering of crop insurance
products in Indian Country. The current crop insurance research,
product development, and policy sales areas are not developed for, and
do not adequately reach, Tribal producers. That isn't to say that
Tribes don't purchase and maintain crop insurance; they do. But
improvements can be achieved.
Apply the Substantially Underserved Trust Area designation to all Rural
Development and USDA Funding Authorities
The Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) designation
authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill helps USDA's Rural Utility Service
(RUS) offer low interest rates, waive non-duplication, matching, and
credit support requirements; extend loan repayment terms; and provide
the highest funding priority for SUTA projects. Currently, SUTA is only
applied to a small segment of infrastructure programs, but more
explicit instruction must be provided to allow the Secretary to
exercise this discretion more broadly.
This change will help ensure more equitable access to Rural
Development (RD) programs and authorities in these substantially
underserved areas, and can be used to provide much-needed support to
Tribal citizens living in rural communities. The change would, among
other things, allow the waiver of matching requirements for projects
funded through RD, which can be a significant barrier to applicant
participation in RD business and infrastructure projects where
remoteness and related lack of tax base is a problem. In the
determination of eligibility and repayment ability, local school
district social demographics should be utilized instead of county-wide
data. A broader application of SUTA will recognize the unique and
essential Tribal infrastructure needs and will help build rural
America, as many tribal governments are the backbone of the rural
infrastructure now and those trends appear to be unrelenting.
Equal Access to Research, Education, and Extension Funding for Tribal
Colleges and Universities and the Federally Recognized Tribes
Extension Program
All entities working within research, extension, and education in
Indian Country, including Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) and
the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) must have the
same access to research, education, and extension funding as all other
entities. Further, FRTEP must maintain its unique program authorities
and be protected from over-subscription by those who have access to
other program funding like the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant
institutions and TCUs. FRTEP was created by Congress to address the
needs of those Tribes not served by Tribal colleges. The extension
funding for TCUs is very low and the FRTEP funding is very low.
Entities serving Indian Country must be entitled to the same level of
eligibility and access to NIFA funding as any other entity.
Agriculture research, education, and extension programs are
critical to our food, health, and selfsufficiency. According to the
latest USDA Agriculture Census, there are only 2 million farmers or
ranchers in the United States. Agriculture research is important
because it monitors and explores old and new knowledge regarding plant
and animal health, explores the impact of science to solve food
problems, tackles societal issues related to health, and ensures our
food supplies are sound and resilient. The reasons for the initial
establishment of the land grant research institutions, the original
extension services, and research stations are as relevant today as they
were many decades ago. These resources are extremely critical to Indian
Country.
Accessing research, building our own research systems within Tribal
Colleges and Universities, and supporting educational institutions and
faculty within Tribal communities is essential to stabilizing
agriculture production and communities. Focusing on the importance of
traditional knowledge and exploring its use in modern communities is
best done at Tribal-owned and managed institutions. Extending knowledge
and research outcomes into communities and onto tribal farms, ranches
and food businesses is critical to their growth and stabilization.
Educating the next generation of producers, scientists, technical
specialists, business managers, engineers, lawyers, and related
professionals who advise and support the agriculture and food sectors
is vital and making sure that Native youth aspire to those career paths
is important to the survival of Tribal communities and to creating
viable occupations that support food and agriculture sectors in Indian
Country. We are in an intergenerational shift in agriculture, and
Indian Country is no different. Our farmers are older and our young
people are hungry for a meaningful career. They would prefer--the young
people we see--they want to stay home on their land doing something
they know and excel at, and have a decent rural economy within which
they can be the next generation of leaders.
We must address these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive
manner. FRTEP cannot be opened up in such a way that it becomes
available to institutions with thirty thousand students and billion-
dollar endowment funds. TCUs have a very paltry and totally inadequate
formula fund for extension services, research. Even with low funding
levels, TCUs do a lot incredibly well and need to be respected and
looked at as equals, and fully eligible for all of the funding
authorities within the Research Title of the Farm Bill and research
programs at USDA.
We need more research stations housed within Tribal governments in
conjunction with TCUs. Why do we not already have that? The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) just put 30 new weather stations
on reservations, and that's wonderful. What do we do with that? What's
the next step? What is on the horizon? What do we need to know to have
full capacity and knowledge rolling out of those weather stations that
will benefit all of American agriculture?
Think about the depth of new knowledge we will have just by having
those weather stations positioned in Indian Country, where they've
never been before. NRCS, Farm Service Agency, and Risk Management
Agency programs can be calibrated in a better way because better
information will be available. The future of agribusiness depends on
access to markets and information and technology. We need a deeper
knowledge of the carrying capacity of the land, the sustainable use of
the land, what the best time to actually access a market is, and what
can we do to better utilize the water we have access to so we don't
waste a single drop. All of that is data driven and data dependent.
TCUs have a huge role to play in that, but so do our FRTEP agents. They
cannot continue to do it if they are cut off from the funding
authorities that are available to everyone else.
I have been at a large flagship land grant university, except when
I was at USDA, since the early 1990's. I have at my fingertips a
breadth of knowledge and capacity that, if I was at a smaller
institution, I may not have. But how do we actually make sure the
relationships between larger and smaller institutions in the land grant
system are equitable, balanced, and that people have full access to
actual resources they need to make those great strides we will continue
to need.
We need data. A farmer has better productivity if they have good
records and data access. Back in the day you could ask a farmer or
rancher anything but all that data was carried around in their head.
Now, we can use mobile technology in new ways with a new generation of
farmers and ranchers, but we must make sure Tribes have access to that
technology as well. E-connectivity and rural broadband is incredibly
important for all rural America and for Tribes--that was among the
first recommendations made to support prosperity for all rural America
by the USDA Interagency Task Force of Agriculture and Rural Prosperity.
Their report to the President, which was released last week, noted that
econnectivity is ``a tool that enables increased productivity for
farms, factories, forests, mining, and small businesses.'' TCUs and
FRTEP agents must be a part of the technological revolution in farming
and ranching and agribusiness growth and be afforded access to improved
research, education, extension funding.
Interdepartmental Coordination to Support Tribal Trade
A special interdepartmental coordination group should be seated to
include USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of State, and other
applicable agencies to ensure that tribal food production is made a
part of the U.S. trade missions and efforts to promote US agricultural
trade. The responsibility for coordination must extend beyond USDA
Foreign Agriculture Service and other USDA programs to other applicable
departments and agencies of the federal government such as BIA and
Commerce so that Tribal businesses have access to promotion programs
and support that will improve their visibility and viability in foreign
markets. To that end, IAC's continuation in the important MAP trade
program must be supported and required. They have over 15 years of
experience in providing greater market access and export readiness
training to tribal businesses and that must continue.
Parity in Forestry Service Programs and Authorities
Many American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes have long-standing
and deeply spiritual relationships with the forests within which they
lived for centuries. Their deep engagement with forests of North
America was fundamentally changed upon European contact when the
relationships they had with the land, including forests, was severed.
The U.S. Forest Service now maintains National Forests that coexist
within and among the boundaries of current and historic Tribal
homelands. Since many Tribes either live within the jurisdiction of
federal agencies with forest responsibilities or have trust and treaty
rights resources located on federal forest lands, the intensely
specific and expertise-dependent issues around forests require a
specialized eye towards policy change.
The 2018 Farm Bill must extend the Good Neighbor Authority to
include Tribal governments, just as it does to State government as well
as to specifically include Tribes in the title of the State and Private
Forestry Program as well as its authorities. Partnering together, in a
cooperative manner, to manage the nation's forests and Tribal forests
alongside other governments (state and local) and private landowners is
critical if we are to help our forestlands recover from wildfire and
become healthier. This recognition and parity will also ensure that
tribal agribusiness interests reliant on those forest resources can
continue to grow to address the unique problems in Native communities
that no other group of people can, while promoting jobs in the forestry
sector for Native youth.
Additional Efforts
The growth of agribusiness in Indian Country and the further
support of tribal farmers and ranchers also requires simple changes to
current approaches. For instance, in the implementation of Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA), Native training and technical
assistance must embody a unique approach to training growers and food
businesses due to the unique jurisdictional and enforcement issues that
abound in Indian Country. Tribal departments of agriculture are missing
altogether in the funding being provided to state departments of
agriculture; yet state and local authorities have no jurisdiction on
Tribal lands. This should be addressed by including Tribal departments
of agriculture as eligible for FSMA funding. All producers need
continued support for understanding these new requirements but the
current system of providing assistance and training is not calibrated
to meet these needs. The simple change of ensuring Tribal governments
can have access to the existing funding resources can address these
looming issues.
Conclusion
I would like to again thank the Committee for holding this
important hearing on ways to continue to grow agriculture and
agribusiness in Indian Country and inviting me to share my experience
working with Tribal governments and Tribal food producers and the
federal government. For too long, our voice in the Farm Bill debate has
been limited to a few incredible individuals and organizations who have
carried the water for the past several decades. The next Farm Bill will
be among the most important in my lifetime, not only for Indian
Country's future but for addressing the needs of the agriculture and
food sector, which is changing, and the needs of rural communities
around the country. Tribal governments must be seen as equal
governmental partners and additional improvements must be made to
ensure access to USDA programs and funding authorities.
By adjusting, developing and improving the Farm Bill's programs, we
can build upon the already great work happening in Tribal communities
surrounding food and agriculture. We can improve and expand our
infrastructure. We can develop our Tribal food systems. We can provide
the means for our agriculture businesses to thrive. We can continue to
address and improve the health of our people. We can feed our
communities in vibrant Native food systems with foods raised and grown
by Tribal people. But equally important, the country can acknowledge
the role Tribes have always played in our nation's food security and we
can now become better partners in food security, food production, and
the agriculture sector. Improving the Farm Bill for Indian Country will
help bolster the important work ahead.
* The Appendix, Charts and Graphs and Regaining Our Future (An
Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in
the 2018 Farm Bill) attached to this testimony have been
retained in the Committee files.*
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hipp.
Mr. Haskie.
STATEMENT OF LIONEL HASKIE, OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE MANAGER, NAVAJO AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
Mr. Haskie. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall
and members of the Committee.
My name is Lionel Haskie. I am a professional engineer and
the Operations Maintenance Manager at the Navajo Agricultural
Products Industry, NAPI, an enterprise 100 percent owned by the
Navajo Nation.
NAPI farms approximately 75,000 acres of crops annually
with the potential to develop an additional 35,000 acres. We
employ between 200-500 people, depending on the season. More
than 90 percent of our workforce is Navajo. We are the largest
employer in the Navajo Nation.
NAPI features state-of-the-art, precision agricultural
equipment, producing an array of crops including alfalfa, corn,
small grains, potatoes, beans, and even pumpkins which you can
buy here in Washington. D.C.
We are proud to be a leader in American agribusiness. We
have the talent, vision and capacity to continue our growth in
new and exciting opportunities domestically and
internationally.
I would like to highlight a few points from our written
testimony. In 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87-483 to
construct an 110,630 acre, irrigated farm called the Navajo
Indian Irrigation Project. Unfortunately, after 50 years, this
project has not been completed.
We would like Congress to appropriate the full amount to
complete NIIP. We request the appropriations cap be lifted for
the project and that adequate operations, maintenance and
replacement funding is appropriated.
Based on a 2012 economic study, NAPI has lost approximately
$4 billion in revenue due to delay in project completion. The
revenue could have been used for business development and
business expansion. However, waiting on the Federal Government
has not stopped us from becoming an international agribusiness.
NAPI participates in the USDA Agricultural Risk Coverage-County
Program for corn and wheat.
The program has benefitted corn and wheat production when
commodity prices were below the county average and is vital to
supporting employment stability. We would like to see the Price
Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage crop insurance
programs reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill.
In 2017, NAPI ventured into new markets to help mitigate
the commodity price volatility. Notably, we began to produce
organic crops including organic corn, potatoes, winter squash,
cantaloupe and melons.
We plan to continue this build out with new organic
vegetable crops planned for 2018 as the company gains
experience in the expanding organic product industry. There is
an inherent risk involved in organic production. The lack of
registered organic controls can make combating weeds, pests and
disease costly and unstable.
Another challenge to beginning a new organic crop is the
significant financial risk for the first three years. This risk
would specifically occur for us because crop insurance uses
three year averages from the region to establish crop coverage.
Since we are the only entity of our kind in the region, we
would have to establish our own averages. We would like to work
with this Committee, the Agriculture Committee and the USDA to
address this unique situation for development of new crops.
Another barrier is the wait time for USDA product
inspections required to obtain organic certification. NAPI
would like to see increased funding for the New Mexico
Department of Agriculture through the Organic Certification
Program so that there is an increase in the number of
accredited and certified agents in the office.
We currently participate in several USDA conservation
programs including EQUIP, the Conservation Stewardship Program,
and the WaterSmart Program. Each program is vital to NAPI and
we fully support their reauthorization in the 2018 Farm Bill
for producers on working agricultural land.
We collaborate with the Navajo Nation farming communities
as well by providing technical assistance and marketing our
goods locally. In addition, we partner with local schools to
promote careers in agriculture. We would like to see the USDA's
Farmers' Market and Local Food Promotion Program, Healthy Food
Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects reauthorized
in the 2018 Farm Bill.
We are proud to serve our local, national and international
customers with high quality products produced on the Navajo
Nation. We are proud to be an employer of the Navajo Nation. We
look forward to continued growth and developing new markets.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to submit
this statement for the record. I stand ready to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haskie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lionel Haskie, Operations and Maintenance
Manager, Navajo Agricultural Products Industry
Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and members of the
Committee on Indian Affairs for inviting and giving me this opportunity
to testify today regarding, ``Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness
Opportunities in Indian Country.'' My name is Lionel Haskie. I am the
Operations and Maintenance Manager at the Navajo Agriculture Products
Industry (NAPI), an enterprise 100 percent owned by the Navajo Nation.
NAPI serves the Navajo people and our governance board members are
directly accountable to our elected leaders and are nominated by the
president of the Navajo Nation and are confirmed by the Resources and
Development Committee of the Navajo Legislative Council.
NAPI has more than 72,000 acres fully developed and producing farm
crops, with the potential to develop an additional 35,000 acres. We
employ between 200 and 500 individuals, depending upon the season--more
than 90 percent of our workforce is Navajo. All of these employees are
from the Four Corners Area, and NAPI purchases tens of millions of
dollars in goods and services both locally and across the Nation. At
NAPI, we stress the use of state-of-the-art technology and
environmentally friendly practices. NAPI agribusiness features state-
of-the-art farming equipment, including high-tech radio control, and a
computerized center-pivot irrigation system that reduces operational
costs and efficiently manages water resources. We produce an array of
crops from alfalfa, corn, small grains, to potatoes, beans, and even
pumpkins which you can buy here in the Washington DC-area. We are proud
to be a leader in American agribusiness.
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP)
In 1962, in the midst of post-war water projects that provided
water to neighboring non-Navajo communities, the U.S. Congress passed
Public Law 87-483 to fulfill the stipulations of the United States--
Navajo Nation Treaty of 1868. The law provided for the furnishing of
water for arable lands in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New
Mexico. To meet the requirements of the law, Congress created the
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) to support an irrigation system
capable of delivering 508,000 acre-feet of water annually to support
110,630 acres of Navajo farmland. Unfortunately, while Congress passed
this law in 1962 to benefit the Navajo people, it remains the only
large federal water project from the post-war era that was authorized
but has yet to be fully completed.
NAPI was established to operate the NIIP and to manage an
industrial agribusiness and has been in operation since April 15, 1970.
The idea behind NAPI was not only to manage the NIIP but ultimately
create economic opportunities for the Navajo people to build upon our
heritage as leaders in American agriculture.
NAPI Objectives
The NAPI's objectives, as identified in the council resolution,
are:
To use the Navajo Nation's agricultural and related
resources for profitable commercial enterprises;
To provide jobs and training for the Navajo people including
opportunities in management; and
To expand markets for the NAPI products within and outside
the Navajo boundaries.
Breaking New Ground in Organics
Since our foundation, NAPI has become an international agribusiness
that cultivates multiple crops in multiple markets. In 2017, the NAPI
continued ventures in new markets, notably, we began to produce value-
added organic crops including corn, table stock potatoes, winter
squash, cantaloupe, and melons. We plan to continue this buildout with
new organic vegetable crops planned for 2018 as the company gains
experience in the expanding organic industry.
Approximately three-quarters of NAPI's overall acreage can be found
in production in any given year, the remaining acreage is set aside as
part of the NAPI's commitment to sustainable farming practices. Based
on improving agricultural prices, expected premiums from organic sales,
and good management practices; NAPI's management expects to see a
significant improvement in net income in 2017 and 2018, with a
projected net farm income after payroll and expenses of nearly $3
million in 2017.
NAPI has long-standing relationships with regional customers for a
majority of our conventionally produced agricultural products. These
customers include both end-users, such as livestock producers, non-
profit organizations, and wholesalers, such as grain brokers. Through
these relationships, NAPI has access to large and small livestock
producers, multi-national feed companies, retail food chains,
processors, food service companies, international & domestic aid
programs, food wholesalers and restaurants.
Importance of Employment Opportunities
While the NAPI has enjoyed international success, we stay connected
to the local community. The NAPI is located on the Navajo Nation
located near Farmington, New Mexico. We are proud to serve our local
community; however, given the lack of employment options in the Navajo
Nation, some of our team members drive long distances for the
opportunity to support their families. One NAPI employee starts his
journey to NAPI every day at 2:00 a.m. to get to work at 7:00 a.m and
then does the same commute home in the evening. This is a testament to
the importance of job security and employment for many of our Navajo
people.
Commodity Foods and Crop Insurance
There are two crop insurance programs for which producers can
enroll under covered commodities for the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and
the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). NAPI participates in the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Risk Coverage-
County (ARC-CO) program for the crops corn and wheat. The ARC-County
provides a base of acres of covered commodities on a commodity-by-
commodity basis when county crop revenue drops below 86 percent of the
county benchmark revenue. The program has benefited the corn and wheat
programs at NAPI when commodity prices were below the county average.
In 2012, crop sales peaked in the U.S. due in part to a nationwide
drought, and have decreased since then, primarily a result of declining
commodity prices. These external price declines, characteristic of the
competitive market for agricultural products, have impacted NAPI's net
farm income. Income has declined from a peak of more than $13 million
in fiscal 2012 to a projected loss of $3 million in fiscal 2016
primarily due to the unexpected failure of our water delivery system
(siphon breach) and declining commodity prices.
Fortunately for bad farming years such as 2016, NAPI purchases
insurance for our bean, corn, wheat, and potato crop. These USDA
programs have proved vital to supporting employment continuity over an
otherwise volatile short time period. NAPI would like to see the Price
Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) crop insurance
programs reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Barriers to Organics. To help mitigate the commodity price
volatility, NAPI's management is moving to diversify its crop mix by
moving into the organic market, which has higher margins and growing
demand. NAPI has a competitive advantage in this market due to its
national resources.
Currently, NAPI does not have a presence in the organic perishable
fruit and vegetable market segments. However, NAPI would like to
leverage relationships with experienced brokers and distributors to
take advantage of their established brands to ``co-brand''. NAPI
management plans to partner with brokers and distributors on a
commission basis to market new NAPI organic products. Not only do we
want to compete in the domestic organic market, but we plan to compete
in the international market as well. NAPI will continue our growth in
the organic market and we hope to find new partners for procurement of
unprocessed fruits and vegetables.
Crop Insurance for Organics. While the NAPI expands its organic
crops, there is an inherent risk involved in organic production. The
lack of registered organic controls can make combating weeds, pests,
and disease not only costly but also volatile. If the producer is
producing a product for the first time on the property, in most cases,
the crop cannot be insured. In the rare event that the new crop can be
insured, the coverage rate would be based on historical and not site-
specific data. In NAPI's region, that type of data is not available. In
this case, values referred to as T Yields are used for computation,
which are averages taken from other producers in the region for
comparison and are often not favorable to our conditions.
NAPI is in an isolated geographical area that is so unique that
there are literally no other comparable farming operations for
insurance companies to base forecasts upon. Unfortunately, as a result
of standard crop insurance calculations, a new organic crop would be a
significant financial risk for at least the first three years, after
which NAPI would establish its own averages. NAPI would like to work
with this Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the USDA regulators
to address this unique situation for the development of new crops.
Updating standards for organic crop insurance will assist NAPI in our
work to take our organic products and business to the next level.
Organic Certification Services. Another barrier is the
extraordinary wait times for processing and inspections required for
obtaining an organic certification. In one case, the process took so
long that we had to sell the product as conventionally grown because we
had not received our official organic certification in time. NAPI would
like to see increased funding for the New Mexico Department of
Agriculture through the Organic Certification Program so that there is
an increased number of accredited certified agents in the office. There
should never be any reason for NAPI to market our organically grown
crops as conventionally grown--we support smartly applying funding
alleviating the bottleneck at certain accrediting agencies.
In order to be eligible for the USDA National Organic Certification
Cost-Share Program, one must be a certified producer and handler and
pay annual fees. Once certified, an organic producer and handler are
eligible to receive reimbursement for up to 75 percent of certification
costs each year, up to a maximum of $750 per certification scope. NAPI
supports this program.
Barriers to Increased International Trade. The USDA has yet to
utilize tribal farms for international trade. NAPI suggests that one
way the USDA could do this is to include tribal representatives that
are experts in agriculture on U.S. trade missions. Tribal
representatives deserve a seat at this table to help grow our
economies.
NAPI requests the creation of a special tribal-federal-
international group to ensure that tribal food production is included
in discussions with international governments to further assist tribal
food growth and production.
Infrastructure and Rural Development
One of the greatest challenges comes from our greatest blessing,
the NIIP. The NIIP has yet to be completed since it was authorized by
Congress and the President on June 3, 1962. Currently, the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) is responsible for construction. After construction,
the BOR then transfers the project to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) for maintenance. We request the appropriations cap be lifted for
construction costs and that appropriations construction be increased to
finally complete the NIIP. NAPI would more successful if all 11 Blocks
of the NIIP were completed. For example, recently completion of Stage 1
of Block 9 and has resulted in successfully growing, harvesting, and
selling watermelons. An estimated 75,000 acres have been developed
acres out of the federal responsibility of 110,630 total acres. The
completion of the NIIP would cost approximately $177,000,000. Based on
a 2012 study by researchers at the University of Arizona and economists
with Compass-Lexecon Consulting, NAPI has lost approximately $4 billion
thanks to federal inability to complete construction.
NAPI is being proactive in implementing precision agriculture
technologies to help manage our water resources to raise yield, lower
input costs. Precision agriculture technologies manage the underground
water levels, which avoids the need to spend government funds on
surface drainage projects. The scope of these projects takes years to
implement due to the cost of the commodities such as small grains and
corn.
With the development of new ``Row Crops'' whether they be organic
or conventionally grown, there are many steps involved in the
production, harvest and packaging in preparation for ``Value Added''
Marketing which provides the best return. The NAPI would like to see
the USDA Value- Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants
and Rural Business Development Grants reauthorized in the 2018 Farm
Bill.
NAPI will continue to invest in our internal infrastructure as well
as facilities. NAPI has several value-added agricultural operations
that complement our agricultural production. These operations include
grain storage facilities, a flour mill, a cattle feedlot, and
conventional processing plants for beans and potatoes. There are
different facilities for organic products. In most cases, separate
processing facilities must be used for organic products to eliminate
the risk of contamination and comingling with the conventionally grown
product. Organic processing facilities are very costly installations,
but once implemented, can guarantee that the projects can be scaled up.
Conservation
The NAPI currently participates in several USDA Conservation
Programs including Environmental Quality Incentive Programs (EQUIP),
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the WaterSmart Program.
The EQUIP provides financial assistance to install and maintain
conservation practices. The CSP provides financial assistance for
meeting stewardship requirements to adopt conservation practices,
activities, and structures. The WaterSmart assists to preserve land for
agricultural or environmental uses. The CSP, EQIP, and Water Smart
grants provide financial and technical assistance based on acres
enrolled in various conservation programs. Each one of these programs
is vital to NAPI and we fully support their reauthorization.
The NAPI operated no-burn on fields, improved the irrigation
systems, improved the cover cropping, and improved the rangeland areas
on the farm under its first CSP participation. The CSP continues to
provide NAPI assistance in adopting conservation activities to protect
and to improve water quality, soil health, wildlife habitat, and air
quality. NAPI would like to see the EQUIP and the Conservation
Stewardship Program reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill with increased
funding for producers for conservation on working the agricultural
land. NAPI participated in the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
(WHIP) but this program was since repealed.
NAPI also markets goods directly to the local community. NAPI
provides a roadside local stand of crops for consumers in the four
corners area. NAPI would like to see the USDA's Farmers' Market and
Local Food Promotion Program, Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and
Community Food Projects reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill.
NAPI is proud to serve our customers, whether they are local,
national and international with high-quality products produced on the
Navajo Nation. We look forward to continued growth and partnership in
2018 and beyond. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit
this statement for the record, and I stand ready to assist the
Committee in any way I can.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Haskie.
We will now have five minute rounds of questioning. I would
like to begin with Ms. Cullo.
In USDA, you have both the Council for Native American
Farmers and the Office of Tribal Relations. How are you
bringing forward recommendations to the Secretary to support
and enhance agriculture on the reservation and tribally-owned
farms?
Do you have some ideas for the Farm Bill that would
particularly benefit Native American-owned agriculture?
Ms. Cullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Council for Native American Farmers and Ranchers was
extended by Secretary Vilsack even though it was originally
supposed to expire last year with that extension going through
this summer.
We are actually looking at ways to continue the Council
because we find it very valuable to be able to guide and work
with our Office of Tribal Relations to be able to have these
very important conversations.
We are looking into it and as we continue that process, I
would be more than happy to report back on the ability to
continue the Council moving forward.
The Chairman. Have you had that dialog with Secretary
Perdue and where are you in the process?
Ms. Cullo. We are looking at ways financially to make sure
that as it is within the Office of Tribal Relations, with their
limited resources, to be able to continue not only with
teleconferences with those members but actually finance the
ability to have regular in-person meetings so their
recommendations can be responded to efficiently, effectively
and transparently. There are over 30 right now.
The Chairman. Are you working to reduce the regulatory
burden and help with streamlining that process on the
reservation?
Ms. Cullo. Most definitely. Right now, the USDA has found
almost 150 unnecessary regulatory burdens. We are continuing
that process to eliminate any hindrances Indian Country has to
accessing USDA programs and services.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Berrey, one of the things I have introduced and hope to
make a part of the Farm Bill is legislation we call Capital for
Farmers and Ranchers. Basically, it takes the FSA guaranteed
loan and direct loan and increases the limits on the direct
loan from $300,000 to $600,000 and the guaranteed loan from
$1.39 million to $2.5 million.
What are your thoughts on that and whether that would be
helpful in terms of Native Americans accessing capital for
agriculture?
Mr. Berrey. I think it would be helpful, sir, although I
think what is needed in Indian Country is capacity. I mean that
in terms of understanding the waiver of sovereign immunity to
the limit of reliability. For tribes like mine that deal in the
gaming industry, it becomes part of your everyday business
activity.
I think for tribes looking for financing in the ag market,
they need some capacity help so maybe giving more funding to
the Intertribal Ag to help educate tribes in how they approach
credit and the limited waiver of sovereign immunity would be a
good step forward.
The Chairman. Ms. Hipp, what about trade? We are working on
trade agreements obviously and finding ways to expand access to
markets for our producers. What can the Federal Government do
to help promote, for example, tribal agricultural products
which I think have a cache and a niche globally.
Ms. Hipp. They certainly do, Chairman. Thank you for that
question.
The Intertribal Ag Council has, I believe, an over 15-year
relationship with the Foreign Ag Service through the MAP
Program, the Market Access Program. There is entry into the
international marketplace but to my knowledge, there has never
been a tribal food business or a tribal agribusiness.
Navajo may end up correcting me but to my knowledge, there
has never been a tribal government leader or a tribal food
business included on any trade mission.
Attending the different food fairs and meetings around the
globe, Intertribal Ag Council has folks on the road all the
time that do that, but being included in the trade missions is
really a different level of incorporation of tribes and their
presence in the agribusiness industry. We would encourage that
to take place as soon as possible.
The Chairman. That would seem like a natural, I would
think, and reinforce not only marketing on behalf of Native
Americans but just to strengthen the overall United States
agricultural marketing effort. To me, that seems like something
that would have real potential.
Mr. Haskie, she referenced Navajo. Have you been involved
in any of those trade arrangements or groups? Has anyone at
Navajo been involved?
Mr. Haskie. Thank you, Chairman.
No. That was one of the items that we listed in our
testimony, to be included in these tribal food missions, to
expand their reach in the international markets.
The Chairman. Ms. Cullo, it seems to me that would be a
natural. Your thoughts?
Ms. Cullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, the Secretary and Chairman Berrey, in their first
meeting, discussed international opportunities for Indian
Country.
The Chairman. Vice Chairman Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, ensuring tribal sovereignty is a key aspect of
what we do here in this Committee. That is something I take
very seriously.
With respect to agriculture, in the last Congress, I
introduced, and intend to introduce again this session,
legislation that would allow tribes and tribal organizations to
administer their own nutrition programs.
However, I understand that some folks in Indian Country are
interested in an even broader approach to self government at
USDA. I am aware of the innovations that providing 638
authority for food programs can mean for access to healthier
and more culturally appropriate food.
I am interested in hearing more about the potential
benefits of authorizing tribes to manage other USDA programs.
Ms. Hipp, in your opinion, would providing tribes and tribal
organizations 638 authority help them combat food insecurity
and improve public health across Indian Country?
Ms. Hipp. Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman, it most definitely would.
In fact, the Farm Bill before the last had a requirement that
USDA do a study on the feasibility of having tribes administer
all the feeding programs.
The study was accomplished a couple of years ago and the
findings were released. The findings were that it was entirely
feasible. It is going to be a lift obviously to get the
regulatory piece in place within the tribal governments
themselves, but any tribe that does 638 has already gone
through that special process on any number of other programs.
It is really not an issue. It is an issue of getting it
started.
However, as far as the impact on food security, if you
could actually marry the food production that is happening in
Indian Country on tribal lands across the Country and literally
regionalize the food purchasing for those feeding programs,
this would be new. It is not being done this way now and it is
a fairly embedded process of national purchasing
infrastructure.
If you were to actually deconstruct that and regionalize
it, then you could actually make the program more cost
effective, but it would also be able to link the producers
themselves with the tribes involved in food and create a stable
market.
Obviously, it would not be their highest price point market
but it would be a stable market nonetheless that would further
stimulate more food production. It would also allow those foods
to arrive fresher and more palatable at their location and the
homes of the people who actually need the foods.
That sort of concept has been floating around for some time
now. Our Initiative has actually done a preliminary study of
the financial feasibility of that sort of approach. It is in a
draft format and we are running our second phase of economic
analysis. We are already seeing in our economic processes and
studies that there would be a cost saving across the board
every month. We believe this sort of new approach would really
place tribal leadership in the centerpiece of this conversation
and is ripe and ready to be launched.
It has come up quite a bit in the regular tribal
consultation meetings that the Food and Nutrition Service has
been having with tribal leadership. Governor Mountain, who is
in the room with us today, has been leading that process.
I will tell you those tribal consultation meetings are
unique within the department. They augment what the council
does but they get down into the actual specifics of that
particular agency within the department. You need that level of
specificity.
They have been able to uncover lots of efficiencies and
lots of things that could be done better and need to be fixed
and reach a partnership to fix them.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Welcome Governor
Mountain.
Briefly, Chairman Berrey, what things would you do
differently at Quapaw if you were given 638 authority?
Mr. Berrey. I think we would do more and more of what we
are doing now, Mr. Vice Chairman, because we are at home; we
understand our people. We understand the needs of the local
community. We would just be able to get more efficiency from
the money within the Department of Agriculture or get it spent
more on the ground for the people who need it. We would
continue to expand what we are doing.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven.
It is very interesting to me because I am also going to be
serving on the Agriculture Committee, so this conversation is
very apt.
I think agriculture in Indian Country has the potential to
not only strengthen local economies but also build health care
communities. I think this is exactly what you are talking about
Ms. Hipp when you described how this might all work together.
We have such a challenge with extreme poverty and also the
loss of traditional food ways. I think this is a lot of what
contributes to the huge health disparities that we often see. I
am especially worried about diabetes but there are so many ways
in which these health disparities manifest themselves.
I am glad you mentioned the innovative work that the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is doing with their Seeds
of Native Health Strategy which I have had a chance to see up
close. It is really, really great work. It is making real
headway towards improving nutrition and supporting indigenous
foods. I know we are going to be hearing more about this
strategy tomorrow at the roundtable we are doing.
I will direct this to you, Ms. Hipp, but anyone should feel
free to chime in. What more do you think we can do to increase
access to indigenous foods in Indian Country? From your
perspective, how do you think this could contribute to
healthier communities?
Ms. Hipp. Thank you for the question.
It is hard for me to restrain myself. I just don't want to
respond in a book. I will tell you that one of the other things
the Seeds of Native Health effort has undertaken is the pulling
together of western nutrition scientists and traditional food
people within our communities and our traditional food
scientists.
Getting them talking together on the research issues and
the intertwining of really following the betterment of health
outcomes, they will tell you linking that to as much
traditional food as you can really strengthens the whole
nutrition education conversation and strengthens changing
peoples' food consumption habits because it brings it closer to
home, as Chairman Berrey discussed.
You actually see the preferences shift because it is a
connection with culture, tradition and language, but it is also
a connection with what is readily available. I think that
cannot be ignored.
The other thing I will share with you is that when you talk
about these issues with regard to USDA and its powers and
authorities, historically the conversation tends to be isolated
into a tiny, little piece of the puzzle. We have this amount of
money for traditional foods and that is all we have. That is
just not appropriate anymore.
The availability of traditional and healthy foods in Indian
Country is on the upswing. To relegate the conversation to a
small funding stream or just one agency is really not
appropriate. For instance, when you are purchasing foods for
the feeding programs, you actually have to have the Ag
Marketing Service, FSA, used to be, and FNS in the room. They
all have to be there because they all play a part.
Calibrating those interrelationships within the department
itself to broaden the ability to bring those healthier foods
into the plates of people is really, really important. Making
sure that the interdepartmental problems we have between USDA
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are fixed is really vital as
well to really scale that up.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Does anyone else have a quick comment on that?
Mr. Haskie. Chairman Hoeven and Senator Smith, at the NAIP
farm we do have a product line of Native American foods. We
understand that there needs to be some upfront educational
awareness of the benefits of these Native American foods across
the Navajo Nation.
Education on the benefits of these Native American foods,
reintroduction of them into the diets, and identification of
the pipeline will get them back into the communities.
Currently, our Navajo Nation is a food desert. We have a lot of
convenience stores. There are not many markets, so fresh foods
are very rare.
I think the conveyance system would have to target
convenience stores, the schools and governments. If we grow it,
we believe they will buy it given the fact of the benefits of
the traditional foods.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I know my time is up. I just want to say that I
am so struck by the great assets you are all talking about in
Indian Country. It is inspiring to think about how we can bring
those assets, whether it is around young farmers,
diversification, or access to capital but how we can bring that
thinking to the Farm Bill and enhance the thinking over there.
The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Welcome. Thank you for this conversation today. It is so
important.
Today, the Center of Budget Policy and Priority has
released a report adding to the growing evidence that says
increased investment in SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, can save money in other ways like lowering
health care costs. The report actually examines research that
found, on average, low income adults participating in SNAP have
almost 25 percent less in medical costs annually than non-
participants in the same income bracket.
I am curious. I will open it to all of you. I would like to
start with Ms. Hipp. Can you talk about the positive economic
and health correlation between Indian Country participation in
food and nutrition programs and a healthy lifestyle? Have you
seen that?
Ms. Hipp. If you don't mind, could I defer that to Chairman
Berrey?
Senator Cortez Masto. Absolutely.
Ms. Hipp. Because he literally has on the ground impact.
Senator Cortez Masto. Fantastic. Chairman Berrey, your
thoughts on this, the healthy lifestyle and the fact that SNAP
has actually helped lower health care costs.
Mr. Berrey. I think it is very evident at Quapaw, ma'am,
not only with the Quapaw Tribe but within the Quapaw greater
community.
I spoke earlier about our Title VI program. The tribe
donates bison as the main protein for our Title VI program. We
feed about 600 people a day. About 70 percent of them are non-
Indian and they receive great health benefits from just that.
Also, if you look at our production and our processes, we
are holistic. All of our surface water is managed so it goes
through wetlands to clean it up at our processing facility.
Whenever we work on recontouring and preparing land for
agriculture, we take into account runoff and make sure the
environment is healthy in the process of developing
agriculture.
If tribes and local communities focus on SNAP and other
programs and give them a good healthy diet, it is obvious just
looking at the people that they are healthier, they are feeling
better and that the cost to the tribe of providing health care
to our members is going down in terms of diabetic medication
and other things of that sort.
Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Can Congress do a better job? What else can we do to
facilitate not only quality diabetes treatment and intervention
programs with access to quality health food to combat the
growing rate of obesity and the rate of diabetes in Indian
Country? What else should we be doing?
I know we have discussed a number of things today. Is there
anything else that we have left on the table?
Mr. Berrey. I think we need to go back to treatment as a
State for our tribes to be considered. If we are treated as a
State like they do in environmental laws, we are treated as a
State under the Clean Air Act, it gives us a better opportunity
and a bigger voice to participate in what is happening with the
local community where the dollars are spent.
I think it is incumbent for the Department of Agriculture
to have the opportunity to speak to tribes as Nations and to
work together through MOUs to be able to provide a better
quality food source for the local communities.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. Hipp?
Ms. Hipp. We speak to this in our Regaining our Future
report. If you actually look at the nutrition education
funding, the Food Distribution on Indian Reservations Program
has less than $1 million a year to provide nutrition education
funding to 276 tribes whose members utilize that program. That
does not equal very much per person or per tribe to actually
deliver that sort of nutrition education information.
Tribes are not allowed to directly access the SNAP ed
funds. If they receive them at all, they receive them through a
State. To me, that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. SNAP
ed is a large repository of education funding.
The best thing that Navajo, as well as Quapaw and others,
can tell you is that when you actually link the nutrition
education conversation with actual foods produced by the tribe
or tribes in the region, then you have a more powerful
conversation with the folks who actually need to have their
health outcomes turned around.
Senator Cortez Masto. Sure. That makes sense.
I notice my time is up. Thank you very much. I appreciate
you all being here today.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing and for the witnesses.
I did not get to be here for the entire hearing but I have
looked at many of your testimonies. I think Ms. Hipp may be the
best person to answer this question which concerns the large
amount of interest, at least for us in the northwest, in forest
policies as related to things like good neighbor, which I think
you mentioned in your testimony.
I do think, Mr. Haskie, there is a lot of interest in what
I would call branding of fish product and figuring out how to
get it delivered cost effectively to consumers, very specific
programs that allow tribes to brand their own caught product
and figure out how to get it into the supply chain without
various barriers that exist today.
On the timber issue, cost relating to timber is something
we are interested in, trying to figure out how to make sure the
opportunities for new building materials are there. What do we
need to do to better help with the timber side of management
and coordination to get that kind of product produced from
tribes around the Country? Ms. Hipp.
Ms. Hipp. We continue to receive input from tribal
leadership around the Country, particularly in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska, that good neighbor authority is terribly
important. It is critical for tribes to be equal partners at
the table in the management of forests.
If you actually look at the U.S. Forest Service, there is a
component called State and private forestlands. It is a big
part of the agency itself but it does not say State, tribal and
private forestland which really misses a huge piece of the
puzzle, in my opinion.
I grew up in two forests in southeastern Oklahoma. People
assume that all of Oklahoma is flat but it is not. There were
small lumber mills all over the place. People forget, I think,
that forestry and forest products are forms of silviculture
business-agribusiness. It is really as vital to rural
communities as any other form of business or economic
development.
Taking a close look at the U.S. Forest Service components
of this conversation, I think, is very important to bringing
tribal parity into that conversation, but also making sure that
forest-related products industries and sustainable forest
products are incorporated into the potential eligibilities in
the other agencies and programs within the department is an
important step as well.
Senator Cantwell. I think we already are taking steps in
our State in the school construction program to build schools
out of cross-laminated timber, so I think everyone thinks it is
a win-win situation. You give mills the predictability to stay
open because they are going to be producing product.
We have this kind of new building which is beginning to
take off even at the high-rise level. You are right, why can't
we look at our backlog in the school construction program,
which seems to be this big dark hole as it relates to Indian
Country, and get some clarity? I am sure people would be
excited about a program that was marrying better timber policy
and solving school construction issues, particularly with new
product.
Mr. Haskie, do you think Indian Country uses the MAP
Program? I don't think there is any prohibition on their using
the MAP Program. That is our marketing access program to take
U.S. products to help reach overseas markets. Do you know if
that is used at all?
Mr. Haskie. I am not aware of NAPI utilizing the MAP
Program.
Senator Cantwell. I know our seafood industry has used it a
lot to help develop markets in Asia for our aquaculture
products. It has been quite successful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I have one question I would put out there for all of you.
As we write the Farm Bill, there are certain priorities that we
are working on. There have been priorities in the past as well,
things like crop insurance and making sure we have strong crop
insurance as a risk management tool for our producers; a
counter cyclical safety net working to strengthen ARC and PLC;
ag research; strong funding for ag research; trade; marketing;
things like following MAP which Senator Cantwell referred to;
McGovern-Dole Food for Peace, those types of programs; reducing
the regulatory burden which we talked about a bit here; and
access to capital which I brought up. There are others.
From your perspective, I want to ask what ideas do you
have, in terms of things you think are important for the Farm
Bill and that we are cognizant of, particularly as it relates
to Native American agriculture, as we work on the Farm Bill and
trying to pass as strong a Farm Bill as we can for all of
agriculture? Ms. Cullo.
Ms. Cullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The conversations need to continue to take place. At no
point during this process can we allow this to be a partisan
issue. As the Secretary said, agriculture is not. Making sure
we eliminate barriers to Indian Country accessing USDA programs
and services is our objective.
Let us continue to look at, identify and eliminate
regulatory burdens. Previously, it was stated that in many
cases tribes do have to apply for some programs through their
States. Let us have that conversation. Let us look at the
tribal colleges and universities, our 1994 program, look at
truly educating the next generation of USDA employees, farmers,
ranchers, producers and agribusiness owners.
Let us make sure that in this Farm Bill, we are working
toward giving the ability of those tribal colleges and other
minority-serving institutions the tools, research abilities and
capacity they need to be able to graduate and give
opportunities to those students.
The Chairman. Chairman Berrey.
Mr. Berrey. I would echo Ms. Cullo's comments as well, Mr.
Chairman. It is about education and capacity and actually,
conversation. That goes back to my earlier statement about
recognizing tribes as States. It is more about giving them the
opportunity and access.
When I grew up, we relied much on the extension services to
the land grant colleges. That seems to be kind of fading away
as well. We need to have people in the community, not only in
the Native American space, but throughout the agriculture
community who are dedicated to educating young people and
giving them the capacity to go after the monetary support, the
understanding, and the education.
I think the tribes need to be a part of that conversation
but we need to make sure the extension services upheld groups,
like Intertribal Ag, to have the budget base to spread the word
to Indian tribes about how to get more involved in credit and
agriculture. I think it is capacity, education and
conversation.
The Chairman. Ms. Hipp.
Ms. Hipp. I have a couple of items. Food deserts exist but
credit deserts are equally as important or dramatic in Indian
Country. Revisiting the credit components of USDA is really
critical.
There have been improvements over the years in how tribes
access, individual farmers and ranchers, but also tribal
governments and tribal businesses, credit programs at RD as
well as FSA but we need to keep working at that. Those credit
deserts have existed for a very long time and it is not going
to be fixed overnight.
The other thing I will share with you is I keep remembering
how it was when I was at USDA. We solved so many problems by
interdepartmental coordination and rolling up our sleeves and
sitting down with the key people at BIA as well as all the
various agencies of USDA. I do not think that is done near
enough.
A lot of these problems cannot be solved just by USDA
talking to itself. They have to have the tribal leadership at
the table as well as the Bureau itself.
Finally, I will echo Chairman Berrey's comments regarding
education and extension. The formula funds need a little
recalibration to make sure they are really reaching the tribal
leadership and tribal communities that are, in many areas, the
rural backbone of that community and region.
Those are the three items I have not covered before in my
testimony but would take this opportunity to share with you
today.
The Chairman. Where do most of Native American producers
access capital, in your opinion? Where do they go for capital?
Ms. Hipp. That is interesting. It depends on how much they
need. If you are accessing capital for something the size of
NAPI or the slaughter facility at Quapaw, it is a different
conversation than if you are an individual farmer looking to
expand your operation.
They go to FSA; for some issues, they go to RD; but they
also go to Farm Credit. I hope I am not speaking out of turn
from our Farm Credit friends who are here because they have
been very supportive and kind of in the weeds with jobs around
these issues. Making sure their authorities are clear with
regard to their capacity to do more lending in Indian Country
is also terribly important. Local banks can come into play as
well.
The Chairman. Mr. Haskie, your thoughts.
Mr. Haskie. We have different sources for capital funds and
requests for funds. For the larger scale of capital funding, we
rely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Irrigation. That is just
the main high costing infrastructure repairs that have been
deferred for many years. NAPI began reinvesting some of their
profits to maintaining some of those deferred maintenance items
even though it is not their responsibility.
As far as the business of processing facilities, we
typically finance those because they exceed the available
grants in our State and area for any type of development. We
financed our own flour mill and our own pellet mill.
On the smaller grant funding, we have been able to utilize
the WaterSmart Grant for which we have successfully been
approved the last two years to rehabilitate some of our
irrigation sprinkler systems.
The Chairman. Vice Chairman Udall.
Senator Udall. I will defer.
The Chairman. Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman
Udall, I appreciate it.
In the great State of Montana, ag is our number one
industry. In fact, it is the hard work of our farmers and
ranchers that keeps the food on the table not only in Montana
and the United States, but around the world as we depend
heavily on exports.
I also chair the Senate Western Caucus. I am working to
ensure that we shape the Farm Bill in a way that it provides
robust benefits to the western States, certainly including
benefits to Indian tribes and Native American farmers and
ranchers.
I have heard from our Intertribal Ag Council based in
Billings, Montana, regarding their priorities for the 2018 Farm
Bill. In fact, one of their most pressing requests is to ensure
there is parity between tribal, State and local ag producers in
reauthorizing and changing existing programs, especially with
respect to some of the important conservation programs.
Ms. Hipp, I know you discussed this topic in your
testimony. I know Vice Chairman Udall touched on a related
question with respect to some of these important nutrition
programs.
From your perspective, could you share why empowering
Indian tribes to have more direct input in the implementation
and conservation practices on Indian lands is so important?
Ms. Hipp. There are so many examples I could give you. I am
going to give you a microcosm approach.
In some areas of Indian Country, the land base is so large
that the failure of the Farm Bill's conservation title to be
written with those tribal lands in mind has exacerbated the
inability for those conservation programs, that a lot of other
farmers and land owners rely on, to actually press into tribal
lands.
NRCS and the conservation title programs are written from
the standpoint of an individual fee private landowner
standpoint. It has always been a torturous contortion, if you
will, to actually effectively push those programs into Indian
Country.
There are success stories that are out there but it is just
extremely difficult to get those programs properly calibrated
so that the principles of conservation and the presence of
those cost share programs can deeply be pushed into tribal
lands which are in dire need of those conservation efforts.
You don't have to go very far across Indian Country to see
conservation programs are much needed. Many, many tribes kind
of take the bull by the horns and do it themselves but the
reality is, those conservation title programs can be really
pushed into tribal lands a lot better with a tight
recalibration of how the actual language is written. It
literally goes that deep into the weeds, if you will.
Senator Daines. Thank you. That is something we will pay
attention to as we move this Farm Bill through the Ag Committee
which I serve on.
Chairman Berrey, I have had the pleasure of meeting with
Rose Bear Don't Walk and Abaki Beck who hail from St. Ignatius
and Missoula, Montana, respectively. Both serve on the National
Indian Health Board's Tribal Youth Health Advisory Board which
passed a resolution encouraging policies that support
incorporation of healthy and culturally appropriate food for
Indian communities. I am glad my colleagues and our friends on
the witness panel have discussed these goals today.
Chairman Berrey, my staff member told me you like to fish
around the Innes area. I grew up fishing around there myself,
probably Madison, I would guess?
Mr. Berrey. Yes, sir.
Senator Daines. And O'Dell Creek. We could probably talk
about that for a long time.
Mr. Berrey. Yes.
Senator Daines. Could you also share some details on the
success the Quapaw Tribe has had incorporating Native foods in
your community such as bison and any related health benefits
you see?
Mr. Berrey. I think there are tremendous health benefits.
You might represent us because we are kind of a Country and
western State, Oklahoma.
Healthwise, our bison program worked very well with the
Intertribal Bison Cooperative. We have access to a large
quantity of bison. In that process, we donate the bison to the
Title VI Program.
We also donate it to the local public schools to help youth
get a source of protein for their daily education. There are a
lot of poor kids in our community so we give bison and donate
it to our Title VI Program that feeds elderly and we get health
benefits from that.
We give it to the local schools, the Quapaw and Cardin
schools. We give it in the form of either beef steaks or ground
burger to food to feed program at school.
We see a lot of benefits. We see the health benefit of a
better protein, less fat, and better amino acids. It manifests
itself in lowering the diabetes problem and other health
problems that come with poor nutrition.
We also see a benefit to education. It helps young and
hungry kids pay attention better in class. Whenever we are
asked, we freely donate. We are always open to donating protein
to any kind of school in our area to help young kids who do not
have access to protein.
It is not only a health initiative, it is an education
initiative because it gives these young kids the ability to
focus and not listen to their stomachs growling all day and not
be able to focus on the basics of school. We send them home on
the weekends also with bison steaks as well to help supplement
their diet at home. It not only helps with the health of the
people that consume it but it helps the kids that consume it in
school.
I also want to point out in all of our processes, we take
into account our surface water management, to make sure we are
not contributing to pollution of the local waterways. All of
our surface water in all of our facilities goes through a
wetland process to ensure the environment is in better shape as
we produce these different agricultural products.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Vice Chairman Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier this Congress at a hearing on the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians, we heard that food insecurity is a real
problem across Indian Country. Food insecurity leads to many
real health challenges for Native families and communities.
Ms. Hipp's testimony underscored that one way to tackle
this issue of food deserts and food insecurity is to find ways
to match up tribal agricultural potential with local market
needs on reservations. This approach seems especially promising
because it would let tribes increase access to traditional
foods which are not just healthier but in many cases, carry
important cultural significance.
Chairman Berrey and Mr. Haskie, does NAPI or any of
Quapaw's agribusiness pursuits include production of
traditional foods and if so, what percentage of your products
would you say fall into that category?
Mr. Haskie. Vice Chairman Udall, NAPI grows sumac berries
usually used for various uses within the cultural and also
ceremonial uses. It comes in the form of either a pudding or a
dried good or just the basic berries. The branches on that are
also used for traditional and cultural purposes.
The other traditional foods that we offer are based on the
blue corn and white corn, the Native corns that we have. We
intend to upgrade our processing facilities because we package
these crops on our farm. As far as the ratio, it makes up about
3 percent of the entire farm.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Chairman Berrey.
Mr. Berrey. Percentage-wise, Mr. Vice Chairman, I am not
100 percent sure but I will tell you some of the things we
produce that are culturally significant.
We have a large honey bee operation. Honey is used quite a
bit mixed with meat in our traditional diet. Like the Navajo,
we produce a red corn product. We have a very extensive
greenhouse system that grows heirloom products. They are
historically of cultural importance to us and are important to
others in our community.
We grow a lot of heirloom tomatoes, peppers, all kinds of
gourds and squashes that have been part of the Quapaw story as
far back as we can remember. It is very much a part of what we
do on a daily basis.
I have spoken often about our bison program. We have the
only USDA inspected bison cure facility in Indian Country. It
is becoming unbelievable how many bison we are now processing
not only for our tribe but other tribes to help them with
promoting bison in their diets.
Senator Udall. Bison, as we all know, is a traditional food
that is also very healthy, with very lean meat.
Mr. Berrey. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Mr. Haskie, I know that access to healthy
foods can be a challenge on the Navajo Reservation and that
many families rely on Federal food programs. Is NAPI currently
able to sell any of your traditional food crops to these
programs?
Mr. Haskie. No, we do not.
Senator Udall. Chairman Berrey and Mr. Haskie, what could
the Federal Government be doing to support tribal efforts to
grow traditional foods and expand local tribal food markets?
Mr. Berrey. I think we have discussed it all today. It is
access to capital and giving us better regulatory authority
over what products we produce. We want a healthy product for
the consumer whether they are Native or non-Native. We think we
can do a better job because we are where the rubber meets the
road.
I think everything discussed here today by Janie, Ms. Cullo
and also Mr. Haskie. Everything combined with education and
conversation gets us further down the road to doing these
things and letting tribes participate in doing good things and
feeding people. That is really what it is all about, feeding
people, not only Native people but our local community. We want
to make sure that no one goes to bed at night in our community
hungry.
Senator Udall. Thank you to the whole panel. This was
excellent testimony. This is clearly an important topic with
lots of potential for improvements in Federal policy. I really
look forward to diving in a bit deeper tomorrow at the
Committee's roundtable. I really appreciate your testimony
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working so hard on this and
making this a real success.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I want to again thank all of our witnesses for being here
today and for your testimony.
If there are no more questions for today, members may also
submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing
record will be open for two weeks.
Again, thanks to all of our witnesses. We appreciate it so
much.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Camille Ferguson, Executive Director, American
Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association
Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee,
I offer testimony on behalf of the American Indian Alaska Native
Tourism Association (AIANTA) about breaking new ground in agritourism
opportunities in Indian Country. Agritourism and cultural tourism are a
vital part of rural development in the United States, including Indian
Country. AIANTA is requesting that the economic strides being made in
tribal tourism--and the needs and interests of a growing number of
tribes and tribal entrepreneurs--be reflected in the next Farm Bill.
AIANTA provides tribes and tribal members with training, technical
assistance, educational resources, international and domestic marketing
assistance and public land partnerships in a wide variety of cultural
and agritourism development areas.
Indian Country Tourism Growth
Indian Country is a unique part of the national and international
visitor experience in America and is a strong contributor to the U.S.
travel/tourism industry. International tourism to tribal destinations
and experiences is an especially vital and growing market. Since AIANTA
began marketing tribal destinations internationally in 2007, overseas
visitors to Indian Country have increased 180 percent. According to the
Department of Commerce, overseas travelers to Indian Country stay on
average 12 days longer in the U.S., visit more states and destinations,
take more domestic flights and rent more cars. In short, they spend
significantly more travel dollars in the U.S. than other visitors.
Tribal interest and investment is rising in agritourism as well as
cultural tourism in Indian Country and both are excellent opportunities
for rural development and small-business and job creation.
Agritourism Growth in the U.S.
According to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center and U.S.
Census data, from 2007-2012 the number of farms with agritourism
products increased by 30 percent and income from agritourism increased
by a corresponding 23 percent during the same period. It is a popular
and growing visitor activity domestically and internationally.
We are also seeing opportunities emerging in farm rich communities
throughout Indian Country. As of the 2012 census (new data anticipated
with the upcoming census survey), there were 58,475 American Indian
farm operators in the United States (2012 U.S. Census) with signs of
growth: American Indian farmers, particularly those that are Principal
Operators (37,851 in 2012), increased by 9 percent from the 2007 to
2012 Census reporting.
Sustainable agricultural infrastructure development and expansion
creates a localized source for food access for communities and expands
the impact of agriculture as an economic engine. As Native farmers grow
their farming operations, agritourism and culinary tourism supports
economic development goals and, in many tribal communities, an
opportunity to further food sovereignty initiatives and efforts. Tribal
agritourism development offers unique visitor experiences while
supporting culture and the greater economy. Examples include farmers
markets with tribal artisans; packaged food products to sell in
galleries and gift shops; farm to table and culinary tourism; native
food menus; cooking demonstrations, classes and participatory cooking;
bed and breakfasts; buffalo culture; fishing culture; native food
gathering tours and more.
Currently, there are efforts by individuals and tribes to promote
and preserve the agricultural assets specific to their communities, but
there has not been a collective effort to identify where these efforts
are and to document the methods used to preserve cultural integrity
through sustainable practices. Further, there is a significant lack of
access to training opportunities specific to tribal communities
developing, enhancing or expanding direct producer to consumer
operations and products. Due to lack of connectivity and resources,
networking continues to be a challenge for tribes and native
communities-especially for new and emerging ideas and approaches such
as establishing and implementing best practices for tribal agritourism.
There are few divisions of the Federal Government more capable of
assisting tribes and tribal entrepreneurs in their tourism aspirations
than Rural Development. Among Rural Development's programs, of special
importance to tribes developing tourism programs and infrastructure and
tribal members creating tourism businesses are: the Rural Business
Development Grant Program, Rural Community Development Initiative
Grants, Rural Micro-Entrepreneur Assistance Program, Special Evaluative
Assistance for Rural Communities and Households (SEARCH) and the
Business and Industry Loan Guaranty Program.
The Role of the NATIVE ACT of 2016
Public Law 114-221 (NATIVE Act of 2016) directs federal agencies,
including the Department of Agriculture, in Section 5 of the Act, to
``(1) take actions that help empower Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations to showcase the
heritage, foods, traditions, history, and continuing vitality of Native
American communities; (2) support the efforts of Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations--(A) to identify and
enhance or maintain traditions and cultural features that are important
to sustain the distinctiveness of the local Native American community;
and (B) to provide visitor experiences that are authentic and
respectful; (3) provide assistance to interpret the connections between
the indigenous peoples of the United States and the national identity
of the United States; (4) enhance efforts to promote understanding and
respect for diverse cultures and subcultures in the United States and
the relevance of those cultures to the national brand of the United
States; and (5) enter into appropriate memoranda of understanding and
establish public-private partnerships to ensure that arriving domestic
travelers at airports and arriving international visitors at ports of
entry are welcomed in a manner that both showcases and respects the
diversity of Native American communities.''
One of the key actions the Department of Agriculture can take to
implement the NATIVE Act is reference its provisions in the 2018 Farm
Bill. This will ensure that Rural Development programs are responsive
to the most viable tribal tourism development efforts in the Nation.
Examples of How the Farm Bill Can Support Rural Tourism
The ways in which Rural Development can support the NATIVE Act and
tribal tourism through the next Farm Bill are too numerous to mention.
Research has shown there is significant demand for visitors to see
and experience tribal cultures, landscapes, traditional agriculture and
culinary experiences. As part of AIANTA's work to expand tribal
capacity to respond to the demand, in 2017 AIANTA launched a tribal
agritourism pilot program, which provided outreach and technical
assistance and training to hundreds of tribal agribusinesses and tribal
representatives. AIANTA intends to expand the impact of our work by
providing technical assistance, resources and tools for rural tribes
and tribal communities to develop tribal tourism and tribal agritourism
products and programming. AIANTA is also working to market Indian
Country tourism products domestically and internationally to continue
to grow visitor demand. AIANTA's business plan includes tailored
training opportunities and plans for more on-the-ground local and
regional efforts to bring tourism training and technical assistance
directly to Indian Country.
A regional co-location approach (a tourism expert sharing space
with other rural development experts for deployment to rural areas) or
a circuit rider approach (such as the one offered by Rural Development
for assistance with waste management issues) could make tourism experts
from the industry and academia available to work directly with tribes
in early stages of tourism development and management.
With FY18 NATIVE Act funding, tribal Destination Marketing
Organizations (DMOs) can begin to be organized in up to 10 states.
North Dakota is working on a tribal DMO and Tribes in Montana/Wyoming,
Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, Alaska and others have
expressed an interest in developing this multi-tribal development and
marketing strategy. These tribes can carry out their product
development and destination marketing with Rural Development
programming to create demonstrable results in income and jobs in the
next 4-5 years.
Summary
The 2018 Farm Bill can accelerate business and job creation through
proven tourism development practices in Indian Country. AIANTA and its
partners are doing this work and ready to assist the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs, the Congressional Agriculture Committees and USDA
Rural Development in devising language that includes best practices and
programs in rural tourism.
Inclusion of rural tourism in the 2018 Farm Bill will ensure that
tribal tourism, a burgeoning area of economic development, will
continue to grow rapidly-to the benefit of rural, state and national
economies.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Keith B. Anderson, Vice-Chairman, Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Ross Racine, Executive Director, Intertribal
Agriculture Council
``Agriculture is the tradition.''--Ross Racine
''Again, we realize our future will come from the Indian uses
of Indian resources. There has never been a society in the
history of the world that has survived without the ability to
feed itself. A return to our proud stature will come through
the ability to sustain ourselves on what we have left of our
homelands. The use of those lands must come as goals set by the
individual reservations and be done in a manner prescribed by
the respective residents.''
The preceding is a quote from Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC)
testimony to a Joint Hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs and Ag
Committees in 1998. That is the last time a joint effort including the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee has been undertaken to examine the
needs of Indian Agriculture. In the spirit of that collaboration, our
testimony will center around the opportunity that exists in the
formation of farm policy through Farm Bill discussions, however it will
also highlight several opportunities for improvement outside the
parameters of the 2018 Farm Bill which are fully within the
jurisdiction of this committee to address.
Agriculture Is the Tradition--The Farm Bill
The Intertribal Agriculture Council fully supports and endorses the
efforts and priorities of the Native Farm Bill Coalition as laid out by
Janie Hipp during her oral testimony given at the hearing. While the
witnesses did a very good job of explaining the particulars of
Agriculture in Indian Country from the perspective of Tribes and Tribal
farming and ranching operations, we are offering our additional
testimony, not only to buttress their oral testimony, but to provide
insight on the the issues that are important to the over 70,000
individual Indian producers operating on 50,000,000 acres throughout
Indian Country.
Many of our initiatives address capacity building in Indian Country
so our people are empowered to take care of their own needs. Credit
Deserts exist in Indian Country, and improving access to fair and
reasonable credit is imperative in order to improve profit margins, and
will allow personal investment in further infrastructure to engage in
value-added agriculture. Federal resources are needed to address the
shortfalls in available capital and increasing flexibility in Rural
Development programs can alleviate this. We will delve more deeply into
each of these items in turn; but the need for additional capacity
development must first be discussed.
Unique Needs in Indian Country and The Quapaw Exception
Chairman John Berrey does a tremendous job at Quapaw, and we are
proud of the work they are doing. It is the essence of value-added
Agriculture. The question that needs to be asked however is: ``If your
territory wasn't right alongside an interstate highway with `10 million
cars a year' driving by; offering up the customer base for a `lucrative
Resort and Casino' that provides the capital that fuels your
Agriculture operation; how far along would you be in your efforts to
construct your state of the art $5 million processing plant, or in your
efforts to provide free bison meat to people in your community?''
Quapaw is a notable exception to the norm in Indian Country.
More than half of the 567 Federally Recognized Tribes do not have a
casino. Fewer still have casinos that do much more than struggle to
stay in the black in unpopulated areas as a means to provide some
employment to their members. While the visionary leadership at Quapaw
should be lauded and held up as an example of what can be, when
commitment, resources, and planning converge, the entire picture must
be examined more closely.
The willingness of the Quapaw Tribe to share not only their
operational and conceptual plans freely with their fellow Tribes only
gets part way to the solution. There exists a gaping chasm between
Native American Agriculture and Native American Food that can only be
bridged by accessible capital resources.
Rural Development and SUTA Language
The lack of available capital to develop resources pervades Indian
Country and serves to stifle economic development, and is the very
foundation upon which impoverished communities exist. The willful
extraction of resources that forced a growing nation to acquire these
lands in the name of progress continues to this day in our reservation
food economies.
In 2012, $3.4 Billion in gross sales were attributed to Indian
Country Agriculture. This number is representative of the 14.3 percent
of a dollar's worth of food that actually constitutes the producer's
share according the Economic Research Service at USDA. The potential
economic impact of changing Indian Agriculture from commodities to
ready to eat food, The Food Opportunity Multiplier, can therefore be
summed up by the following equation:
100 percent (Total Food Dollar)/14.3 percent (Producer's Share)
= FOM (Food Opportunity Multiplier) 6.99 = FOM
In all likelihood, 14.3 cents is probably an overstatement of the
producer's share in Indian Country, given the cost of capital and the
distance from the infrastructure needed to create food; but we will use
this number for effect. The FOM in this case is 6.99. A generous
estimate of the percentage of Indian Agriculture that is already turned
into food is 1 percent, but again for the sake of explanation we will
use 10 percent, leaving us with only $3,000,000,000 to apply the FOM
to. Table 1. below provides some perspective.
Table 1. Food Opportunity Modifier Illustrated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Ag Products BIA Budget 2012 IHS Budget 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value $3,000,000,000 $2,531,000,000 $5,380,000,000
FOM 6.99
Retail Potential $20,970,000,000 IHS/BIA Combined $7,911,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The missing part of this equation is infrastructure to develop
Agriculture products into food. Without access to casino revenues, most
Tribal ag ventures must compete for meager capital resources balanced
against the emergent needs of impoverished populations. Much of the
other potential for enhancing this opportunity is within the USDA's
Rural Development programs. Prohibitive requirements for participation
in Rural Development programs; serve to prevent value added agriculture
in Indian Country. The solution however is clear, and has already
demonstrated a modicum of success in one such program. Within the Rural
Utilities Service, there exists a provision wherein the Secretary of
Agriculture can waive cash matching requirements and offer other more
favorable terms to facilitate and incentivize development. The
Substantially Underserved Trust Areas provisions, if applied more
broadly through the Farm Bill, where Tribal participation is
contemplated; could help eliminate one barrier to improved production.
Credit Deserts
As stated earlier, it is a matter of fact that the access to credit
taken for granted by much of American Agriculture is nonexistent in
Indian Country. Our work over the past 30 years has helped to improve
access to Farm Service Agency loans for many of our producers, however
the policy of the FSA is to prepare producers for a credit environment
that simply doesn't exist in Indian Country. FSA policy however, has
been promulgated with the notion that there is a norm of credit
availability in rural America that can be equally and fairly accessed
by all by developing their business through the FSA Loan Programs. Our
standing recommendation that serves as the foundation for all of our
policy requests within the Credit title is an examination of Credit
Deserts in Indian Country. Our definition from one of our early reports
of a Credit Desert is the ``lack of presence and availability of credit
at fair and reasonable terms.''
Redlines in the Margins
The impact of Credit Deserts are far reaching and much broader than
first glance. For producers operating on a tight margin, oftentimes
there is precious little difference between poor financing and no
financing at all. The average Net Farm Cash Income across all sectors
of agriculture for 2017 is projected to be 4 percent. Absent a study on
this metric, specific to Indian Country, we must look to Ag Census
numbers that indicate the average Annual Market Value of Products Sold
is , of the All Farm Average (American Indians = $57,801; All Farms =
$187,097). Not only are Indian producers faced with lower disposable
income, they are also faced with interest rates that quickly consume
any profit margin that may be realized in the best of years. The
difference between and FSA Farm Operating Loan at 3 percent vs. a loan
from a commercial lender at 7-13 percent can literally determine
whether you stay in business or not.
Now this isn't to say that non-Indians don't suffer a similar
dilemma from time to time, but this is far more likely to be the norm
in the Credit Deserts that are Indian Country. What makes Credit Desert
environments even more devastating is the ever-pervasive myth that
``you can't mortgage trust land.'' When non-Indian producers with real
estate assets find themselves in economic distress due to market
volatility or weather related disasters, they can always fall back on
the ability to go to virtually any lender, pledge land as security, and
receive an extended period of time to repay the debt; typically 20-40
years. The capital secured by the mortgage can be used for annual
operating expenses to get to the next production cycle, acquisition of
income enhancing chattel, and can be paid back on a schedule that
allows positive cashflow.
Clients of our Technical Assistance Network have been told, in no
uncertain terms, by several banks in Indian Country that they ``will
not take trust land as collateral.'' What they are in fact saying is
this: Because of our lack of familiarity with Federal and Tribal laws
and policies that you as and American Indian are subject to, we are
choosing not to serve you as we would a non-Indian member of our
lending community. What this lack of willingness to serve the community
has created is an environment where confusion and misunderstanding
dictate lending policy. Even Indian law experts have uttered the phrase
``you can't mortgage trust land.'' Congress has, in fact, legislated
solutions to a problem that ceased to exist in when it first addressed
the matter in 1956. The confusion that remains is because ``Indian
land'' or ``trust land'' is used generally to describe of various types
of ownership without distinction. Tribal Land, held in common by the
membership of the Tribe is subject to prohibitions on encumbrance of
based on Tribal Constitutions and Tribal law; not as a matter of
Federal policy. Individuals have had the authority (with approval of
the Secretary of Interior) to secure financing with their trust land,
through an actual mortgage since the 1950's. The Department of
Interior's administration of this process contributes to the banks
ability to hide behind the myth, and is further elaborated on below
(see Legislating Process to Address Inconsistency ). For now, a further
examination of the impact of the Credit Desert reality.
In 7 years of operation throughout Indian Country (primarily in the
Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, and Northwest Regions), only one client
of hundreds the TA Network has worked with was able to secure financing
from a commercial lender to acquire trust land. The bank in this case
offered him the loan at 6 percent, with a repayment term of 6 years.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume it was 200 acres at a purchase
price of $500 per acre.
Table 2. Credit Desert Lending-Impact on Cash Flow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Mortgage or FSA
Indian Country Loan Loan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount $100,000 $100,000
Term 6 years 30 years
Interest Rate 6% 3%
Annual Payment $20,336 $5,101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the largest of operations $14,885 in available cash flow can
make a huge difference. To an Indian Producer operating on the redlined
margin, it was the difference between being able to diversify and open
a lumber company, and foreclosure over poorly structured debt.
GAO Study on Agriculture Credit in Indian Country
In order to improve the ability of Indian borrowers and Tribes to
fit the lending environment, an analysis of the availability of credit
for agriculture enterprises must be conducted. This analysis should be
conducted through the lens of legislation such as the Community
Reinvestment Act, and the Federal Home Loan Bank lending agreements, or
other policies aimed at ensuring banks are serving their communities in
return for access to affordable currency. The IAC would welcome the
opportunity to collaborate with the Committee and/or Senators in
developing the parameters of such a study request based on our
extensive experience assisting producers in this environment. Until
this is done, the following constitute our requests for the Credit
Title of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Structuring Loans to Suit the Business
Authorize several innovative loan structuring measures in the 2018
Farm Bill. For example, currently FSA will lend 100 percent the cost of
bred livestock. It will then subordinate its lien position to a local
commercial lender for annual production costs, increasing the amount of
debt secured by the same amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25
percent. If the first year of operating expenses could be included in
the original loan, and amortized over the life of the secured asset,
producers would end the year with cash in the bank, allowing producers
to take advantage of pricing opportunities on input materials,
replacement stock, or expansion opportunities. Such an approach would
incentivize operating from available resources, instead of what could
be borrowed on an annual basis.
Example: Current Situation: Cow Loan; $200,000 @ 3 percent over
5 years = $43,000 Annual Debt Service ($37k P $6k I) Operating
capital: $75,000 at 6-7 percent paid annually = $79,000 Annual
Debt Service Total Debt Service of $120,000 in an average year
will consume all production income. No opportunity to expand or
mitigate market or other disasters. Security position of FSA:
2nd on $200,000 in assets1
Under Proposed Solution: Cow and Operating Loan of $275,000 @ 3
percent over 7 year = $43,000 Annual Debt Service Total Debt
Service of $43,000 ($35k P, $8k I) At least $75,000 in bank or
retained assets for operating, expansion, or disaster. Security
position of FSA; 1st on 200,000 in chattel.
Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices
When commodity price cycles run contrary to the mandated FSA
Planning Prices, despite a producer's inclination to plan
conservatively, producers are often faced with choice of accepting a
plan based on those planning prices, shutting down their operation, or
being forced into the hostile world of unfair commercial credit in
Indian Country. In cases that FSA planning prices are 20 percent lower
than the actual prices, a producer should be able to restructure their
debt in a way that will not count towards lifetime limits on loan
servicing.
Example: Producer A will have 100 head of 500 lb. calves for
sale. FSA planning price is 1.75 per pound. Repayment of FSA
debts and operating capital are based on this price, and under
current practices FSA will try to shorten the term of the loan.
Actual price at sale time is $1.35. A shortfall of $20,000
results in a lack of capital to make all necessary obligations,
placing the borrower at risk of default.
Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rate
Update the Socially Disadvantaged Rate (SDR) interest rate for FSA
loans from a static number (currently 5 percent) to number indexed to
the prevailing rate and set at 50 percent of the standard rate. The
current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest rate was in
the double digits and should already have been revisited and revised.
Example:
Borrower A seeks FSA loan and is offered SDR of 5 percent results
in a 2 percent HIGHER rate than non-Socially Disadvantaged producers.
(3 percent as of January 1, 2018)
FSA Food Loan Authority
Under current program guidelines, there is some latitude for
producers whose production will take a period to fully ramp up. Initial
payments can be made at an 18-month mark rather than within the first
year. This same methodology should be employed for producers wishing to
take their raw product to the next step in the value chain.
Example: Borrower A would like to borrow $50,000 to start a
custom beef business. Will not have first beef in the box until
18-20 months after loan closing. First payment is due one year
from date of loan closing; binding Borrower A to the commodity
market. 2016 Market price for live calves = $800/hd (500 lb. @
$1.60). 2017 Market price for beef $2,527 (675 lb. @ $3.60).
$1,700 in gross profit leaves the local due to FSA
inflexibility. It also eliminates the possibility for the
original dollar to turn in the local economy by causing the
animal to fed, processed, and marketed in other locations off-
reservation.
FSA Forgiveness for American Indians
Under current FSA practices, many producers that have received a
debt write-down, write-off or other forms debt servicing are barred
from further participation in FSA loan programs; giving them literally
nowhere to go for financing. Native American producers feel the impact
of this disparately, because they live in Credit Deserts. Any producer
with debt forgiveness prior to 2004 should be allowed participation in
FSA loan programs without regard to previous circumstances.
Example: For Borrower A, everything is in order, and the loan
has a positive cash flow allowing him to improve his standard
of living, and improve the local economy. He is denied because
of loan servicing he had in the late 1980's when active
discrimination was taking place against Indian producers all
across the country. He is unable to appeal, or have any other
recourse.
Remove the Graduation Requirement for FSA programs
Due to the existence of Credit Deserts on and near Indian
reservations, it is difficult to access viable credit rates for even
experienced producers operating farms and ranches on trust lands.
Removing the statutory requirement for Indian producers operating on or
near Indian Reservations to graduate from FSA programs would allow
agriculture operations to be more stable and assist other producers who
farm and ranch in areas where credit access is tenuous at best.
Example: Borrower A has an FSA Farm Operating loan and is in
their 10th year of participation. FSA pushes producer towards
graduation. As an example of the nature of commercial credit in
Indian Country, one local hometown bank on the reservation
offers a loan of 12.9 percent on a ranch vehicle to a known 3rd
generation customer. That customer seeks financing from a chain
bank in another state and receives an offer of less than 3
percent. That is the environment that FSA Graduation
requirements force Indian producers into.
Borrower B through thoughtful planning has the opportunity to
use a Disaster Set-Aside to establish a working capital reserve
to secure more land which will serve to further mitigate
further disaster impacts. Borrow B is told by their loan
officer that isn't allowed, and that ``we can't make you look
to good or I have to send you to a bank.''
Remove the Requirement for Private Credit Denial
Pending the outcome of the GAO Report, explicitly exempt tribal
producers from the FSA requirement of obtaining denial letters from
private credit sources in order to participate in an FSA loan program.
The general lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders
the requirement onerous and unduly burdensome.
Example: Producer A, who meets the definition of a Beginning
Farmer or Rancher, downloads and completes an FSA Farm
Operating Loan Application. Upon submitting this complete
application, containing everything the FSA might need to
approve a loan, a letter is generated that tells the borrower
he must complete the process of applying for a loan at a bank,
and get denied, TWICE, before their application can be
considered. As an example of the nature of commercial credit in
Indian Country, one local hometown bank on the reservation
offers a loan of 12.9 percent on a ranch vehicle to a known 3rd
generation customer. That customer seeks financing from a chain
bank in another state and receives an offer of less than 3
percent.
Legislating Process to Address Inconsistency
The Farm Bill notwithstanding, our service to Indian Country
agriculture in the last 30 years has shed light on other instances
where thoughtful action on behalf of Indian Country by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, and subsequently Congress as a whole, and
finally the Executive Branch, can have a meaningful, and nearly
immediate impact on enhancing the economic opportunities afforded
through Agriculture development. It is worth noting that each of these
challenges is and has been surmountable under current law, but the
breakdown in policy or willingness inhibits progress. The solution is
best arrived at by legislating streamlined policies that aren't subject
to interpretation or burdensome process and policy. These policies will
serve to eliminate duplicative and costly federal processes, in
addition to clearing the way for commercial credit to participate on a
more robust level in Indian Country.
Streamlining the Mortgage Process
As discussed earlier, the ability of an individual Indian or a
group of individual Indians desirous of pledging their trust land as
security for financing has been available since 1956. Confusion and
unwillingness on the part of some lenders, compounded by a process that
within the same region can take from 2 weeks to 2 years. As it is
currently written there are no requirements for timely review built in
to the regulations. BIA officials receive an application for mortgage
from Farm Service Agency for example, to review for approval.
Oftentimes, because of different delegations of authority, that review
may include a review of the business plan by the local BIA credit
officer, or even the BIA regional credit official. Bear in mind, the
business plan has been prepared by an individual that has done the
requisite research to convince a trained professional to allow for the
use of taxpayer dollars to finance the project.
An Appraisal is an Appraisal
The unwillingness of one Department to accept the appraisal
generated at the request of another Department can cause further
untoward delays in economic development. The appraisal function of the
Interior Department being relegated outside the line of authority of
the local designee of the Secretary (Interior) and the funding
limitations of the OST in carrying out those appraisals, can result in
an individual with a valid appraisal, by a certified appraiser, and a
willing lender, to put their plans on hold while they wait for the OST
(BIA's) appraisal to be funded and completed. Further lending to the
the inefficiency, in many places, the same appraiser serves both
Departments. An appraisal provided by a certified appraiser should
suffice for either, or both Departments, regardless of requesting
entity, or payment therefrom.
BIA Guaranteed Lending
Currently there is a 20 percent equity requirement for applicants
for the 90 percent BIA Guaranteed Loan. This requirement, when taken in
the context of Credit Deserts and the lack of available capital
resource and assets in Indian Country can serve to stymie progress as
well. Simply aligning the two at 10 percent along with eliminating the
aforementioned bureaucratic hurdles, could facilitate increased lender
participation.
CDFIs-Automatic Certification Upon Treasury Certification
The unmet credit need in Indian Country (and elsewhere) has lent
itself to the creation of a burgeoning market of non-typical lenders.
Community Development Financial Institutions serve as the advance team,
or special forces, if you will, in lending in Indian Country. A
familiarity with local policy, custom, and risk, makes these entities
often the best equipped to serve their community. Each of these lenders
must pass through a rigorous process within the Department of Treasury
in order to be Certified CDFIs. Upon reaching this milestone, they
would then have to largely repeat the process to become a Guaranteed
Lender in the BIA, FSA, HUD, or SBA programs. Treasury Certification as
a CDFI should be the standard that provides automatic qualification for
participation in any federal guarantee programs.
Conclusion
Since establishment at the recommendation of the then Senate Select
Committee on Indian Affairs, the Intertribal Agriculture Council has
sought to fulfill its overarching mission of improving the use of
Indian resources by Indian people for the betterment of their
communities. The IAC welcomes the opportunity to engage in further
discussions with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and would like
to thank Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman Udall, the members of the
Committee, and the staff for their attention to what we feel is an
inextricable piece of true sovereignty, self sufficiency, and self
determination.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virgil Siow, Governor, Pueblo of Laguna
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Aaron Payment, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians
My name is Aaron Payment. As a member and as the leader of the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, I am speaking on behalf of
the Tribe. As always, my Tribe and I want to work in partnership with
you.
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is located in the
Great Lakes area, along the Michigan--Canadian border. With over 44,000
members, my Tribe is the largest Tribal government east of the
Mississippi River. Although our Tribal service area extends over 7
counties in rural Michigan, we have very limited reservation lands.
Our goals are similar to the goals of other rural Americans: We
want successful rural communities, strong economic growth, solid
infrastructure, and sustainable development. To achieve these goals, we
will all need to work together.
Overall, reforms are needed within the Farm Bill. The United States
economy requires all Americans to do more, with less. This testimony
provides insight as to how the Farm Bill can be improved in ways that
will enable rural America to thrive, without significantly increasing
the overall budget.
Parity Treatment
Tribes are sovereign governments, recognized by the United States
Constitution. \1\ The U.S. Constitution places Indian Tribal
governments at the same level as state governments and foreign nations.
\2\ Although the Farm Bill recognizes state and local government
authorities throughout its text, very few places within the Farm Bill
recognize the direct authority of Tribes. This needs to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Article I, Section 8 (The Commerce Clause); Article II Section
2, Clause 2 (The Treaty Clause); Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (The
Property Clause).
\2\ Article I, Section 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-to-Government Relationship
Tribal governments have been recognized in the U.S. Constitution,
the federal court system, and by law makers throughout the history of
the United States. The relationship between the federal government and
the Indian governments is long established. The Farm Bill needs to
require the establishment of Tribal Offices within the U.S. Department
of Agriculture that reflect this relationship.
Farm Bill Accessibility
The success of the Farm Bill can be measured by its accessibility
to rural America. Although the Bill provides easy access to programs
for most, it largely fails to accomplish this, for Tribes. This failure
needs to be rectified.
Reaching Our Goals
Achieving parity treatment for Tribes, expanding recognition of the
government-to-government relationships, and creating improved Farm Bill
accessibility can all be achieved if we work together. For example, my
Tribe encourages Tribal representation on Advisory Committees and
Technical Committees. Furthermore, as Congress drafts the Farm Bill, we
urge lawmakers to work with national inter-Tribal organizations (Native
Farm Bill Coalition, the Inter-Tribal Agricultural Association, and the
National Congress of American Indians) and with individual Tribes, like
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
*The in-depth analysis and proposed solutions regarding each
of the issues has been retained in the Committee files.*
Attachment
Dear Senator Hoeven:
As the elected Tribal Chairperson of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians, I am writing on behalf of my Tribe. This letter
concerns existing challenges and opportunities within the 2018 Farm
Bill.
Success of the Farm Bill can be measured by its accessibility to
rural America. Although the bill provides easy access to programs for
most, it largely fails to accomplish this, for Tribes. My Tribe has
been able to identify areas requiring reform, as well as concrete ways
to accomplish necessary changes. We have also provided suggested
legislative language. This information is available in our ``2018 Farm
Bill--Challenges and Opportunities'' document, *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the issues can be easily solved: For example, one reason it
is difficult for Tribes to access Farm Bill programs is because there
is not a common definition of ``land owned by Indian Tribes'' across
all the USDA programs. There is inconsistency in the definition even
within programs run by a single agency. By requiring a common
definition, the Farm Bill can create greater program accessibility for
Tribes across the United States. Another example of a ``quick fix'' is
the need for the Farm Bill to require clarification that the Farm
Credit Administration and its Farm Credit System member institutions
are authorized to provide lending services to tribal governments,
tribal farmers and ranchers, tribal businesses (including but not
limited to cooperatives). Clarification will quickly create
significantly greater loan accessibility for Tribes.
Some issues merely require greater interdepartmental cooperation.
For example, Tribal members are required to meet multiple requirements
from multiple US agencies and departments. Some have been found in
violation of USDA program requirements because of conflicting
requirements required by the US Department of Interior. The Farm Bill
needs to require agencies and departments to hold harmless, members who
have been directed by federal agencies to act in a way that is contrary
to requirements set by another federal agency.
Other issues are more challenging, but are already close to
achieving solid solutions: For example, Tribes want to have direct
authority to administer their own federal food assistance programs
which they are currently not allowed to directly manage. The USDA has
already done a study, released in 2016, that found Tribes can manage
food programs, but need clear 638 Overall, greater Tribal
representation is needed in all advisory bodies (including technical
advisory bodies). It is also recommended that wherever the Farm Bill
makes reference to ``states'', it needs to include ``Tribes'' as well.
Other issues are more difficult to easily fix. For example, we need
to change the way we use FDPIR and SNAP. Our people are not being fed
enough. Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously
participate in SNAP would make positive change. Neither program
provides enough food for participants in remote places; by allowing
simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental feeding
programs can be combined to actually result in addressing food
insecurity.
Before closing, I would be remiss if I did not address the
possibility of program restructuring. It is understood that facing
significant federal budget constraints, lawmakers may restructure food
programs in the 2018 Farm Bill. Two changes have been discussed in the
past, and my Tribe wishes to discuss them, here:
Block granting federal food programs: President Trump's March 2017
Skinny Budget included the possibility of block granting SNAP through
state governments. If Congress chooses to restructure federal food
programs by block granting them through state governments, the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians strongly recommends the federal
treatment of Tribes as state governments. The alternative (blocking
food programs through state governments and requiring Tribes to go
through state processes to access federal programs) is impractical,
unworkable, and, we believe, illegal: State governments do not have a
government-to-government relationship with the Tribal Nations, nor do
they have treaty obligations to provide for the health and general
welfare of Tribes. The relationship between Tribal and state
governments has been historically inconsistent and unreliable.
Recently, state government administration of federal programs (like,
LIHEAP) has hampered Tribes' abilities to fully implement needed
services. To make Tribal governments dependent upon state governments
for food distribution programs would be wholly unacceptable.
Work Requirements: Work requirements should be recognized as
inapplicable to federally-recognized Tribes. Tribal people don't need
to ``work'' for federal benefits. Food and health benefits (and more)
are already owed to us. Within the Treaties between the United States
and the Indian Nations, the federal governments promised Tribes that,
in exchange for all the Tribal lands and resources, it would continue
to recognize Tribal sovereignty and provide forth health and general
welfare of Tribal members, in perpetuity. Tribal nations met our part
of the bargain. We gave the federal government everything we had. In
the end, food benefits, is exactly the kind of thing that has been
``bought and paid for'' by the Tribal people. Any work requirements
necessary for federal programs are inapplicable to federal recognized
Tribes.
I close this letter with my sincerest hope that we can work with
you to achieve the changes discussed, herein. Again, please note the
in-depth analysis and proposed solutions regarding each of the issues
can be found in the ``2018 Farm Bill--Challenges and Opportunities''
document.
Respectfully,
Aaron A. Payment
______
Prepared Statement of United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty
Protection Fund (USET SPF)
On behalf of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty
Protection Fund (USET SPF), we are pleased to provide the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs with the following testimony for the record
of the Committee's recent hearing, Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness
Opportunities in Indian Country held on January 17, 2018. As it
considers the reauthorization of the Farm Bill nears in 2018, Congress
must use this opportunity to uphold the federal trust responsibility
and fully engage with Tribal Nations in the development and negotiation
of this important legislation.
USET SPF is an intertribal organization comprised of twenty-seven
federally recognized Tribal Nations, ranging from Maine to Florida to
Texas. \1\ USET SPF is dedicated to enhancing the development of
federally recognized Tribal Nations, to improving the capabilities of
Tribal governments, and assisting USET SPF Member Tribal Nations in
dealing effectively with public policy issues and in serving the broad
needs of American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe
of Texas (TX), Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (ME), Catawba Indian
Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA),
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
(NC), Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw
Indians (LA), Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribe (MA), Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut
(CT), Narragansett Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY),
Pamunkey Indian Tribe (VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township
(ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian
Nation (ME), Poarch Band of Creek Indians (AL), Saint Regis Mohawk
Tribe (NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians
(NY), Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana
(LA), and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture is among the largest economic development industries in
Indian Country, providing $3.4 billion per year in revenue. In
addition, more than 50 million acres of Tribal land throughout Indian
Country is engaged in food and agriculture to some extent. Though
agriculture has had such a big impact within Indian Country, Tribal
Nations have been left out as key partners in the development of
previous Farm Bill negotiations. As a result, Tribal Nations are left
without access to vital programs, such as nutrition programs, within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would help to provide
healthy, sustainable and traditional food to Tribal Citizens. Though
USET SPF appreciates the importance of Tribal agribusiness, we
underscore the need to address larger agricultural needs for Tribal
Nations within the Farm Bill, including the Nutrition and Conservation
titles. With this in mind, we strongly support the testimony and
legislative initiatives of the Native Farm Bill Coalition on the wide
variety of Tribal priorities for this reauthorization. Below, USET SPF
would like to highlight several Farm Bill priorities on behalf of our
member Tribal Nations.
Tribal Parity
Overall, Tribal Nations must have parity when it comes to accessing
all federal programs that would address any sort of disparities
experienced within Tribal communities, including but not limited to
infrastructure, health and safety. Full parity provides Tribal Nations
with the tools that state and local governments already enjoy, to make
important investments in their own communities. Therefore, Tribal
Nations and Tribal producers must have equitable access to programs
under all the titles within the Farm Bill. Full parity would allow
Tribal governments, producers, and organizations access to every
program allowed within USDA. Greater access to USDA programs would
provide Tribal Nations with a wide range of support to build and
strengthen agricultural economies, including:
Providing direct assistance to Tribal agricultural
enterprises and individual AI/AN producers;
Increasing access to credit and capitol for AI/AN farmers
and ranchers;
Promoting conservation and best practices to enhance
vitality of Tribal lands for agricultural production and forest
land management;
Directly supporting Tribal Nations to meet their nutritional
needs by increasing access to Tribal traditional foods, helping
to address health disparities; and
Developing infrastructure, such as water and electricity
utilities.
Unfortunately, many of these programs, with some notable
exceptions, are not currently tailored to the needs of Tribal Nations.
The Farm Bill establishes the framework for USDA programs to serve
America, therefore, now is the time to address the limitations to full
access to crucial USDA programs by Tribal Nations. It is imperative
that the reauthorization of the Farm Bill achieve Tribal parity within
each title of the Farm Bill and not just a handful of provisions.
Specifically, USET SPF requests full parity for Tribal Nations
under the Conservation title. There is a growing need for Tribal
Nations to access the USDA programs that provide conservation services.
Parity for Conservation programs is essential to Tribal Nations, as
these programs help to provide protection and sustainability of Tribal
land as well as Tribal agricultural products. USET SPF recommends that
this can be accomplished by including or inserting the term ``Tribal''
into provisions where reference is made to ``state'', ``local'' or
``regional'' producer.
Improving access to USDA programs and funding for Indian Country
will help to ensure Tribal governments have the ability to establish
long-term plans and goals for their communities and the surrounding
rural communities. In addition, improving revenue streams for Tribal
Nations within the Farm Bill will help Native farmers and ranchers
continue to grow their food businesses and build Tribal food systems to
support their economies and communities.
Tribal Set-Asides and Technical Assistance
The Farm Bill must reflect the unique status of Tribal Nations and
the government-to-government relationships with the United States.
Currently, Tribal Nations compete with states and other Tribal entities
to attain vital USDA funding. Tribal Nations should not have to compete
with states or other Tribal entities to provide their citizens with the
resources they critically need. This is contrary to the federal trust
responsibility to Tribal Nations, and results in a severe lack of
parity in access to resources for Tribal citizens. Tribal set-asides
within each title of the Farm Bill will help to address the inadequate
agricultural funding in Indian Country as well as help to address the
unmet federal trust obligations for Tribal Nations. For example, many
Tribal governments manage central infrastructure within their
communities such as critical electric and water systems, which are
covered by the Rural Development title of the Farm Bill. A Tribal set-
aside within Rural Development would help to address a lack of utility
infrastructure on Tribal land.
In addition, due to the unique characteristics of Tribal Nations,
including the unique status of some Tribal lands and legal jurisdiction
in Indian Country, specialized technical assistance must be provided to
Tribal Nations within the Farm Bill. At times, those providing
technical assistance on USDA programs have little to no experience in
working with Tribal producers or other Tribal entities. Lack of
technical assistance has contributed to Tribal Nations not being able
to access vital USDA programs.
Traditional Foods
Though Tribal Nations have access to millions of acres of land that
are already engaged in some form of agriculture or food production,
these foods do not stay within Tribal communities. At this time, the
$3.4 billion generated annually through Tribal agriculture efforts is
more than 99 percent raw commodities, instead of the healthy, local,
economically beneficial, and nutritious food needed in Tribal
communities and rural areas. Access to traditional and healthy foods is
not just an economic issue, but a health and sustainability issue as
well. When it comes to the production and access of traditional foods,
the Farm Bill plays a important role within Indian Country to ensure
Tribal Nations have the resource they need to address the health
disparities within their communities.
Food sovereignty is crucial to the health and overall wellbeing of
Tribal communities. A lack of healthy foods has only exacerbated health
disparities, including the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease,
obesity, cancer and other chronic diseases within Tribal communities.
Across Indian Country, Tribal Nations and Tribal producers are actively
engaging in food sovereignty projects that would increase the amount of
traditional food, including fresh fruit, meat, and vegetables within
Tribal communities. The Farm Bill must include provisions that would
ensure Tribal food sovereignty and traditional food programs are
supported under USDA. This includes ensuring Tribal Nations and Tribal
agriculture programs have equal access to vital agriculture programs
that would support traditional food programs, including, for example,
the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The sustainability of
traditional foods and crops are vital to the cultural and spiritual
lives of Tribal citizens.
In addition to equal access to USDA program funding for the
enhancement of Tribal traditional food programs, the Farm Bill must
direct USDA to take the necessary steps, including engaging in
comprehensive Tribal consultation, to ensure that Tribal products are
given the maximum protection under federal law so that they are
protected from non-Tribal commercialized purposes. Tribal products are
often derived from traditional seeds, which are among the most sacred
items to individual Tribal Nations. The Farm Bill must reflect the
inherent right and sovereign status of Tribal Nations to protect
traditional seeds not just to ensure biosecurity and food security for
their communities, but to preserve market competitiveness for Tribal
products as well.
Self-Governance of SNAP and other Nutrition Programs
Finally, barriers to Tribally-run nutrition programs must be
addressed within the Nutrition title of the Farm Bill. As a matter of
governmental parity, Tribal Nations must have the authority to engage
in Tribal Self-governance to administer the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations (FDPIR) and other vital nutrition programs. Tribal
Nations, like other units of government, are responsible for providing
essential services to their citizens, including those related to
nutrition. However, and in spite of a 2014 USDA feasibility study,
Tribal Nations continue to be excluded from administering SNAP and
other nutrition programs under P.L. 93-638 contracting and compacting.
USET SPF joins Tribal Nations and organizations across the country in
calling upon this Committee and this Congress to ensure that Tribal
sovereignty and self-determination for federal nutrition programs is
included as part of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Conclusion
As this nation's first farmers, ranchers, and stewards of the land,
Tribal Nations must be engaged as full partners in the development of
the Farm Bill reauthorization. The 2018 Farm Bill negotiations must
include and incorporate perspectives from Indian Country to afford
parity, opportunity, and consistency under the federal food and
agriculture laws, funding policies, and programs. Though there have
been great strides made for Indian Country agriculture by individuals
and organizations in previous Farm Bills, there are still many steps
needed to reach full parity in 2018.
Attachment
USET SPF Resolution No. 2018 SPF:004
SUPPORT FOR REAUTHORIZING THE FARM BILL WITH TRIBAL PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection
Fund (USET SPF) is an intertribal organization comprised of twenty-
seven (27) federally recognized Tribal Nations; and
WHEREAS, the actions taken by the USET SPF Board of Directors
officially represent the intentions of each member Tribal Nation, as
the Board of Directors comprises delegates from the member Tribal
Nations' leadership; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress is deliberating on the nature of food
and agriculture policy for the nation and the world, as it must
reauthorize the multiyear Farm Bill in 2018, which governs all farm
programs, rural development, and nutrition initiatives within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; and
WHEREAS, agriculture is among the largest economic development
industries in Indian Country, providing $3.4 billion per year; and the
policies that provide the framework for Indian Country's agriculture
production constitute a large portion of the Farm Bill; and
WHEREAS, an overwhelming majority of the land throughout Indian
Country is involved in agriculture production; and
WHEREAS, many Tribal citizens live in rural areas and communities
where the cost of building or repairing basic infrastructure systems is
often prohibitively high, and the 2018 Farm Bill will provide an
authorization of federal funding for rural infrastructure initiatives;
and
WHEREAS, Tribal citizens in rural areas are often afflicted by
poverty of place, where they are unable to find suitable employment to
provide adequate income that supports good nutrition for their
families; and thus, may rely on federal nutrition programs authorized
in the Farm Bill; and
WHEREAS, even with the great strides made for Indian Country
agriculture in previous Farm Bill negotiations, the $3.4 billion
generated annually through Indian agriculture efforts is still more
than 99 percent raw commodities, instead of the healthy, local,
economically beneficial, and nutritious food needed in Tribal
communities and rural areas; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Farm Bill negotiations, resulting policies, and
funding must include and incorporate perspectives from Indian Country
to afford parity, opportunity, and consistency under the federal food
and agriculture laws, policies, and programs; and
WHEREAS, improving programs and funding for Indian Country will
help to ensure Tribal governments have the ability to establish long-
term plans and goals for their communities and the surrounding rural
communities, and help Native farmers and ranchers continue to grow
their food businesses and build Tribal food systems to support our
economies and communities; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Farm Bill effort being promoted by the Native
Farm Bill Coalition is the best opportunity in decades for Indian
Country to effectively create positive and truly relevant change in
federal agriculture policy to enhance the development of Indian
agriculture beyond raw commodities, support infrastructure, research,
and education in Tribal communities, and improve federal food nutrition
programs in Indian Country while providing Tribal governments the
authority to manage these programs; and
WHEREAS, in December 2010, the United States recognized the rights
of its First Peoples through its support of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), whose
provisions and principles support and promote the purposes of this
resolution; therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the USET SPF Board of Directors calls upon the U.S.
Congress to fulfill its federal trust responsibility to Indian Country
during the development and negotiation of the 2018 reauthorization of
the Farm Bill to incorporate Tribal parity, opportunity, and
consistency throughout, and encourage and support continued
participation, development, and progress in Indian Country's
agriculture businesses, food systems, infrastructure, and nutrition
programs.
CERTIFICATION
This resolution was duly passed at the USET SPF Annual Meeting, at
which a quorum was present, in Cherokee, NC, October 12, 2017.
Chief Kirk E. Francis, Sr., President/Chief Lynn Malerba,
Secretary, United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Troy Scott Weston, President, Oglala Sioux
Tribe
On behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, I am submitting testimony for
the January 17, 2018 hearing about ``Breaking New Ground in
Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country'' to provide preliminary
comments on the priorities and needs of the Tribe for the upcoming Farm
Bill. The Farm Bill is extremely important to Indian Country, and we
will be actively engaged as the bill is further developed. We request
that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with the
Senate Agriculture Committee to share its expertise for addressing
Indian Agriculture in this important piece of legislation.
We thank Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall for continuing the
important discussion of Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country at
a roundtable on January 18, 2018, titled ``Advancing Native Food
Traditions for Indian Country.'' We were encouraged by the testimony of
a representative from the National Indian Health Board who spoke of the
fact that tribes have long carried out the administration of complex
health systems, which demonstrates that they have the necessary
experience to administer the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs.
Tribal History and Background
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a sovereign band of the Teton Division of
the Great Sioux Nation. \1\ Our unique political relationship with the
United States, and our rights and the United States' obligations to us,
are set forth in a series of treaties. Under the 1825 Treaty, the
Oglala Band of the Teton Division of the Sioux Nation became a
protectorate of the United States. \2\ In 1851, the United States
recognized the seven Teton bands' title to sixty million acres of
territory in the present-day states of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming. \3\ However, the United States did not
abide by the treaty terms. Continued westward expansion resulted in the
Powder River War of 1866-1868. The war culminated with the signing of
the 1868 Fort Laramie Peace Treaty. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Oglala Band reorganized as the ``Oglala Sioux Tribe'' under
Section 16 of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. 25 U.S.C. 5123. All
pre-existing treaties of the Oglala Band still apply to the Oglala
Sioux Tribe under 25 U.S.C. 5128.
\2\ Treaty of July 2, 1825 (7 Stat.252).
\3\ September 17, 1851 (11 Stat. 749).
\4\ Treaty of April 29, 1868 (15 Stat. 635).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly, the Sioux Treaty of 1868 provided for a quid pro
quo: by the terms of the Treaty, the United States promised to provide
certain benefits and annuities to the Sioux bands each year in exchange
for peace. The United States discontinued negotiating treaties with
tribes in 1871 by statute, yet that statute provides that ``no
obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such
Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3, 1871 shall be hereby
invalidated or impaired.'' Our treaties are still in full force and
effect, and the United States' obligations to us are not discretionary;
they are legal and moral obligations. The Oglala Sioux Tribe's treaties
are of utmost importance to us. They are what define our relationship
with the United States and we rely on them to press the United States
to act in accordance with the solemn promises it made to us in them.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a body politic comprised of approximately
46,855 tribal members, of which approximately 28,000 reside on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation. \6\ Our Reservation consists of approximately
2,785,658 acres of territory in the southwestern portion of South
Dakota. The Tribe and its members hold over 1.7 million acres of trust
land \7\ within the Reservation. As such, the Tribe is one of the
largest land based tribes in the United States. Unfortunately, while we
have vast land holdings and natural resources, our members suffer from
some of the worst quality of life indicators in the country from
unemployment to overcrowded housing to health disparities and beyond.
Oglala Lakota County (formerly Shannon County), which is the western
part of our Reservation, is consistently one of the three poorest
counties in the entire United States. Our Reservation is also the most
highly fractionated in all of Indian Country, as recognized by the
Department of the Interior's Buy-Back Program, and this hinders the use
of our lands. We need economic development and community infrastructure
suitable to meet the needs of our members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ There are different statistics available. The cited membership
number is from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs' website page
about the Reservation and the member resident number is from a study
conducted by Colorado State University (Dr. Katherine Pickering and
David Bartecchi, Pine Ridge Project director for Village Earth) in 2005
that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
accepted. HUD's Indian Housing Block Grant Formula Data, 2014, has
Tribal Enrollment at 43,146 with an American/Indian Alaska Native
Population Residing on the Reservation as 33,935. The Tribe's
Enrollment Office also tracks the figures.
\7\ The figures for Reservation size and trust land amount are from
the Oglala Sioux Tribe's Land Office and the United States Bureau of
Indian Affairs' website page about the Reservation, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agribusiness is critical for our Tribe and the whole of Indian
Country. However, there are significant opportunities to increase
agribusiness success on Pine Ridge Reservation. According to the 2012
Census of Ag-American Indian Reservations--USDA, only 55 percent of the
363 farms located on Pine Ridge are operated by Native Americans, and
of those 200 farming enterprises, at least 64.5 percent meet USDA's
definition of small farm (gross sales less than $250,000) with farm
value sales of less than $99,999. Furthermore, 39 percent report sales
of less than $50,000. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., PINE RIDGE AGRICULTURE ECONOMY, at 4
(2017), available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/USDARD-
PRAEJanuary2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the importance of treaties and our government-to-government
relationship with the United States, in addition to Indian Country's
large presence in the agriculture industry, we call on Congress to
support tribal interests and recognize the significant impact Farm Bill
policies have on our communities.
Legislative Priorities for the Farm Bill
The Farm Bill authorizes USDA programs and addresses numerous areas
of law and policy related to agriculture. Considering the importance of
agriculture for our community, the Tribe requests that the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee
include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Ensure tribal governmental parity with state and local
governments throughout the entire Farm Bill.
Provide for tribal administration of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all federal food
assistance programs through extending ``638'' selfgovernance
contract authority.
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs.
As the Farm Bill has many titles and covers numerous issues deeply
important to Indian Country, the following recommendations are not an
exhaustive representation of the Tribe's priorities to be included in
any agriculture legislation in this Congress. However, we hope that
they serve to highlight for the Committee some of the matters that the
Tribe supports for the Farm Bill reauthorization at this stage in its
development. The Tribe will continue to engage and supplement this
testimony going forward.
Title I: Commodities
Amend definitions for the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster
Assistance Programs in Section 1501(a)(1)(B)(iv) to create
parity for tribal governments and extend recognition of the
authority of entities organized under tribal law or under
federal law. Revise the law to recognize commonly raised or
harvested animals in tribal communities as livestock and
eligible for full protection and program participation across
USDA.
Increase Livestock Indemnity Payments for tribal producers
to 90 percent under Section 1501(b), to address the lack of
land equity that exists for tribal producers on trust lands and
account for the unique challenges tribal livestock producers
have in obtaining secure markets for their animals, which
generally causes a lower rate of market return.
Ensure tribal eligibility in the Livestock Forage Disaster
Program by ensuring that payment rates are set at 90 percent
levels. Additionally, tribal producers must be explicitly
exempt from any limitations on receiving payments on any losses
due to fire on ``public managed land.'' Tribal lands \9\ are
not ``public'' lands. \10\
\9\ The term ``Indian country'' means ``(a) all land within the
limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and,
including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all
dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States
whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof,
and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way running through the same.'' 18 U.S.C. 115.
\10\ E.g., Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C.
1702(e)(2) (enabling act for the Bureau of Land Management; excluding
``lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos'' from the
definition of ``public lands'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend Section 1606 to explicitly recognize tribal
governments, entities, and producers as farmers or ranchers
eligible to participate in the Geographically Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers Program.
Title II: Conservation
Give priority consideration to tribal governments, tribal
entities, and individual tribal landowners and operators to
participate in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
activities, in addition to the 5 percent tribal set-aside.
Among many ways to increase tribal priority, ensure increased
consultation between tribal governments and state
conservationists and notification to tribes regarding all
activities related to the EQIP program and other NRCS programs
in their state.
Enhance the use and continuity of conservation programs on
tribal lands and individual Indian owned land by authorizing
the USDA Secretary to create a permanent technical assistance
fund for tribal governments and organizations.
Authorize the Secretary to work with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and a Tribal Conservation Technical Committee
made up of tribal government representatives from each of the
BIA regions to identify initiatives and programmatic
opportunities to improve the conditions of tribal lands and
individual Indian-owned lands.
Title IV: Nutrition
With 25 percent of all Native Americans receiving some type
of federal food assistance, and in some tribal communities as
high as 60-80 percent, the importance of the Nutrition Title
programs in Indian Country cannot be overstated. SNAP provides
benefits to 24 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native
households. Further, American Indians and Alaska Natives make
up more than 12 percent of the participants in the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC).
Significant legislative changes need to occur within the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and
other Federal feeding programs. Since 2015, USDA has consulted
with tribal leaders on how to make improvements to these
programs and many of these improvements should be adopted in
the 2018 Farm Bill. There needs to be improvement in funding
and flexibility in the FDPIR.
Provide for tribal administration of SNAP and all other
federal food assistance programs that tribes are currently not
allowed to directly manage by providing tribes with ``638''
contract and compact authority for nutrition programs, which
already exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health
Service programs.
Title VI: Rural Development
As one of the largest land based tribes in the United States and
due to the rural nature of Pine Ridge Reservation, Rural Development
(RD) Title programs and funding are vitally important to our Tribe and
members. The USDA Economic Research Service classifies South Dakota as
``frontier and remote'' in both land area and population and our Pine
Ridge Reservation represents Level 4, the ``most isolated group.'' \11\
The RD programs provide important tools for the Tribe to build or
update infrastructure, which is essential to our communities and to
spur economic development on our Reservation. One recent example is our
work with the USDA to upgrade certain community water systems so they
can be transferred into the Mni Wiconi Project. Much work remains on
this monumental work and RD is critical to our efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., PINE RIDGE AGRICULTURE ECONOMY, at 17
(2017), available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/USDARD-
PRAEJanuary2017.pdf.
Broaden the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision to include all RD programs and allow the Secretary to
exercise this discretion more broadly, so that, among other
things, the waiver of matching requirements for projects funded
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
through RD would also be extended.
Provide a tribal set-aside for tribal applications within
each of the RD program authorities to address the inadequacy
and general lack of rural infrastructure in Indian Country.
Many shovel-ready tribal infrastructure and community
development projects have gone unfunded over the past several
years. We need dedicated funding for our infrastructure
projects.
Establish a permanent rural development tribal technical
assistance office to provide tribes with technical assistance
across all RD funding authorities within the USDA.
Maintain an Under Secretary for Rural Development. Having an
Under Secretary whose primary duties are to focus on RD
programs and funding is critical for Indian Country. Any
changes that would impact the role of Under Secretary for Rural
Development must be the subject of tribal consultation.
Maintain rural water and wastewater program funding. Rural
water and wastewater systems are essential to community support
and economic growth for our Tribe and all of Indian Country.
This funding should never be lost.
Title IX: Energy
Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant
Program to help spark economic development and energy
infrastructure development in tribal communities, while
providing low-cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding
rural areas.
Title XII: Miscellaneous
Fully fund the USDA Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at a
minimum of $1.5 million. Adequate funding is essential to
carrying out OTR duties, including the oversight of all USDA
tribal consultation.
Authorize the establishment of an Office of Tribal
Agriculture within the Office of the Secretary to coordinate
all USDA programs as those programs apply to tribes, maximize
the value of the programs, address issues in compliance and
access of programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve
as a liaison between the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian
producers.
Develop a new program, based on those USDA already has, that
focuses on educating and training the tribal agriculture labor
force, provides key scholarships to Native producers, and
encourages Native scholars and scientists to focus on food and
agriculture.
Create an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian Agriculture
within the OTR, the Office of the Secretary, and
representatives of each of the agencies and offices of the
USDA, along with the BIA, to develop administrative efficiency
and regulatory changes needed to ensure Native agriculture is
supported.
Require the USDA to recruit and appoint tribal citizens to
each of the federal advisory committees it seats and supports.
Permanently establish the Council for Native American
Farming and Ranching to advise the Secretary and USDA, and
fully fund its work.
Conclusion
We thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for taking the time
to conduct this hearing and think it is crucial for Congress to
continue to engage with tribes on these important issues through
additional hearings and roundtables. Tribal Nations have considerable
experience and much to share regarding the federal nutrition,
agriculture, and conservation policies included in the Farm Bill. We
encourage Congress to support tribal interests and recognize the
significant impact Farm Bill policies have on our communities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Tribe of Indians (Lummi Nation)
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice-Chairman Udall,
Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee
members for the opportunity to share with you our priorities. On behalf
of the Lummi Tribe of Indians (Lummi Nation) of the State of
Washington, we write to submit testimony for the record urging the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is
included in the upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Committee on Agriculture; Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources; and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to
address this important piece of legislation.
Background Information
Since time immemorial, the Lummi people have been, and still are,
referred to as the Lhaq'temish (people of the sea). We are the original
inhabitants of Washington's northernmost coast and southern British
Columbia. The Lummi Indian Reservation (Reservation) is located
approximately eight (8) miles west of Bellingham, WA; 90 miles north of
Seattle, WA; and 60 miles south of Vancouver, BC. The Reservation is
comprised of a five (5) mile long peninsula (known as the Lummi
Peninsula) and separates the Lummi Bay (located on the eastern side of
the Reservation) and Bellingham Bay (located on the western side of the
Reservation). The mouth of the Nooksack River is located at the
northern end of the Reservation, whereas Portage Island is located at
the southern end of the Reservation. There are approximately 32 miles
of highly productive marine shoreline that surrounds the Reservation.
The Reservation is approximately 13,500 acres of uplands and 10,500
acres of tidelands.
Today, the Lummi Nation is the third largest Tribe in the State of
Washington serving a population of over 5,000 tribal members. We are
connected to the lands and waters that provide us with the cultural and
traditional foods including, but not limited to, animals, berries,
birds, fish, plants, and shellfish that physically and spiritually
sustain us as a people. We understand the challenge of respecting the
environment and our traditions. The wisdom of our ancestors and
previous leaders allow us to teach our children and grandchildren to
care for the lands and waterways, to educate them about the importance
of the environment, and to strengthen our appropriate ties with
neighboring communities, governments, and jurisdictions.
Aquaculture of the Tribe
For thousands of years, and still today, our people fish, gather,
harvest, hunt, and celebrate life on the shores and waters of the
Salish Sea (formally known as the Puget Sound). On January 22, 1855 the
Lummi Nation was one of the signatories to the Point Elliot Treaty of
1855 (Treaty). Article V of the Treaty secured us the ``right of taking
fish at usual and accustomed [U & A] grounds and stations.'' Article
XIII of the Treaty states that the United States agreed to ``enable the
said Indians to remove to and settle upon their aforesaid reservation,
and to clear, fence, and break up a sufficient quantity of land for
cultivation.'' Article XIV of the Treaty states that the United States
agreed to ``establish. . .an agricultural and industrial school, to be
free to children of said tribes and bands,'' and ``to furnish them with
the necessary tools. . .''
The Nooksack River watershed is comprised of approximately 786
square miles within Whatcom County, WA. The North, Middle, and South
forks of the Nooksack River originate on federal lands near Mt. Baker
and are within the Water Resources Inventory Area No. 1 (WRIA 1). The
Nooksack River watershed hosts nine (9) species of salmonids. One-third
(3 of 9) of the species of salmonids are listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA): Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull trout. There are
twenty-five (25) salmonid stocks within WRIA 1 and only three (3)
salmonid stocks are currently considered healthy. Twelve (12) percent
(3 of 25) of the salmonid stocks are considered healthy in the WRIA 1.
Factors that impact the number of healthy salmonid stocks include, but
are not limited to, habitat degradation, low quality water, high levels
of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and sedimentation.
The 2018 Farm Bill is an important piece of legislation that
primarily focuses on agriculture. Many tribes throughout the United
States are tied to agriculture production; however, the Lummi Nation is
unique and do not consider ourselves as agriculturalists, we consider
ourselves as aquaculturists (farmers of the sea). The Lummi people
established hatcheries and programs during the early 1970s in response
to environmental threats to fish and shellfish populations. The Skookum
Creek Fish Hatchery was built in 1970 and is located near the mouth of
Skookum Creek in Acme, WA. The Skookum Creek Fish Hatchery produces 1.5
million yearling Coho salmon each year. These yearlings are released
into the South Fork Nooksack River each spring.
The Lummi Bay Hatchery was built in 1971 and is located on the
western side of the Reservation. The Lummi Bay Hatchery works in
coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) Kendall Creek Hatchery and Samish Hatchery and the Bellingham
Technical College (BTC) Whatcom Creek Hatchery. The Lummi Bay Hatchery
releases 1 million juvenile Coho salmon and 500,000 juvenile fall
Chinook salmon for its program. Another 500,000 juvenile fall Chinook
salmon are released from an acclimated pond located in Bertrand Creek
near Lynden, WA. Furthermore, the Lummi Bay Hatchery produces and
releases more than 400 million shellfish seed to local tidelands and
buyers (geoduck, manila clams, and oysters).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Programs Utilized by the
Lummi Nation
It is estimated that twenty-five (25) percent of American Indian
and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people in the United States receive some type
of federal food assistance. However, in some tribal communities,
participation in these federal food assistance programs is as high as
sixty (60) to eighty (80) percent. Furthermore, approximately sixty-
eight (68) percent of AI/AN children in the United States qualify for
free and reduced-price lunches. More importantly, more than twelve (12)
percent of AI/AN participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) utilize the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food
assistance program.
Considering the state of agriculture/aquaculture for our community,
the Lummi Nation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs;
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works include the following in any
legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Government Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill;
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through the Self-Determination Contracts
pursuant to P.L. 93-638; and
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provisions across all Rural Development programs
In addition, the Lummi Nation supports the following
recommendations to be included in any Farm Bill legislation in the
Congress.
Title I (Commodity Programs)
The Lummi Nation is deeply invested in the production,
distribution, and consumption of hatchery fish and shellfish. Below are
the Lummi Nation recommendations:
The Lummi Nation requests that the 2018 Farm Bill include
support for commercial fishing harvests that are deemed
disasters (e.g. Sockeye disaster) caused by adverse weather.
Update the farm-raised fish definition in 1501 (a)(2) of
the Agriculture Act of 2014 to include fish and shellfish
hatcheries. The Lummi Nation does not have agriculture land; we
are aquaculture-based using hatcheries to supplement the lack
of harvestable fish and shellfish.
Update the livestock definition in 1501 (a)(3) of the
Agriculture Act of 2014 to include other commonly raised
livestock like ``Chinook salmon,'' Coho salmon,'' ``geoduck,''
and ``manila clams'' or other animals raised or harvested in
tribal communities. All of these animals must be further
recognized as a livestock and eligible for full protection and
program participation Department-wide.
Ensure that tribal producers' (agriculture/aquaculture) are
eligible for all disaster assistance programs in Title I, and
increase payments to 90 percent of value to acknowledge their
unique land and market issues.
Create parity for tribal producers in the Farm Agency
Committees and decisionmaking.
Title II (Conservation)
Conservation programs are an essential part of land protection and
product development. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations:
The Lummi Nation requests that the USDA conservation
programs allow for the use of traditional, ecological,
knowledge-based conservations practices.
Update 16 U.S.C. 3838d(4)(A)(i) to include aquaculture
commodities and update 16 U.S.C. 3838d(4)(B) to include
tidelands. Expanding the USDA conservation programs to include
aquaculture and tidelands would allow fishing tribes to utilize
these programs and services to improve tideland habitats.
Update 16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(g)(1) to include tideland
habitats. The Lummi Nation has approximately 10,500 acres of
tidelands. In 1996 the Lummi Nation closed 60 acres of
shellfish beds in Portage Bay due to poor water quality. In
1997 the Lummi Nation closed an additional 120 acres of
shellfish beds in Portage Bay due to poor water quality. During
these two closures, it was estimated that a lost value of the
shellfish products was approximately $825 thousand dollars,
which does not include the multiplier effect on the economy.
The Lummi Nation requests that the USDA implement a Self-
Governance block grant within the conservation programs. The
Lummi Nation is the largest fishing fleet in the State of
Washington. About nineteen (19) percent of our tribal members
(988 of 5238) depend on the fish and or shellfish harvesting
either for ceremonial, commercial, or subsistence use.
Title IV (Nutrition)
Over a five (5) year period (2014-2018), the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) projected that the Farm Bill would cost $489 billion
dollars. The 2014 Farm Bill authorized $2 million dollars to be
appropriated for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR) for each fiscal year of 2014 through 2018. This authorization
represents only 0.002 percent of the $489 billion dollars projected for
the 2014 Farm Bill. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations:
Allow tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination
Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93-638 for administration of the
SNAP and all other federal feeding programs.
Improve the funding, flexibility, and infrastructure of the
FDPIR.
Include a provision for Food Sovereignty. For the Lummi
people, we define food sovereignty as the ability to produce,
distribute, and consume our cultural and traditional foods that
include, but not limited to, animals, berries, birds, fish,
plants, and shellfish. Food sovereignty is our ability to
cultivate, fish, gather, harvest, and hunt for our cultural and
traditional foods.
Title VI (Rural Development)
Stretching over thirty-four (34) states, more than 100 million
acres of tribal lands are located in rural areas. Tribal businesses,
tribal entrepreneurs, tribal governments, and local communities rely on
rural development (RD) funding to build new infrastructure, sustain
economic development and growth, but face issues when accessing this
type of funding. Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations:
Increase the RD funding available for tribal governments. An
increase in RD funding will allow reservations, tribal
businesses, tribal entrepreneurs, tribal governments, and rural
communities to develop and improve declining infrastructure
systems, create jobs, and ensure that the federal government
trust responsibility is upheld by providing tribal consultation
for tribes within the USDA RD programs.
Maintain the rural water and wastewater funding. A vast
majority of tribal reservations are located in rural
communities. Tribal governments, individual tribal and non-
tribal business owners, reservations, and rural communities
rely on this type of funding, which is essential for economic
growth.
Title VII (Research, Extension, and Related Matters)
The Northwest Indian College (NWIC) is a direct result of the Lummi
Indian School of Aquaculture (LISA). The LISA was founded in 1973 as a
training program. The program was designed to develop and prepare
technicians for employment in Indian-owned and operated fish and
shellfish hatcheries. In 2010, the NWIC was granted accreditation at
the baccalaureate level. Today, the NWIC offers four (4) bachelor
degree programs: Bachelor of Arts in Native Studies Leadership;
Bachelor of Arts in Community Advocates and Responsive Education in
Human Services; Bachelor of Science in Native Environmental Science;
and a Bachelor of Arts in Tribal Governance and Business Management.
Below are the Lummi Nation recommendations:
Programs within this Title allow for the development of
tribal research and education at Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs). The NWIC incorporates traditional
knowledge and practices while providing education. One of the
functions within the Cooperative Extension program at NWIC is
food sovereignty. Fund the Federally Recognized Tribes
Extension Program (FRTEP) at a minimum of $10 million to
address agriculture programming and food sovereignty.
Update funding systems to reflect the research and
educational needs of tribal communities. With 567 federally
recognized tribes, each tribe is unique. We must continue to
focus on the tribal research and education, and traditional
knowledge and practices that are incorporated within tribally
owned and managed institutions.
Title VIII (Forestry)
The Federal Government manages 57 million acres of Indian land held
in trust. One-third (18.6 million acres) of these lands are Indian
forests and woodlands. The Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) is
administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The
HFRP is designed to help landowners restore, enhance, protect
forestland resources, and aid in the recovery of endangered or
threatened species under the ESA. Below are the Lummi Nation
Recommendations:
Improve the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) and adopt
the Section 301 and 303 (114th H.R. 2642 Rep. Westerman)
legislative language into the 2018 Farm Bill. Streamline the
TFPA to improve the timelines for review and implementation of
forest restoration projects requested by tribes.
The Nooksack River watershed hosts three (3) salmonid
species that are listed under the ESA. Restoring the forest is
critical to the survival of salmonids. For many decades, the
Lummi Nation has worked to restore the wildlife habitat to
ensure that the fish and shellfish populations continue to
thrive. We ask for parity so that we can access, manage, and
develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect the
environment, tribal resources, and wildlife habitat.
Title X (Horticulture)
Horticulture primarily focuses on specialty crops and organic
farming operations. As mentioned previously, the Lummi people are
aquaculturists (farmers of the sea). Our Reservation is approximately
13,500 acres. In 1999 the Lummi Natural Resources Department conducted
a study to determine how many acres of our Reservation were considered
wetlands. The study concluded that 5,432 acres (or 40 percent) of our
Reservation was wetlands. We simply do not have agriculture land. Below
are the Lummi Nation recommendations:
Food sovereignty is important to the AI/AN people. We ask
that the Farm Bill support food sovereignty throughout Indian
Country. The Farm Bill needs to include provisions that protect
cultural and traditional foods.
We ask that the USDA consult with tribes to ensure that our
cultural and traditional foods are given maximum protection
under federal laws.
Title XII (Miscellaneous)
Through cooperative agreements (National Aquatic Animal Health
Plan), the USDA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service work together to detect,
control, or eradicate diseases of aquaculture species while promoting
species-specific best management practices. In August 2017, Cooke
Aquaculture Inc. failed to notify tribes that an Atlantic salmon net
pen collapsed releasing hundreds of thousands of non-Native finfish
species into the Salish Sea. Below are the Lummi Nation
recommendations:
We ask that the Farm Bill fully fund, at a minimum $1.5
million dollars, the Office of Tribal Relations at USDA.
When conducting agriculture, aquaculture, and food
operations on our own lands, tribes and individual landowners
should not be required to conduct a full NEPA. This requirement
is far more excessive than any applicable law, and violates our
right to food, food access, environmental and food justice, and
food sovereignty.
Amend the language that controls USDA contracting and
procurement to recognize and support a ``Buy Indian''
provision. We ask that Indian preference be given when the USDA
is purchasing any product being utilized by AI/AN people within
our communities (like the FDPIR).
Conclusion
For thousands of years, our people have flourished in and around
the Salish Sea. The land and water provide us with the cultural and
traditional foods (animals, berries, birds, fish, plants, and
shellfish) that sustain us as a people. We are a fishing community; we
farm the sea for a lack of better term. We request that you consider
fish and shellfish hatcheries when deliberating this piece of important
agriculture legislation.
In 1985, the average Lummi fisherman made $22,796 ($51,860 in 2017
dollars). Eight (8) years later, in 1993, the average income from
fishing was $5,555 ($12,693 in 2017 dollars). Today, our fishermen/
women are working hard to financially sustain themselves through fish
and shellfish harvesting. We request that Congress consider legislative
language for tribes who rely on aquaculture. Forty (40) percent of our
Reservation is wetlands, and since time immemorial, we have always been
a fishing community. We simply cannot farm our lands the way
agriculturalists do, we are aquaculturists.
In 2013 the Port of Bellingham in the State of Washington
commissioned a study title, ``The Economic Impacts of the Commercial
Fishing Fleet at the Port of Bellingham 2013.'' There are 2,220 fishing
jobs at the Port of Bellingham. There are 988 jobs (596 fishers, 258
crabbers, 49 divers, and 85 clam diggers) within the Lummi Nation. The
total number of commercial fish and shellfish jobs in Whatcom County is
3,208. The Lummi Nation accounts for thirty-one (31) percent of those
jobs. The total economic value of fishing (tribal and non-tribal) on
Whatcom County is a little more than $519 million dollars. The economic
value of Lummi fishing on Whatcom County is nearly $161 million
dollars, or thirty-one (31) percent of $519 million dollars. The
economic value of non-Lummi fishing on Whatcom County is a little more
than $358 million dollars, or sixty-nine (69) percent of $519 million.
In January 2017, the Lummi Nation entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with seven (7) dairy farmers of Whatcom County, WA. We
(Lummi Nation and dairy farmers) depend on the health and productivity
of the lands and waters of Whatcom County. The purpose of the MOA was
designed so that the Lummi Nation and dairy farmers can work
cooperatively to improve the water quality of the Nooksack River Basin.
The goal of this MOA is to develop Water Quality Improvement Plans
(WQIPs) that are specific to each facility, which is still an ongoing
process.
Lastly, the Lummi Nation (tribal government, tribal business
enterprises, and the NWIC) is the largest employer in Whatcom County.
One (1) in every thirty-three (33) people employed in Whatcom County
receive their paycheck from the Lummi Nation. There are 1,888 direct
jobs from the Lummi Nation, an additional 2,939 indirect and induced
jobs, for a total of 4,827 jobs. The economic output of the Lummi
Nation is $496 million dollars per year. We are a tribal government
that strives to strengthen our appropriate ties with neighboring
communities, governments, and jurisdictions.
______
Prepared Statement of Ryan Jackson, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, we write to
submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm
Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe (HVT) is located on the Hoopa Valley
Reservation (HVR) in the remote and beautiful rugged mountain terrain
of the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. HVT has the
distinction of being the largest land base Indian reservation within
the state of California. Presently, there are approximately 3,400
enrolled members of the Tribe. The HVR was established in 1864 by
executive order and is commonly referred to as the twelve-mile square
representing nearly 93,000 Acre of lands that have been the home of the
Hupa people since time immemorial. Nearly the entire reservation is in
trust, with less than 5 percent of the lands held in fee status by non-
tribal members. The HVT has existed within the same aboriginal lands
within the valley floor of the HVR where ancient village sites have
been radiocarbon dated and shown continuous usage for over 10,00 years.
The Hupa people have lived along the banks of the Trinity River which
bisects the valley floor.
The Trinity River represents the lifeblood of the Hupa people who
have sustained themselves with the bounty of resources that the Trinity
River has provided to the Hupa people such as fish and related
resources. The remote location has maintained a heavy reliance on
fishing, hunting, gathering, and organic agricultural practices by Hupa
people.
The Tribe has designated itself as a Self-Governance Tribe, thereby
administering the breadth of its programming through direct services to
its membership. Many USDA programs are administered on the Hoopa
Reservation including SNAP, FDPIR, Rural Development Community
Facilities, NRCS EQIP, and more. The following guidance offered to the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs stems from direct experience with
the following programs and agencies.
Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Hoopa
Valley Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the
Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation
regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill (see below)
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through 638 Contracts (see below)
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs
In addition, as a member of the Intertribal Agriculture Council
(lAC), the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony and
incorporates it herein by reference. In addition, the Hoopa Valley
Tribe would like to add the following recommendations to be included in
any agriculture legislation in this Congress.
Treatment as a State for Tribal Governments
It is important that Congress insist on parity for tribes
throughout the Farm Bill. Congress should finally and permanently
recognize the role of tribal governments, in parity with state and
local governments. Tribal governments and departments must have the
authority to engage with all of USDA and federal agencies related to
the Farm Bill. USDA must seriously recognize and work with tribes, and
provide tribal liaisons that are more responsive and knowledgeable
about Indian Country issues. Tribes should receive full treatment as a
state for tribal governments, including recognition of their tribal
laws, authority, and jurisdiction. The Hoopa Valley Tribe already has a
complete food code and economic development program similar to our
local and state counterparts.
638 Authority and Tribal Management of USDA programs
For the Hoopa Valley Tribe, particularly as an early and successful
Self-Governance Tribe, it is essential that Congress grant USDA the 638
authority necessary so that Hoopa and other tribes can administer and
control the delivery and success of the many USDA programs that are
important in Indian Country, especially the Supplement Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). We know best how to administer these
programs for our people, and who most needs food assistance and what
type. A Hoopa led government approach will bring us more success
efficiencies and engagement of our people, including the incentive to
grow and produce more of our own locally produced traditional foods.
Management of these USDA food programs is important both for our
sovereignty and to better provide direct service to Tribal citizens in
need of assistance. We need Congress to fully recognize our wisdom in
providing flexibility in the management of nutritional quality of the
food provided and culturally appropriate programming and service
delivery.
Tribes need a mechanism to more effectively engage with all the
USDA agencies; 638 authority would help that. 638 authority is
particularly important in the Nutrition, Forestry, and Conservation
Titles for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. Hoopa stands ready, as a sovereign,
to administer its own food assistance programs for the benefits of our
citizens. Contract support costs must be included as well. Managing our
own nutrition and feeding programs allows us to both exercise our
sovereignty in the best interest of our people's nutritional needs, but
also do so with an eye towards economic development and self-
sufficiency. We are best equipped to know our own community's needs and
how best to ensure we are creating jobs at the same time.
We also request that USDA incorporate more traditional foods into
the variety of feeding programs. USDA has not fully taken advantage of
the wealth of traditional tribal and locally grown foods for inclusion
in FDPIR. USDA also needs to provide improved technical assistance to
tribes in accessing and understand USDA programming and requirements.
Matching fund requirements under FDPIR should be stricken.
Recommendations Pertaining to the 2018 Farm Bill Titles
Commodities Title--The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC
testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Conservation Title
Priority: Maintain and further the flexibility of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to insure that Tribal traditional
management practices, such as cultural burning, can be supported to
manage for culturally significant plants, fibers, foods, and animals.
Issue: The reimbursement incentive payment rates established for
many NRCS practices do not adequately incentivize conservation work
within Tribal contexts. The size/scale of operations in CA Indian
Country tend to be much more diverse and smaller than conventional
agricultural operations in other parts of the state (with few
exceptions). Reimbursement incentive payments must reflect the distance
contractors/supplies must travel to remote locations, which is a
financial burden on many producers.
Priority: Native producers in Hoopa only have at largest 12 acres
lots to develop conservation planning. EQIP practices need to be more
accessible to small scale producers. Tribal EQIP set asides need to be
adopted as protocol within states that have substantial populations of
Tribes to insure that the competition for program dollars is amongst
other Tribal projects, rather than competing with substantial
commercial agriculture operations.
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony
that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Trade Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that
can be incorporated herein as reference.
Nutrition Title
The HVIR resides in Humboldt County where 16 percent of the
population receives SNAP benefits. The Hoopa Food Distribution Program
services 800-900 people in 12 counties (native/non-native) and 10
Tribes in Northern California. Native Americans face the highest rates
of obesity, heart disease, and nutritional deficiencies. With our
Tribal Grocery Store set to open this spring, a Community Canning and
Kitchen Facility, and irrigation infrastructure projects also in the
works, we are constantly making strides towards our goals of
selfsufficiency. By reducing or eliminating these programs at such a
critical time, we will run the risk of being set back years while our
local agriculture production is set to expand and flourish. Reducing
these programs will block access to healthy, locally produced foods and
thus reduce local producers' ability to expand and take advantage of
the favorably changing local market conditions that are emerging with
the development of local markets. Shrinking local markets by
eliminating these programs will also reduce job opportunities, while
demand for locally produced goods would be lessened by the elimination
and/or reduction of these programs. Producing more of our own goods and
services in Hoopa, while investing in infrastructure that will allow
for this, have been major goals of the Tribe that were formalized with
the completion of our Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS). Eliminating funding to SNAP, FDPIR, WIC, Early Head Start/Head
Start, and Free Lunch Programs would disproportionately impact our most
sensitive populations (seniors, single parents, and children) 'within
native communities across the country. This at-risk population includes
both enrolled members of Federally-recognized Tribes and non-Indian
persons who share the same living conditions.
The Tribe's Senior Nutrition Program has operated from a variety of
funding sources including Federal, State, non-profit, and Tribal funds
over the years. Seniors in the Hoopa community would be
disproportionately affected by cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. Beyond insuring proper nutrition, this program
provides an important social outlet for seniors who otherwise might not
leave their home or socialize with others. Over 17,000 meals were
served through our programming in 2017. The Senior Nutrition program is
a resource hub as well, linking seniors to other essential community
services. In addition to a hot and healthy meal, the Senior program
connects elders to programs that are essential to filling the gap in
groceries in their home lives. Programs like the Food Bank offer brown
bags of foodstuffs to seniors throughout our community, supplementing
with much needed staples. Other food programs will work out
arrangements with local farmers to prepare packages of locally grown
fruits and vegetables for delivery to the homes of seniors. For the
seniors that cannot make it to the center due to health concerns, a
home delivery option is also provided both for the hot meal and the
special bagged food services. Cuts to this program represent the most
devastating kind, targeting a population that does not have available
resources to absorb such impacts.
Any cuts to these programs--SNAP, FDPIR, Senior Nutrition, Early
Child Care Lunch programs, free lunch programs, and WIC would be a
great hardship on rural tribal communities that are located in food
deserts. The impacts would disproportionately impact Indian County as a
whole, making the nutrition title a primary focus area for tribes.
We also request that USDA incorporate more traditional foods into
the variety of feeding programs. USDA has not fully taken advantage of
the wealth of traditional tribal and locally grown foods for inclusion
in FDPIR. Matching fund requirements under FDPIR should be stricken.
HVT recommendations include:
Nutrition programs utilized by Tribes throughout the country
need to operate at current or increased funding levels.
Eliminate matching policies for all nutrition programming
administered by Tribal communities to lessen the hardship for
limited resource tribes.
Allow SSI recipients to apply for FDIRP and SNAP benefits.
Funding be provided to train and hire tribal food
inspectors, as well as a rural tribal technical assistance
office.
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC
testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Credit Title
Access to credit for Indian Country has been an ongoing and
difficult issue. Having access to a lending entity that understands
Indian Country, tribal sovereignty and difficult financial realities is
critical. Given our remote and isolated location, Hoopa like many
tribes, lives as a 'credit desert'--tribes need equitable access to
credit. It is important that rural lending programs are clear and
explicit about their ability to lend to Indian Country--including with
programs like the Farm Credit Systems. And USDA needs to ensure that
banks can't hide behind the myth that individual Indians can' t
mortgage land to get loans or put onerous requirements on such as short
loan period. Due to the nature of landholding and land ownership in
Indian Country, some clarification of this requirement is in order to
help provide certainty for the FCS in lending in Indian Country. Access
to credit through FSA and Rural Development must not be hampered by
outdated program rules that do not match our credit needs.
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony
that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Rural Development Title
Issue: The reimbursement stmcture for the Community Facilities
grant program is a hardship on limited resource tribes and tribal non-
profits. The seeking of outside assistance implies a lack of internal
resources to begin with. Having to purchase all contracted items
outright prior to receiving the cost-share reimbursement can keep many
who need assistance out of this program.
Solution: Structure the grant portion of the program to enable the
hatching of purchases with a reimbursement schedule that can be paid in
installments to enable smaller purchases and more realistic outlay of
limited resources. For example: Rural Development could do a 50 percent
upfront for each project, or reimburse in increments of25 percent for
tribes, non-profits, and tribal members.
Issue: Single Family Housing Repair Loans and Grant Program is
undemtilized inCA Indian Country. This may be due to inadequate
outreach regarding this important program, or it may also be due to the
programmatic stmcture and application process.
Solution: Employ Rural Development Tribal Liaisons in each state
who are familiar with distinctions and issues in Indian Country to
directly outreach to Tribal communities. Insure that that grant program
applications and processes are streamlined to be more reflective of
needs in Indian country. Institute Tribal fund pools to insure
resources are earmarked for Tribal projects to minimize competition
with municipalities and other entities.
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony
that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Research Title
USDA also needs to provide improved technical assistance to tribes
in accessing and understanding USDA programming and requirements.
Outreach from extension officers to Hoopa and rural tribes has been
lacking; allowing tribes and universities to better access FRTEP funds
would help ease this challenge.
In General, tribal liaisons in each USDA program that has depth of
understanding of tribal communities and federal/sovereign laws
Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony
that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Forestry Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony
that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Energy Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that
can be incorporated herein as reference.
Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe
supports the lAC testimony that can be incorporated herein as
reference.
Crop Insurance Title The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC
testimony that can be incorporated herein as reference.
Miscellaneous
Tribal Food Inspectors:
As part of its economic development strategy and prioritization of
locally grown, traditional foods, Hoopa is in the process of developing
a marketplace for the processing and production of locally grown foods
for market. However, federal regulations and certification requirements
are burdensome and confusing. It is essential that the Farm Bill
provide for funding of training and provision of tribal food
inspectors. USDA should also create a mral tribal technical assistance
office.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the lAC testimony that can be
incorporated herein as reference.
Thank you for receiving the recommendations from the Hoopa Valley
Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation
As the elected leaders of the Navajo Nation we write to outline our
priorities for the 2018 Farm Bill. We urge you as leaders of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs to support these priorities to be included
in the final Farm Bill.
The Navajo Nation's land base is 28,000 square miles across
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The Navajo Nation faces many of the same
issues as other rural American communities. Unemployment on the Navajo
Nation is approximately 40 percent and the labor force participation
rate is significantly higher. There is a serious lack of access to
high-speed broadband which reduces economic opportunity. The Navajo
Nation also relies heavily on employment at two rural coal fired power
plants. The Nation also faces several federally-created economic and
legal barriers such as the Former Bennett Freeze Area (FBFA) \1\ a
congressionally authorized freeze on any building development on Navajo
and Hopi lands from 1966 to 2009 \2\ and the Gold King Mine Spill, an
environmental mining spill caused by the Environmental Protection
Agency that contaminated the San Juan River, which is used by Navajo
farmers and ranchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For over 40 years, this area was prohibited from improvements
or developments by the federal government.
\2\ Since infrastructure is now allowed to be built, the 23rd
Navajo Nation Council approved funding to provide 36 housing units in
the area. Moving forward, the Navajo Nation will continue to work with
federal officials to development basic infrastructure, housing. and
economic development opportunities within the FBFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there are many challenges that need federal attention, the
Navajo Nation is using its own resources to fund infrastructure
projects. The Navajo Nation has sought to of leverage our own funds
with the assistance of federal, state, or private entities. Some of
these projects will be highlighted in this letter. While we have had
some success, the Navajo Nation will continue to request and advocate
for additional federal funding and programs to supplement financing its
own projects. The Nation also tmW be eligible to participate in any
federal matching funds that are available to states.
The upcoming changes to the Farm Bill will have a substantial
impact on Navajo's agriculture production, economic development, job
growth, infrastructure improvement, technological innovation, energy
security and quality of life of our citizens. It is critical that the
Navajo Nation and the Navajo people participate in this opportunity to
update the Farm Bill.
Program Self-Governance. 1be Farm Bill presents a tremendous
opportunity for USDA program administration reform and tribal self-
governance. The Nation requests the Committee on Indian Affairs create
the statutory authority for Indian tribes to administer nutrition and
other USDA programs. Such a self-governance program has already proven
to be effective in direct service delivery and local governance, both
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and with the Indian Health
Service. It is critical Congress take advantage of this opportunity to
modernize USDA program administration and direct service delivery.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While the exact
numbers of Navajo citizens receiving SNAP is unknown, \3\ the County
Community Data Profile of Navajo County, AZ found that an average of 30
percent of Navajo households were receiving SNAP in 2013. This
emphasizes the need to continue the SNAP program in the Farm Bill;
however, the SNAP program can better serve tribal members if the Farm
Bill also authorizes Indian tribes to manage and administer SNAP.
Presently, Navajo citizens have to apply through the state creating
difficulties for our citizens in traveling long distances and
additional administrative/economic burdens for state agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The SNAP is a state-administered program that does not
administer demographic data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Development. President Trump's USDA Budget Request for FY
2018 requested an $80 million set-aside for rural infrastructure grants
to be used for Distance Learning and Telemedicine, Broadband, Community
Facilities and housing in the Appalachia Region. \4\ The Navajo Nation
would like to request a portion of the overall requested $162 million
for Indian tribes located on Indian reservations affected by declining
coal. In February 2017, the owners of the Navajo Generating Station
(NGS) informed the Navajo Nation that they intended to shut down the
coal-burning power plant due to the low price of natural gas as opposed
to the cost of burning coal. While the plant remains open, the future
of the plant and the more 3,000 jobs connected to the plant remains
uncertain. \5\ Thirty-five percent of homes on the Navajo Nation lack
access to electricity, running water, wastewater, and other utility
services. The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), a Navajo-owned
utility company, has previously taken advantage of USDA Rural Utility
Service (RUS) loans and grants for Water Security Systems,
telecommunications programs, electric programs, and energy programs.
Recently, the NTUA built a solar plant to help with energy security on
a coal dependent community and received an RUS loan that helped putting
the cost on the rate-payers on the Navajo Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USDA FY 2018 Budget Summary pg. 30.
\5\ In early July, the Navajo Nation was able to successfully
finalize an agreement with the NGS owners to allow the power plant to
remain in operation until the end of 2019. Since lease extension, the
Navajo Nation to seek new owners and operators of the power plant.
Aside from securing new owners and operators, there remains the
challenge of securing power purchase agreements in order to continue
selling the power that is generated at the plant beyond 2019 keeping
the future of continued operations uncertain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Facilities. Cost savings for individual residents, such
as NTUA's use of the RUS loans, frees up household income to be spend
in other areas of the Navajo economy. For example, travel costs for
cancer treatment. Typical cancer treatment requires fifty medical
visits, which requires a round trip visit for a patient who lives on an
Indian reservation, that can total 8,000 miles in all. The Indian
Health Service has no cancer treatment budget and a dedicated source of
federal funding is needed for tribes to launch their own cancer
treatment programs. \6\ The Navajo Nation requests the Rural
Development Community facilities Program be reauthorized in the 2018
Farm Bill to provide grants for oncology programs and facilities on
Indian reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Indians on five reservations are exposed to mill
tailings that are the radioactive byproduct of uranium mining and
milling that helped the federal government win WWII and the Cold War.
Currently there is research being conducted on the links of Uranium
exposure to cancer and other medical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Connectivity. The Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation needs more
quality Internet access. The NTUA has received a USDA Community Connect
Grant \7\ to provide Internet access for a portion of the Eastern
Agency. The Navajo Nation would like to request increased funding and
to allow for ``tribal ownership'' to count for a higher grant score for
Community Connect Grants. In addition, the Navajo Nation would like to
gain access to spectrum in the area. The Navajo Nation would like to
see additional resources for broadband access including allowing tribal
governments to establish competitive grants for carriers, allowing
refinancing for projects that serve substantially underserved trust
areas, and including more Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants \8\
projects on Indian reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, (7 U.S.C.
950bb).
\8\ Section 2333(d)(5) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990, (7 U.S.C. 950aaa-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Farmers and Ranchers. Many individuals participate in
conservation efforts in order to improve land to launch new farms and
ranches. For example, the community of Many Farms is a unique fanning
community with a 25,000 acre foot lake and the potential to
dramatically expand their fanning operations. There are many families
who would like the opportunity to develop farmland in their
communities, but the lack of start-up resources is a challenge.
Community farms and ranches produce fresh foods for families and
businesses and provide healthier food options for people on the Navajo
Nation. The Navajo Nation would like to reauthorize and meaningfully
increase funding for the Beginning farmer and Rancher Development
Program in the 2018 farm Bill.
Infrastructure. Currently, the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
(NIIP) provides water for the Navajo Nation's international
agribusiness Navajo Agriculture Products Industry (NAPI). Despite
Congress passing the NIIP in 1964, the project has yet to be fully
constructed. We request the complete construction of a portion of NIIP
known as ``Block 9,'' which consists of early 10,000 acres.
Construction is the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
We request the appropriations cap be lifted for construction costs and
that construction appropriations be increased to finally complete the
NIIP.
After construction, the BOR then transfers the project to the BIA
for maintenance. Federal funding has decreased from approximately $24
million annually to a current low of $3.3 million for O&M costs. The
Navajo Nation would like to see increased O&M funds for the NIIP. Based
on a 2012 study by researchers at the University of Arizona and
economists with Compass-Lexecon Consulting, NAPI has lost approximately
$4 billion thanks to federal inability to complete construction. The
NIIP is not able to reach its full capacity in terms of revenue,
production, and job creation due to the funding deficiencies.
Funding Parity and Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans & Grants. In
April 2016, the Navajo Nation Council approved the ''Permanent Trust
Fund Income Five-Year Expenditure Plan,'' which provides $150 million
to increase economic, community, and agricultural development. The
funding for the expenditure plan is derived from the interest, earned
from the Navajo Nation's Permanent Trust Fund's principal balance. We
seek to maximize the usage of outside funding to supplement to cost of
developing the project listings over the five-year period. We urge
Congress to ensure that tribes are eligible for any and all matching
funds available to states. In addition, the we request the Farm Labor
Housing Direct Loans and Grants to be reauthorized in the 2018 Farm
Bill to assist traveling agriculture workers.
Crop Insurance. The Navajo Nation owns 26 tribal ranches and allows
individuals to produce and maintain livestock on the ranches and
participates in the USDA Farm Risk Agency Pasture, Rangeland, Forage
(PRF) Pilot Insurance Program, which allows financial protection
against drought for production of losses for grazing or harvested hay.
The Navajo Nation requests the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is
authorized to continue the PRF Pilot Insurance Program. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 11026 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L 113-79,
(7 U.S.C. 1523).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to low commodity prices and other industry factors, the NAPI
seeks innovative ways to reduce pest populations and promote its
international sales. The Navajo Nation supports the protection of
agricultural resources and international marketing through the USDA
Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Agricultural Marking Services
program.
Conservation. Conservation is a priority for the Navajo Nation, and
order to minimize duplicative reviews, we request that USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRSC) accept the more detailed Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) grazing plans \10\ for the USDA conservation
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act. Pub. L
103-177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navajo Nation participates in several USDA Conservation
Programs including Environmental Quality Incentive Programs (EQUIP),
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which provide financial
assistance to install and maintain conservation practices. In 2017, the
Navajo Nation participate in the RCPP to establish a Watershed Planning
team \11\ for watersheds in the Little Colorado River Basin, which is
about 25 percent of the Navajo Nation. Watershed studies are important
for the region to access quality water sources. \12\ Quality water is a
challenge due to uranium mining and environmental accidents such as the
Gold King Mine. The Navajo Nation would like to its preserve funding
for RCPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Watershed Planning Team is for 5-years and is for
watershed pursuant to Pub. L. 83-566.
\12\ In January 2016, the Navajo Nation Council approved a historic
legislation that funded $180 million for bulk water projects and water
sanitation projects--marking the largest ever water infrastructure
investment by the Navajo Nation. In September 2017, the Navajo Nation
broke ground on the first of several bulk water infrastructure projects
in the community of Greasewood, Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navajo Nation requests CSP, EQIP, and RCPP grants be
reauthorized beyond 2018. The Navajo Nation would like to see these
programs cover contracted acres where the covered entity still grows
the covered crops and to see additional outreach to Navajo producers.
In order to provide additional outreach, the we would like to keep
Natural Resources Conservation Service offices specifically in St
Michaels and Chinle, Arizona to retain Navajo Nation members
conservation engagement.
Customer Service. The Navajo Nation would like any USDA
reorganization efforts to increase Indian tribe's prosperity and that
support for prosperity on tribal lands is elevated within the USDA. In
order to continue progress and improvement of USDA-tribal relations, we
request Congress make The Council on Native American Farming and
Ranching13 a permanent13 statutory advisory committee beyond 2018.
The Navajo Nation is looks forward to working with the Committee on
moving forward our priorities for the 2018 Farm Bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Amber Torres, Chairman, Walker River Paiute
Tribe
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Walker River Paiute Tribe of Schurz, Nevada, we
write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the
upcoming Farm Bill. We joined the Native Farm Bill Coalition on October
12, 2017 with Resolution WR-1 04-2017 and wholeheartedly support their
ongoing efforts to support the Farm Bill reauthorization and advocate
for greater Native inclusions in future Farm bills.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
Our reservation is located in rural Nevada, located in the
northwestern part of the state. Our reservation town is Schurz, Nevada.
Our land base covers 325,000 acres of land that includes three
counties--Mineral, Lyon and Churchill. We service 3,643 members on our
reservation.
Farmers on our reservation grow alfalfa crops on small farms (est.
20 acres). We have a Cattleman's Association made up of tribal members
that graze 550 head of livestock within the reservation boundaries. We
incorporate our traditional foods into our everyday lifestyle that our
people have lived on for thousands of years, including Pinenuts,
Buckberries, fish, deer and small animals such as rabbit and wild
turkey.
We have and continue to work with our nearby USDA representatives
in utilizie funding from the Environmental Quality Incentive Program,
through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and emergency type
programs from the Farm Service Agency. We were also fortunate to
receive a fireworks building through the Rural Development program a
few years ago; this allowed for a great economic boost to our tribe.
Agriculture is a very important component for our community, and a
way of life for most. The Walker River Paiute Tribe requests the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee
include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill.
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through 638 Contracts.
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs.
Include Tribes, Native Organizations and Natives in all
phases of drafting regulations for programs that will impact
Indian country.
In addition, the Walker River Paiute Tribe supports the following
recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this
Congress. We are noting a couple of our priorities below:
Nutrition Title: This is the most important pnonty to our
reservation as we have a high population of unemployment. The access to
the Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations is critical to
our population's health and well-being. The tribal members also
appreciate the availability of the traditional foods that have been
incorporated into the food packages, along with the fresh fruits and
vegetables. The Supplemental Food Assistant Program is very vital
within our community as well, as this supports a majority of our tribal
members as well and allows them to make smart and healthy decisions for
their households. The Women, Infant and Children program is a much
needed program on our reservations to make sure that our children are
getting access to all the nutritional values that they need on a daily
basis to become strong, healthy indigenous leaders of tomorrow. Our
Tribe wants to make sure that these programs get full funding with no
budget cuts as this is a trust responsibility of the Federal Government
to our Native population.
Commodities Title: The tribes know that the NAP program is funded
at 75 percent currently and would like to see this increase to at least
90 percent of agricultural funding. Access to food, and markets is a
huge barrier, and policies should be designed to keep this in mind.
Tribes should be at the table for meaningful feedback and consultation
when drafting regulations that would impacts how they can serve their
population.
The entire Farm Bill has programs, funding and resources that our
Tribe and others depend on. We are requesting that there be no funding
cuts to any of the programs. We are also endorsing any and all
recommendations as brought forth by the Native Farm Bill Coalition.
We also want to advocate for a meeting of the Tribal Nations across
Indian country to have good, meaningful consultation with you and
others to discuss this bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. William Iyall, P.E., Chairman, Cowlitz
Indian Tribe
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, we respectfully submit
testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe represents our area of historic interest
on the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington. We are the
stewards of the land. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was restored to federal
recognition in 2000. We received a small reservation in 2015. The U.S.
Forest Service National Forest system has been important to our people,
as we continue to gather our traditional and cultural resources
primarily on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. There are a wide
variety of resources we have always utilized from the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest for survival and trading purposes. This activity pre-
dates any land-management policies of the United States.
Among the primary sources of material or traditional and cultural
purposes, Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) is one that is very
significant to us. Cedar bark and roots were and still are used for
many reasons, such as cedar woven hats and clothing. Cedar wood was and
is used for making longhouses, canoes, and traditional art carvings.
Traditionally, this source was important to maintain our way of life,
and today it also serves to maintain our culture and economies. Other
significant products include black huckleberry, beargrass, mountain
goat wool, mushrooms, cones, salal, river rock, and poles.
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe works with Gifford Pinchot National Forest
staff to coordinate Cowlitz tribal resource gathering. This gathering
is established through inherent right and through the Memorandum of
Understanding and Letter of Authorization specifically outlining the
Forest Service's understanding that natural resources are vital to the
Cowlitz Indian Tribe's economic, religious, spiritual, and cultural
life ways.
Considering our community, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe requests the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee
include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill.
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through 638 Contracts.
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs.
In addition, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe supports the following
amendment to be included in any agriculture legislation in this
Congress.
Forestry Title VIII
SEC. 8105. FOREST PRODUCTS FOR TRADITIONAL AND CULTURAL PURPOSES.
(a) In General--Notwithstanding section 14 of the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Secretary may provide free
of charge to Indian tribes any trees, portions of trees, or forest
products from National Forest System land for traditional and cultural
purposes.
(b) Prohibition-Trees, portions of trees, or forest products
provided under subsection (a) may not be used for commercial purposes.
(strike above existing language for subsection (b) and insert the
replacement below)
(b) Trees, portions of trees, or forest products provided under
subsection (a) may be used for traditional or cultural purposes by
Indian tribes of which the final products rendered from forest
resources may be used for commercial purposes.
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe asserts that our traditional and cultural
practices included bartering, trading, and, in modern parlance, sale of
carvings, canoes, and other wood products as a normal traditional or
cultural practice. A tremendous amount of traditional, cultural
products can be derived from just a few trees. Some products, such as
cedar bark, do not destroy the resource when harvested in the
traditional manner. Much of the wood materials we gather comes from
already downed trees, which we salvage in partnership with the Forest
Service. For our Tribe, Tribal members who sell or barter their
traditional and cultural products do so for nominal gain (monetarily
speaking) in order to continue their practice due to the costs
associated with raw product acquisition, etc. Our Tribe has sustainably
harvested forest products since time beyond memory. We don't intend to
do anything different for future practices.
We thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 2018 Farm Bill.
Our ability and our tribal members' ability to continue to practice our
traditional and cultural rights are connected to the US Forest Service
and primarily Titles II and VIII. We emphasize the importance of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Anchor Forests to our Tribe and
the United States. We encourage wise and thoughtful management. The
Cowlitz Indian Tribe is committed stewarding our community towards
ethical, environmentally sensitive resource conservation and
utilization
Attachment: Dated September 29, 2014: Comments regarding: Sale and
Disposal of National Forest System Timber; Forest Products for
Traditional and Cultural Purposes.
Dear Director,
I am writing on behalf of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe regarding your
proposed rule to formally implement section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
The Cowlitz Tribe was restored to federal recognition in 2000. Although
federally recognized, we have yet to receive a reservation of our own.
Without a land base, we continue to rely upon National Forest System
lands to gather resources for traditional and cultural purposes. We
will also be dependent on receiving resources on Forest Service lands
even after we receive our reservation. There are a wide variety of
resources we have always utilized from the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest for survival and trading purposes. This activity pre-dates any
land-management policies of the United States.
Among the primary sources of material for traditional and cultural
purposes, Western Red Cedar is one that is very significant to us.
Cedar bark and roots were and still are used for many reasons, such as
cedar woven hats, and clothing. Cedar wood was and still is used for
making longhouses, canoes, and traditional art carvings. Traditionally,
this source was important to maintain our way of life, and today it
also serves to maintain our culture.
Although we appreciate the Forest Service providing an avenue for
our Tribe to receive forest products through section 8105 of the Farm
Bill, we have already been securing forest products from the Forest
Service before the 2008 Farm Bill. Through our inherent right to the
resource and continued positive relationship with the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, we plan to continue to secure necessary resources as
we have always done. Provisions of section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill
should not impact or trump our previous rights to forest products for
traditional and cultural purposes, including the nominal barter and
trade of the ``art'' or subsistence material derived from the forest
products.
We would like to mention that although this draft rule provides to
the Tribe the ability to secure forest products free of charge, there
still is a cost born on the Tribe for the planning, implementation of
securing our traditional resource, and the processing of raw material.
One of the reasons the Tribe secures forest products is to provide
cultural (artistic) products for display at tribal centers, at various
centers within our neighboring communities, at museums, at other tribal
centers, etc. This is important to us, and provides multiple benefits.
It fosters positive relations and increases awareness and appreciation
of who we are within the community and beyond. In many cases, we
receive requests from outside our Tribe for traditional and cultural
products that are derived from forest products. The only way we can
uphold and follow through with requests is to receive forest products
from National Forest System lands. There are also other tribes who are
challenged on securing a source of suitable wood products of which we
can assist given the rich resources within our traditional territory of
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. All of the examples mentioned come
at a cost to the Tribe. The draft rule doesn't explain or describe our
ability to recoup any costs born on the Tribe. In order for our Tribe
to fully utilize the provisions under this rule, we will need the
freedom to find ways to recoup costs, and the ability to barter and
trade to keep important programs alive concerning the products derived
from forest products.
The draft rule mentions that sale and/or barter concerns will be
handled through anticipated special forest products rule promulgation.
We think that it is necessary that ``wood products'' utilized for
traditional and cultural purposes (including sale and/or barter) needs
to be further addressed.
For at least our Tribe, we have the opinion that any sale or barter
concerns associated with traditional and cultural products will not
amount to any significant concerns for the Forest Service. A tremendous
amount of priceless cultural and traditional products can be derived
from just a few trees. Some products (such as cedar bark) don't even
destroy the resource when harvested properly. Much of the wood
materials we gather from the forest come from already downed trees of
which we salvage in partnership with the Forest Service. For our Tribe,
Tribal members who sell or barter their traditional and cultural
products do so for nominal gain (monetarily speaking) in order to
continue their practice due to the costs. The tribal/regional benefit
of the ability to have these forest derived traditional/cultural
products is priceless. Our Tribe has sustainably harvested forest
products since time beyond memory. We don't intend to do anything
different for future practices.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on ruling connected to
forest products for traditional and cultural purposes. Our ability and
our tribal members' ability of continuing to practice our traditional
and cultural rights are dependent on our ability to recoup costs in
order to sustain that practice. Again, this draft rule doesn't address
the concerns brought forward. We request to be directly contacted on
future rulemaking as it pertains to all forest products important to
our Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronald Trahan, Chairman, Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes
Introduction
Greetings Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the
Committee. My name is Ronald Trahan, Chairman of the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) located in western Montana. Thank you
for this opportunity to provide written testimony concerning tribal
agriculture, agribusiness opportunities in Indian Country, and the Farm
Bill. The January 17th Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing was
timely as the Farm Bill is up for reauthorization this year.
The CSKT of the Flathead Indian Reservation are comprised of three
tribes: the Salish, the Pend d'Oreille, and the Kootenai. Our ancestors
lived in the territory now known as western Montana, parts of Idaho,
British Columbia, and Wyoming. The CSKT aboriginal territory exceeded
20 million acres at the time of the signing of the Hellgate Treaty on
July 16, 1855. From th e signing ofthe Treaty until present day, the
CSKT call the 1.3 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation its home.
Although our Reservation was opened up to homesteading over 100
years ago with the passage of the Flathead Allotment Act and its
Amendments, our tribes have worked hard for many decades to buy back
lands within our Reservation. Today the CSKT own over 60 percent of
lands within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian
Reservation. Through a compact with the BIA, the CSKT manage 345
agricultural leases on over 104,000 acres of tribally owned and
allotted lands. The Tribes also manage 54 range unit permits on over
385,000 acres of tribally owned lands.
The health and welfare of our tribal membership is ofthe utmost
importance. Having access to nutritious and traditional foods is a
priority for our Tribes. Clean drinking water is also crucial for the
well-being of our people. The availability of economically viable jobs
through farming, ranching, forestry, preservation, and construction are
vital for the protection of our agricultural lands, forests, and
natural resources.
The CSKT are a member of the Native Farm Bill Coalition. The
Coalition is made up of tribes and organizations including the
Intertribal Agriculture Council (lAC), the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI), and the Intertribal Food and Agriculture
Initiative (IFAI) that have identified priorities to be included in the
2018 Farm Bill. Discussed below are some of the priorities for the CSKT
(many of which we share with the Coalition) for the upcoming Farm Bill
reauthorization.
Nutrition
The CSKT were encouraged that the 2014 Farm Bill included some
significant provisions for tribes with respect to nutrition programs.
For example, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
Traditional Foods Demonstration Project (FDPIR), which is a federal
program that provides USDA foods to low-income households, including
the elderly, living on Indian reservations, created a new demonstration
project with technical assistance and tribal consultation to allow the
inclusion of traditional and locally grown foods from Native farmers,
ranchers, and producers in FDPIR. For the 2018 Farm Bill, in addition
to opposing further cuts to nutrition programs, tribes like the CSKT
and tribal organizations are pushing for changes to allow tribes
greater authority to administer nutrition programs by providing tribal
governments and tribal organizations the direct authority to administer
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all other federal
food assistance programs which they are currently not allowed to
directly manage. This can be achieved by providing tribes with 638
self-governance contract authority for nutrition programs, similar to
that which exists for Department of the Interior and Indian Health
Service programs. Changes to the FDPIR program could include
eliminating or limiting the matching funds requirement for each of the
FDPIR program sites to participate; providing tribal feeding sites with
parity to state counterpart programs by allowing them to carryover
unspent funds from year to year; requiring FDPIR traditional food
purchases (for example bison, salmon, and other products) to be a
regular part of food package purchases and not require supplemental or
special appropriations to purchase these foods; and requiring the
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to engage in further
consultation with tribes to improve the FDPIR program.
Rural Development
As you are aware, Rural Development (RD) programs at USDA offer
loans, grants and loan guarantees to support economic development and
essential services in rural areas through support for housing, health
care, first responder services and equipment, and water, electric and
communications infrastructure. These RD programs are vitally important
to tribal governments, communities, individual Indian producers, and
tribal businesses. In many cases the grants and loans offered byRD are
the only financing tools available to tribes and neighboring
communities to enhance or build new infrastructure. Over the years many
tribes have experienced difficulty in accessing RD programs at USDA so
Congress included a provision in the 2008 Farm Bill that was intended
to give USDA enhanced authority to finance projects on tribal lands-
this is known as the Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA)
provisions. SUTA applies to some, but not all, RD programs and
authorities (mainly to basic infrastructure such as water and electric)
and allowed those beneficiaries who could demonstrate that they existed
in a ``substantially underserved trust area'' to gain access to
important waivers of program requirements, lower interest rates, longer
repayment terms, and similar assistance through RD programs. Broadening
SUTA in the 2018 Farm Bill to include all RD programs would help ensure
more equitable access to RD programs and authorities, and the change
would allow the waiver of matching requirements for projects funded
through RD. Matching requirements can be a significant barrier to
socially disadvantaged applicant participation in RD business and
infrastructure projects.
A tribal set aside for rural development programs is also needed as
many applications from tribes for funding under RD programs have been
denied in recent years. Further, establishing a permanent office
providing technical assistance across all RD funding authorities is
needed due to the complexities of lending and infrastructure
establishment in Indian Country. This office could prepare and monitor
lessons learned, establish user-friendly application systems, and
assist staff at the tribal or business level in preparing applications.
Other provisions of interest to be included in the RD title ofthe bill
include ensuring that the position of Under Secretary for Rural
Development at USDA is maintained, as the primary duties of this
position are to focus on RD programs and funding for Indian Country and
rural America.
Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions at USDA
Changes to many offices and programs at USDA could help expand
Native participation in agriculture. A broad reaching Office of Tribal
Agriculture should be established within the Office of the Secretary to
coordinate all USDA programs applicable to tribes. This Office could
maximize the value of the programs, address issues in compliance and
access of programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve as a
liaison between the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian producers. The
Office of Tribal Agriculture should also be required to report to
Congress at least once annually on its activities and progress in
advancing tribal agriculture interests. Adequate funding for the
existing Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at USDA is needed to ensure
that the OTR has the needed resources to provide education, training
and technical assistance to tribes so USDA programs and services can be
better accessed. USDA could also establish a new scholarship and
training program to assist in training the tribal agricultural
workforce and encourage Native students to pursue careers in
agriculture. Creating an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian
Agriculture with the OTR, the Office of the Secretary, and
representatives of other agencies and offices across USDA, along with
the BIA would help to examine and develop administrative efficiency and
regulatory changes needed to help ensure Native agricu lture is
supported and has mechanisms to grow. USDA should also be required to
recruit and appoint tribal members to all of the federal advisory
committees it seats and supports.
Research and Education
Changes to research and education programs at USDA can enhance the
development of tribal research, education, and Native youth
participation in agriculture by making programs and funding more
accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and supporting a
tribally led focus on traditional knowledges and practices. One item is
to strengthen funding for the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension
Program (FRTEP) that provides support to Extension programs on Ind ian
Reservations to address the needs and problems of Tribes. FRTEP helps
to build Indian community capacity through 4-H and tribal youth
development, agriculture and natural resource management, and
entrepreneurship and business development, and seeks to address
inequities in educating and developing Native American extension
resource programming and Native youth in food and agriculture
programming. Making TCUs eligible for funding under al l programs
administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) programs would help TCU extension personnel better serve tribes.
Further, creating a tribal set aside for NIFA programs and requiring
NIFA to focus a portion of their work on building knowledge and
capacity in business development unique to tribal lands and individual
Indian owned land would allow tribes to better access and utilize these
programs. Changes could also be made to allow tribal governments and
tribal organizations full access to all nutrition education programs at
NIFA, including SNAP-Ed--which is an evidence-based program that
teaches people using or eligible for SNAP about good nutrition and how
to make their food dollars stretch further. Thus, giving tribes full
access to SNAP-Ed and all research programs would help build knowledge
in nutrition, health, obesity, and diabetes prevention in tribal
communities.
Conservation
Changes to agriculture conservation programs to improve
coordination between the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs would help ensure that tribal
producers have access to conservation programs and other USDA programs
that require an NRCS-approved conservation plan. This could be achieved
in the Conservation title of the Farm Bill by explicitly including
``tribes'' or ``tribal'' where ``state'' or ``local'' or ``regional''
agricultural producers are mentioned to ensure tribal access to all
NRCS programs. Further, all tribal lands falling under the jurisdiction
of the BIA, tribal governments, tribal agricultural entities, and
individual tribal producers, landowners, or land operators should
receive mandatory priority consideration for al l conservation programs
authorized in the Farm Bill. The bill should also direct funding to
USDA to provide technical assistance to tribes and tribal producers so
they can better utilize and access conservation programs.
Commodities and Credit
Further improvements can be made to Farm Service Agency (FSA)
programs to address the availability, efficiency and application of
credit programs to producers in Indian Country. Specifically, changes
are needed to FSA loans to allow producers to take advantage of pricing
opportunities on input materials, replacement stock, or expansion
opportunities, and incentivize operating from available resources.
Producers should be able to restructure their debt in a manner that
will not count towards lifetime limits on loan servicing. Creation of a
joint administrative team at USDA and BIA with the role of reviewing
and updating federal practices and regulations that hinder tribal food
production, tribal food system lending, and tribal loan servicing would
also help producers. With respect to commodity programs, modifications
can be made to enhance and protect the ability of tribal producers to
participate in the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, Supplemental
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs, and other USDA programs that
provide emergency relief funds for livestock. Changes should also be
made to ensure that tribal producers are represented on FSA County
Committees. Producers who serve on these committees help decide the
kind of programs their counties will offer and they work to make sure
FSA agricultural programs serve the needs of local producers. The FSA
should conduct an assessment based on Census data and Agricultural
Census data to determine the population makeup of the county and
conduct tribal consultation with tribal governments to guarantee that
tribal citizens are effectively notified of the opportunity to be
nominated and considered for county committee membership. All FSA
county committees in areas with significant tribal population and/or
tribal land base areas should have correlating Native membership.
Forestry
The Farm Bill could include improvements to the Tribal Forest
Protection Act (TFPA) to allow tribes to better access, manage and
develop tribal and federal forests and woodlands to protect tribal
resources and provide jobs and economic development. Proposals from
forestry legislation introduced in previous Congresses mandating
timelines for review, approval and implementation of TFPA projects are
needed because of the underperformance of the current TFPA authority.
While the TFPA was signed into law in 2004, only three projects have
been fully implemented, while others have been mired in years of delay
and red tape. This has led to tribal forest lands remaining at high
risk of wildfire coming from adjacent federal lands. Modernizing TFPA
would give tribes the certainty to pursue TFPA projects with their
federal neighbors and reduce the risk of wildfire migrating from
federal lands onto Indian trust land. Specifically, allowing for
greater tribal participation in TFPA projects by authorizing a
discretionary pilot program to allow the application of 638 contracting
authority to TFPA projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands is needed. Authorization for the USDA to fund a
Native American forestry workforce coordination and development program
administered through an intertribal organization with expertise in
Tribal forestry issues could help address workforce issues and the
growing shortage of trained workers for the management and operation of
Indian forests. This shortage of forest workers constrains the ability
of tribes and related federal agencies to effectively manage and
protect tribal forests and forest-related natural resources and to
participate in broader landscape-based forest management activities.
Ensuring that all Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) are eligible
to access federal programs to support them in offering degree programs
in forestry and helping the schools perform tribally and state-relevant
forestry research and develop a well-trained Native forestry workforce
would also be beneficial.
Any wildfire provisions in the Farm Bill should ensure that tribal
forests are appropriately prioritized for fire suppression activities
and funding. In 2017 alone, there were over 60 fires that burned over
33,000 acres on our Reservation. As you know, the current system which
places the protection of private structures above that of tribal forest
has led in the past to crews being pulled off wildfires on Indian lands
and reassigned to protecting private structures. This leads to the
unneeded loss of timber that is vitally important to tribal economies.
Providing authority to develop more Anchor Forest initiatives will help
with forest health and management. The Inter-Tribal Timber Council, its
member Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service, and other forest resource
stakeholders recently completed a pilot study in Washington State and
issued a report on an ``Anchor Forest'' concept to foster landscape-
scale forest collaboration and management projects intended to improve
forest health while preserving local loggi ng, milling, and other
critical infrastructure. Ensuring tribal consultation to protect sacred
tribal areas and requiring tribal representation on all local, regional
and national planning and implementation advisory committees at the
USDA and the U.S. Forest Service is also critical so tribes have a say
in policy making and management.
Conclusion
I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity
to discuss the importance of agricu lture, nutrition, and cultural
resource preservation for our Tribes. It is vital that the upcoming
Farm Bill includes input from Indian Country and allows tribes and
their membership equa l access to USDA programs and funding
opportunities.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Jane Miles, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice-Chairman Udall:
The Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) submits this testimony for the record
urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian
Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill. In addition, while
Congress considers the Farm Bill this session, the Tribe requests the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian agriculture in this important
legislation.
Since time immemorial, the Tribe has occupied and used over 13
million acres of land now comprising north-central Idaho, southeast
Washington, northeast Oregon, and parts of Montana. The current Nez
Perce Reservation covers approximately 750,000 acres, 38,000 of which
is used for agricultural purposes. Like all governments, the Tribe has
profound economic, social, and political impact on the regional economy
and is one of the largest employers in north-central Idaho.
The Tribe provides many services that fall under the purview of the
Farm Bill. For example, in 2013, the Tribe established the Tribal
Agricultural Center (TAC) with the mission of producing local,
sustainable, and healthy food for the Nimiipuu and surrounding
communities. The TAC, in coordination with U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is
developing guidelines for best agricultural management practices on
tribal lands, monitoring compliance, evaluating agricultural impacts to
resources and traditional gatherers on tribal lands, and developing
restoration protocols for traditional food and Eber plants.
The Tribe currently provides daily services across the Nez Perce
Reservation through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR). The Tribe has also been able to expand and provide
telecommunication and broadband services throughout the Nez Perce
Reservation with assistance from the Rural Utility Service programs.
Considering the state of programs in Indian Country contained in
past iterations of the Farm Bill, the Tribe requests that both the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee
include the following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal governmental parity with state and local governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill.
Tribal administration of the SNAP and all federal food
assistance programs, such as FDPIR, through 638 Contracts.
Expansion of the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all rural development programs.
In addition, the Tribe supports inclusion of the following
recommendations, set forth by the Native Farm Bill Coalition, in any
agriculture legislation- during this Congress.
Commodities Title
Ensure tribal producers' eligibility for all disaster
assistance programs in this Title, and increase payments to 90
percent of value to acknowledge their unique land and market
issues.
Create parity for tribal producers in Farm Service Agency
Committees and decision-making.
Conservation Title
USDA conservation programs must allow for the use of
traditional and ecological knowledge-based conservation
practices.
Cross-agency coordination between the NRCS and Bureau of
Indian Affairs must be improved to ensure all tribal producers
have access to conseryation programs and other USDA programs
that require an NRCS-approved conservation plan.
Parity must be achieved throughout the Conservation Title by
explicitly including ``tribes'' or ``tribal'' where ``State''
or ``local'' or ``regional'' agricultural producers are
mentioned to ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs.
Trade Title
Support and maintain tribal food and agriculture businesses'
entry into foreign markets by expanding Indian Country's access
to the Market Access Program and protecting unique tribal foods
against fraud.
Improve interdepartmental coordination and tribal government
and individual Indian producer inclusion on all U.S. trade
missions.
Nutrition Title
Indian Country needs a consistent, comprehensive, and
tribal-led approach to tailor federal food assistance programs
to the specific needs of tribal communities and citizens.
Tribes should be allowed the option to enter into Self-
Determination Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93-638 for
administration of the SNAP and all other federal feeding
programs.
Funding, flexibility and infrastructure of the FDPIR needs
to be improved.
Credit Title
Improvements must continue to be made to Farm Service Agency
programs to address the availability, efficiency, and
application of credit programs in Indian Country.
Rural Development Title
Recognizing the United States' trust responsibility to the
Tribe, the Rural Development (RD) programs at the USDA must
have dedicated funding and technical assistance for tribal
governments to ensure that tribal communities and the rural
communities around them thrive.
Tribes must be consulted during the restructuring of the
USDA's RD agency due to its unique impact on tribal economies
and tribal economic development. Any budget shifts must be
subject to meaningful tribal consultation before changes occur.
Research Title
Research Title programs must allow for the development of
tribal research, education, and Native youth in agriculture by
making programs and funding more accessible to Tribal Colleges
and Universities (TCUs), support a tribally led focus on
traditional knowledge and practices, and provide additional
opportunities for education.
The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP)
must be funded at a minimum of $10 million to address the
persistent inequity in educating and developing Native American
extension resource programming and Native youth in food and
agriculture programming.
Dedicated funding and tribal preference at the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture must be provided to develop
tribal research and educational capacity.
All institutions (non-TCUs) that receive any funding for
extension programming in states that have tribal lands and
tribal producers must be required to report and demonstrate
their work with tribal governments, tribal communities, and
tribal producers and their cooperative and respectful
coordination with TCUs in close proximity. Further, these
institutions should be required to conduct a percentage of
their overall work that is equal to the amount of land in the
state held by Indians and Indian farms in those states. All
such extension programming must be done with Indian communities
and by staff experienced in and having knowledge of issues
important to Indian Country.
Forestry Title
Tribes must be provided parity throughout the Forestry Title
to better access, manage, and develop tribal and federal
forests and woodlands to protect tribal resources while also
providing jobs and economic development.
Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title
Many traditional Native foods fall under the designation of
horticulture crops and are necessary to support food
sovereignty and healt-- food access in Indian Country. USDA
programs which oversee horticulture crops must engage in tribal
consultation to ensure the unique needs of tribal producers are
being met.
The Farm Bill must include provisions to protect Native
foods in the marketplace, including Native seeds, and
traditional foods.
Miscellaneous
Fully fund the Office of Tribal Relations and create a new
Office of Tribal Agriculture that will improve the service and
coordination of USDA programs for tribes and tribal producers.
The new Office of Tribal Agriculture should report to the
Office of Tribal Relations and funding for both offices should
be mandatory.
Create a mandatory interdepartmental working group between
departments at USDA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to examine
and determine solutions in areas where the two agencies
overlap, are requiring duplicative documentation or actions on
the part of tribes and individual Indian landowners in order to
access programs and services, or are generally lacking in
coordination and efficiency for tribal agriculture. The
identified barriers and problems must be addressed and resolved
by sustained, mandatory interdepartmental working groups.
Thank you for consideration of the Tribe's testimony and your
support of our recommendations as the Farm Bill is put together.
______
Prepared Statement of James E. Zorn, Executive Administrator, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on this
important topic. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(``GLIFWC'' or ``Commission'') is an intertribal natural resource
agency exercising delegated authority from 11 federally recognized
Ojibwe Tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. GLIFWC member
Tribes retain hunting, fishing, gathering rights, and associated
governmental management and regulatory authorities, in territories
ceded to the United States in various treaties. Specifically, portions
of the Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins are within
territory ceded by the Treaties of 1836, 1837, 1842 and 1854.
Because of the upcoming deadline, we have not had the opportunity
to discuss these comments with GLIFWC's governing Board of
Commissioners or the Voigt Intertribal Task Force. However, as the Farm
Bill serves as a catalyst to advance food policy nation-wide, and
GLIFWC's Board of Commissioners and Voigt Intertribal Task Force have
prioritized efforts to incorporate traditional foods into tribal
programs, we would be remiss if we did not offer testimony addressing
this issue.
GLIFWC's mission includes supporting the exercise of tribal
sovereignty and intertribal co-management by protecting and enhancing
treaty-guaranteed rights to hunt, fish and gather within the ceded
territories. The exercise of these rights supports tribal sovereignty
in a variety of ways. Harvesting activities and the consumption of
traditional foods promote health in tribal communities, and connection
to cultural lifeways. These rights also translate into tangible
economic benefits for tribal individuals, businesses and communities.
GLIFWC member Tribes have been encouraged by the inclusion of
traditional foods in USDA programs, such as within the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and would like to
see more opportunities for tribal programs to include wild-caught game
and fish, manoomin (wild rice) and other wild-harvested and locally-
produced foods in their menu options. The 2014 Farm Bill included a
provision for the use of donated wild-harvested foods in USDA-supported
programs (Traditional Foods in Public Facilities, 128 Stat. 818). This
provision is a step in the right direction, however more is needed to
ensure that traditional foods become a regular part of program menus.
Addressing this issue in the 2018 Farm Bill would provide tribal
programs with greater access to healthy, local sources of protein from
wild game by enabling the purchase of these foods. This would also
support tribal harvesters by providing compensation for the time and
effort spent on food production activities. We expect that tribal
communities, as a whole, would benefit, especially in communities where
conventional forms of employment are not always available.
The Guidance from the Food and Nutrition Program to Regional
Directors of the Special Nutrition Programs and State Directors of the
Child Nutrition Programs issued in 2015, suggests that wild-caught game
cannot be considered part of a ``reimbursable meal'' unless slaughtered
and inspected in a federally-inspected facility, state inspected
program, or originate from an approved source as established by state
and local regulatory authorities. Language in this memorandum ignores
the self-governing authority of tribes to establish laws and food
safety systems independent of state and federal governments. We note
that wild-harvested game has been, and continues to be, a regular part
of the diets of many tribal communities. Some tribes have established
or are in the process of establishing food codes and inspection
capabilities to ensure safe consumption of traditional foods. Even
without the establishment of written standards, tribal communities have
long-established customary law on food safety addressing appropriate
killing of animals, standards on processing, transporting and storing
game meat, and teachings that govern how these meats are prepared for
consumption.
GLIFWC member Tribes are also cognizant that concerns regarding the
conservation of game animals have influenced the development of food
policy. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the conservation
movement advocated for the adoption of wide-ranging legislation to
curtail the overharvesting of wild animals. Prohibitions on the sale of
meat derived from wild-harvested animals was one aspect of the
legislative agenda. Although certain positive changes were made to
curtail unsustainable harvesting practices, policy makers failed to
consider the effect that these changes would have on tribal
communities. The tribes reserved rights to hunt, fish and gather on and
off-reservation, and their rights of self-government, were largely
ignored, leaving tribal communities vulnerable to poverty, disease and
hunger.
Tribal nations spent decades suing for recognition of their treaty-
reserved rights. In numerous decisions, the Courts have recognized that
the tribes' reserved rights include the ability to regulate their
members differently than the states: tribal conservation codes may
provide for the use of efficient methods of harvest (as opposed to
inefficient methods required by states to promote conservation) and to
sell products derived from their treaty-reserved harvesting. In
furtherance of their conservation goals, the tribes have developed
sophisticated systems to maintain sustainable harvests. They work
together, and with state and federal partners, to study plant and
animal populations and trends in order to set appropriate quotas and
maintain a dynamic management approach. They have also developed
conservation codes and the means of enforcing those codes, including
effective law enforcement that coordinates with federal and state
officers, and tribal courts experienced in handling treaty rights
cases. Tribes continue to adopt forward-thinking environmental
standards and advocate for the adoption of state and federal policies
that support healthy ecosystems.
Because of the importance of these issues and the need to recognize
the appropriate governmental authority of tribes, and in recognition of
the federal government's ongoing treaty obligations, the Committee
should consider adding language that provides for:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill, including recognition of
tribal food codes and food safety systems;
Tribal Administration of USDA Programs, including
flexibility in purchasing traditional and locally produced
foods; and
An exemption for treaty-harvested game meats purchased for
Tribal Government programs from federal or state slaughter and
inspection requirements.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Regina Gasco-Bentley, Tribal Chairperson,
Waganakising Odawak, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indian
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indian of
Michigan, please accept this testimony for the record urging the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included
in the upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians is headquartered in
Harbor Springs Michigan Our Tribal Service Area extends to 27 counties
in Michigan along the Great Lakes. We recognize the importance off the
Farm Bill and programs within the Farm Bill have helped our Tribe. Our
tribe owns and operates a farm that is approximately 300 acres, we
utilize the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and other
funds for our programing and services to our Tribal Citizens.
Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Little
Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians requests the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs and the Senate Agriculture Committee include the
following in any legislation regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through 63 8 Contracts
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs
In addition, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
supports the following recommendations to be included in any
agriculture legislation in this Congress.
Commodities Title
--Indian Country is heavily invested in commodity food production,
especially livestock, which makes up nearly $2 billion of agriculture
income for tribal producers.
--Ensure tribal producers' eligibility for all disaster assistance
programs in Title I, and increase payments to 90 percent of value to
acknowledge their unique land and market issues.
--Create parity for tribal producers in Farm Service Agency
Committees and decision-making. Conservation Title
--U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs must
allow for the use of traditional, ecological, knowledge-based
conservation practices.
--Cross-agency coordination between the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs must be
improved to ensure all tribal producer have access to conservation
programs and other USDA programs that require an NRCS-approved
conservation plan.
--Parity must be achieved throughout the Conservation title by
explicitly including ``tribes'' or ``tribal'' where ``state'' or
``local'' or ``regional'' agricultural producers are mentioned to
ensure tribal access to all NRCS programs.
Trade Title
--Support and maintain tribal food and agriculture businesses'
entry into foreign markets by expanding Indian Country's access to the
Market Access Program (MAP) and protecting unique tribal foods against
fraud.
--Improve interdepartmental coordination and tribal government and
individual Indian producer inclusion on all U.S. trade missions.
Nutrition Title
--Approximately 25 percent ofNative Americans receive some type of
federal food assistance, and in some tribal communities, participation
is as high as 60-80 percent.
--Indian Country needs a consistent, comprehensive, and tribal-led
approach to tailor federal food assistance programs to the specific
needs of tribal communities and citizens.
--Allow tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination
Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93-638 for administration of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and all other federal
feeding programs.
--Improve the funding, flexibility and infrastructure of the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
--Require a CBO or CRS inquiry into the impact of drastic cuts or
elimination of food assistance programs on the overall agricultural
economies of tribes.
Credit Title
--Many tribal communities are located in ``Credit Deserts,'' where
access to fair and reasonable credit terms is limited or non-existent.
--Improvements must continue to be made to Farm Service Agency
(FSA) programs to address the availability, efficiency and application
of credit programs in Indian Country.
Rural Development Title
--The Rural Development (RD) programs at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) are essential for rural and reservation tribal
communities to develop and improve declining infrastructure systems
while spurring economic development and job creation in tribal
communities.
--Many ready-to-go (``shovel-ready'') tribal infrastructure and
community development projects have gone unfunded over the past several
years, leaving promises to Indian Country and rural communities
unrealized.
--RD must have dedicated funding and technical assistance for
tribal governments as part of the federal trust responsibility and to
ensure that tribal communities and the rural communities around them
thrive. -Tribes must be consulted during the restructuring of the
USDA's RD agency due to its unique impact on tribal economies and
tribal economic development. Any budget shifts must also receive tribal
consUltation before changes occur.
Research Title
--Research Title programs must allow for the development of tribal
research, education, and Native youth in agriculture by making programs
and funding more accessible to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
support a tribally led focus on traditional knowledge and practices,
and provide additional opportunities for education.
--Fund the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) at
a minimum of$10 million to address the persistent inequity in educating
and developing Native American extension resource programming and
Native youth in food and agriculture programming.
--Provide dedicated funding and tribal preference at National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to build tribal research and
educational capacity.
--Require all institutions (non-TCUs) that receive any funding for
extension programming in states that have tribal lands and tribal
producers to report and demonstrate their work with tribal governments,
tribal communities, and tribal producers and their cooperative and
respectful coordination with TCUs in close proximity. These
institutions should be required to conduct a percentage of their
overall work that is equal to the amount of land in the state held by
Indians, the Indian farms in those states, and such extension
programming must be done with Indian communities and done by staff
experienced in and knowledgeable of issues important to Indian Country.
--Remove FRTEP from the Farm Bill requirements that all Smith-Lever
programs be competitive and reinstate the consultative requirements for
FRTEP implementation.
Forestry Title
--Tribal forests and woodlands make up one third of all tribal
lands held in trust, and provide resources, jobs, and economic
development opportunities for many tribal governments.
-- Many tribal forests and adjacent federal forests contain sacred
places and important trust and treaty-protected resources.
--Tribes must be provided parity throughout the Forestry Title to
better access, manage and develop tribal and federal forests and
woodlands to protect tribal resources while providing jobs and economic
development.
Energy Title
--Tribal lands, individual Indian-owned land, and natural resources
hold immense potential to develop biobased energy economic development,
energy infrastructure build-outs, and jobs in tribal communities and
surrounding rural communities.
--Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program to
help tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal business entities
develop bio-energy businesses and production.
Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title
--Many Traditional Native foods fall under the designation of
horticulture crops and are necessary to support food sovereignty and
healthy food access in Indian Country.
--USDA programs which oversee horticulture crops must engage in
tribal consultation to ensure the unique needs of tribal producers are
being met.
--The Farm Bill needs to include provisions to protect Native foods
in the marketplace, as well as Native seeds and traditional foods
Crop Insurance Title
--Due to the high risk of agriculture and food production,
especially in Indian Country, crop insurance products must cover tribal
producers in unique ways. In addition, livestock producers in Indian
Country must be afforded the same risk protection as crop producers as
well as the same payment options since livestock production makes up a
significant percentage of tribal food production.
Miscellaneous
Covering a wide variety of topics, as well as issues which span
multiple titles of the Farm Bill, the Miscellaneous Title is an
important mechanism for Indian Country.
-- Fully fund the Office of Tribal Relations and create a new
Office of Tribal Agriculture to improve the service and coordination of
USDA programs for tribes and tribal producers. The new Office of Tribal
Agriculture should report to the Office of Tribal Relations and funding
for both offices should be mandatory. The current funding limits OTRs
ability to provide programs and technical assistance.
--Create a mandatory interdepartmental working group between
agencies at USDA and the BIA to examine and determine solutions to
areas where the two departments overlap, are requiring duplicative
documentation or actions on the part of tribes and individual Indian
landowners in order to access programs and services, or are generally
lacking in coordination and efficiency for tribal agriculture. The
identified barriers and problems must be addressed and resolved by
sustained mandatory interdepartmental working groups.
______
Prepared Statement of Joshua Riley, Sr. Policy Analyst, Choctaw Nation
of Oklahoma
On behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (``Choctaw Nation'' or
the ``Nation''), I am writing to urge the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs (SCIA) to work closely and collaboratively with the Senate
Committee on Agriculture to ensure that Indian agriculture and food and
nutrition interests are included in and supported by the upcoming 2018
Farm Bill.
The Choctaw Nation is comprised of 11,000 square miles stretching
across 10.5 counties in southeastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma became the
Nation's home in 1831 after we were forcibly removed from our ancestral
homelands which included parts of what are now Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and most of Mississippi. Today, we have nearly 200,000
citizens living worldwide, with nearly half of those living within
Oklahoma.
The Choctaw Nation has always been an agrarian society. In our
traditional homelands, our ancestors grew a number of vegetables in a
unique way. Corn was planted in rows with squash, pumpkins, beans,
peas, sunflowers, and melons grown in between the rows of corn.
Choctaws also participated in traditional forms of permaculture. Fruit
and nut orchards, in particular, were vital to the survival of the
Choctaw people. (see the document on the history of Choctaw Food) *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Choctaw Nation and our citizens maintain a primarily
agrarian lifestyle. The Nation has several operating ranches with
thousands of head of cattle and bison. The Nation also operates, just
as did our ancestors, a number of pecan orchards, and has recently been
able to market those pecans for retail sale.
While the Nation's agribusiness, based on the production of
traditional foods, is growing, the Nation and many of its members are
not able to access healthy, quality nutritious food. This is due in
part because of the Nation's rural location and high rates of poverty,
which qualify our Reservation as a food desert pursuant to U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) guideposts. Despite these troubling
statistics, through the leadership and record success of Choctaw
Nation, we are improving our situation by establishing strong
partnerships with federal, state, and local governments, community
leaders, and non-profits.
One of our most successful programs within the Choctaw Nation is
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
Nationwide, this program serves approximately 93,000 Native Americans
each month. In Choctaw Nation alone, we serve close to 6,000 Native
Americans monthly, including our own tribal citizens and other Indians
who reside in our area. This program serves our neediest families in
Choctaw Nation, providing close to $300,000 worth of food each month.
FDPIR is intended to be a supplemental program, but for far too
many of our tribal members, it is their primary source of food. When
compared to other federal feeding programs, FDPIR is a healthier choice
for our people. The FDPIR food our citizens receive monthly adheres to
strict nutritional guidelines. The food has low sodium and low fat
content, and little to no sugar. Things like cakes, pies, and sodas are
not available through FDPIR. Our participants receive healthy
ingredients each month like fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, beans,
lean meats, and other items that can be prepared into full, nutritional
meals.
Choctaw Nation has five locations for food distribution. The
Choctaw Nation has used its own money to build these facilities for the
FDPIR program, in order to provide our citizens a well-rounded shopping
and learning experience as they get their family's food supplies for
the month. Our five stores are top-notch facilities and provide a real
grocery store experience for our citizens served by the FDPIR program.
There are also kitchen facilities and cooking classes offered on a
regular basis to help teach our citizens how to prepare nutritional
meals. Before the Choctaw Nation built these stores, program
participants were handed their food from the back of a truck at
designated locations on Choctaw Nation. We believed our citizens
deserved a more dignified way of obtaining food, and that is why we
invested millions of tribal dollars to help shape this program into a
well-rounded experience for our citizens.
In addition to FDPIR, the Nation participates in the following USDA
programs to assist the Nation achieving our goal of providing Choctaw
citizens with quality nutrition services: WIC, Senior Farmers Market,
Summer Food Service Program, and the National School Lunch Program.
Considering the importance of agriculture in our community, the
Choctaw Nation requests this Committee and the Senate Agriculture
Committee implement the following recommendations as you move forward
in enacting the next Farm Bill:
Recommendations To Apply Throughout the 2018 Farm Bill
1. Provide tribal governmental parity with state and local
governments throughout the entire Farm Bill.
2. Allow all tribes the option to enter into Self-Determination
Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93-638, as amended, for the negotiation,
funding and administration of all USDA programs.
3. Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision
to apply across all Rural Development (RD) programs.
Conservation Title
4. Amend any reference to ``state law'' in the Conservation Title
to say ``state law or tribal law'' and any reference to ``state
technical committee'' to ``state or tribal technical committee.''
5. Codify the current Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
practice which explicitly allows a tribe or a group of tribes within a
state or region to develop traditional, ecological, knowledge-based
technical standards that control the implementation of all conservation
projects allowed under the Farm Bill.
6. Allow the use of Conservation Reserve Program land or other
lands engaged in conservation practices to be used by tribal citizens
who are beginning farmers and ranchers in ways that do not damage the
conditions of the land or resources.
7. Provide priority consideration for tribal governments, tribal
agricultural entities, and individual tribal producers, landowners, or
land operators for all conservation programs authorized in the upcoming
Farm Bill.
8. Provide priority consideration for beginning farmers and
ranchers seeking to establish or reestablish working land activities on
tribal lands and commercial activities related to the reestablishment
of working lands or the emergence of beginning farmers and ranchers who
are tribal citizens utilizing those working lands.
9. Exempt individual tribal citizens, tribal governments, and
tribal entities who are, under current law, required to compensate the
former lessee of the tribal lands for the installation or maintenance
of such practice when conservation practice installed on tribal or
individual Indian-owned land expires, or when a lease/permit expires,
since those practices have already been the subject of cost share with
the federal government. Any further payment to lessees or users of the
lands constitutes an unjust enrichment to such user of the land.
Nutrition Title
10. Remove the ``Urban Place'' definition to allow tribes and USDA
to work collaboratively to serve even more tribal citizens who need
nutritious food, regardless of where they live.
11. Require all FDPIR purchasing of foods to occur on a regional
basis and include as much locally and regionally tribal-produced food
as reasonably possible.
12. Require FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice,
salmon, blue corn, and other products) to be a regular part of food
package purchases that does not require supplemental or special
appropriations to purchase these foods.
13. Allow tribes the option to negotiate, enter into, fund and
administer Self-Determination Contracts pursuant to P.L. 93-638 for
administration of the SNAP and all other federal feeding and nutrition
assistance and training programs.
Rural Development Title
14. Provide a tribal set-aside each of USDA's RD program
authorities to address the inadequacy and general lack of rural
infrastructure in Indian Country. The trust responsibility of the
federal government to tribes provides the broad foundation for such
set-aside. Without dedicated funding for tribal rural development, the
promise of these places will never be realized and Indian Country's
infrastructure will continue to decline. In many areas around the
country, tribal governments are the strongest remaining rural
government entity. In some locations, tribal governments have taken
over the management of key infrastructure (such as water systems,
electric, and other utilities) because there is no other sound
governmental or non-governmental entity that can handle these
functions.
Forestry Title
15. Allow for greater tribal participation in the Tribal Forest
Protect Act (TFPA) projects by authorizing, whether as a mandatory
across-the-board initiative, or as a pilot program, the application of
``638'' contracting authority to TFPA projects on Forest Service or
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
16. Establish a pilot program authorizing tribes and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to conduct cooperative, discretionary forest restoration
activities on Forest Service and BLM lands adjacent to the Choctaw
Nation and other tribal reservations, using existing regulations
governing the management of Indian forests. Additional means and legal
and financial arrangements that would support the cooperative
management of forest lands with and through Tribes must be explored
with the potential to see the lands ultimately returned to the local
tribes for local governing.
17. Ensure that Indian forests are properly prioritized in fire
suppression activities and funding. Current priorities place protection
of private structures above protection of tribal forest assets held,
managed and protected by the U.S. as trustee. As a result, in the 2015
fire season, suppression crews were removed from wildfires on Indian
trust forests to protect private structures. The fires on Indian trust
forests exploded, destroying hundreds of thousands of acres and
millions of board feet of timber vitally important to tribal economies.
These priorities, allowing federally protected trust assets essential
to tribal communities to be sacrificed to protect private structures,
needs review.
18. Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian sacred
places are maintained and strengthened, and that the responsibilities
of USDA and other federal departments to consult with tribes on an
ongoing basis concerning sacred places continually occurs.
19. Create parity between Forest Service management agreement
language and NRCS determination of land control language to preserve
tribal sovereignty and rights to gather/manage traditional plant stands
and enhance opportunities for tribes to leverage Environmental Quality
Incentives Program assistance on traditional lands under Forest Service
jurisdiction.
The Choctaw Nation thanks you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on one of the most important pieces of legislation in Indian
Country. We would also like to thank our partners at USDA for the great
work that they do. We hope we can continue to build upon these
relationships as we make important improvements to the 2018 Farm Bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Wilfrid Cleveland, President, Ho-Chunk Nation
On behalf ofthe Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, we write to submit
testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
to ensure that Indian Country is included in the upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legjslation.
For some 360 years, our tribal nation was labeled as the Winnebago
Tribe by the French. In November 1994, the official results of the Ho-
Chunk Nation secretarial election were published, approving the revised
constitution and the proper name of the nation reverting to the Ho-
Chunk (People of the Big Voice) which we have always called ourselves,
thus establishing the Ho-Chunk Nation. Our territory extended from
Green Bay, beyond Lake Winnebago to the Wisconsin River and to the Rock
River in Illinois, tribal territory was by the Treaty of 1825, 8.5
million acres. The Wisconsin Ho-Chunk do not have a reservation in
Wisconsin, but portions of land that hold ``reservation'' status.
Today, all Wisconsin Ho-Chunk tribal lands are lands we once owned, but
have had to repurchase.
The Ho-Chunk Nation has recently formed an agriculture division
that will focus on growing traditional foods, and organic vegetable and
fruit production with livestock incorporated in the future.
The Ho-Chunk Nation utilizes various USDA resources and services
through multiple agencies within the government. The programs currently
used are: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Farm Service
Agency, Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, Forest
Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Considering the state of agriculture for our community, the Ho-
Chunk Nation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the
Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation
regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and all Federal Food
Assistance Programs through 638 Contracts
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
provision across all Rural Development programs
In addition, the Ho-Chunk Nation supports the following
recommendations to be included in any agriculture legislation in this
Congress.
Commodities Title
Amend Section 1606 on ``Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers'' to ensure that tribal governments, tribal entities, and
tribal producers are explicitly recognized as farmers or ranchers
eligible to participate in the program, as they are often left out even
in the ``insular areas'' provision.
Conservation Title
Develop a new section of the Conservation Title to explicitly allow
a tribe or a group of tribes within a state or region to develop
traditional, ecologica!, knowledge-based technical standards that will
control the implementation of all conservation projects allowed under
the Farm Bill. This new section would codify current NRCS practices
that encourage traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservation
and would further recognize the fact that tribal jurisdiction and use
of traditional practices to improve conservation project implementation
are decisions best left to tribal governments and individual Indian
producers who live on those lands and are engaged in ongoing activities
that are designed to improve environmental conditions, habitats, and
their lands for agricultural purposes. These traditional, ecological,
knowledge-based standards already have a solid scientific basis and are
acknowledged by various federal research organizations and agenctes.
Trade Title
Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to institute a
system by which fraudulent foods that mimic tribal foods and tribal
food businesses can be uncovered and prevented in the marketplace. Food
fraud is on the rise throughout the world, and unscrupulous food
business entities are already trying to mimic or replicate unique
tribal food products. Those businesses should not be allowed to
participate in programs that allow them to access markets with products
that perpetrate frauds on tribal food producers or food businesses.
Nutrition Title
Since 2015, several tribal leaders have consulted with the USDA
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) over significant improvements needed
to FDPIR. While tribes have made some headway with USDA, significant
legislative changes still need to occur within the FDPIR program,
including:
--Eliminating the matching funds requirement for each of the FDPIR
program sites to participate, or limiting the matching requirement to 5
percent.
--Providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state counterpart
programs by allowing them to engage in carryover of unspent funds from
year to year. This unequal treatment is problematic to tribal feeding
programs whose funding needs, particularly for food distribution
infrastructure (e.g., warehouses), could be met by allowing carryover
funding.
--Requiring FNS to continue to engage in tribal consultation.
--Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation concerning
reasonable alternatives to the regulatory-approved practice of
``tailgating'' at FDPIR program sites. No FDPIR program site should be
allowed to engage in this demeaning practice.
--Requiring FNS to consult with tribes and develop a written,
public contingency plan in the event of any lapses in funding,
disasters, governm.ent closures, or related incidents that might
interrupt or cause the stoppage of food delivery.
--Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also simultaneously
participate in SNAP. Neither program provides enough food for
participants in remote places; by allowing simultaneous usage of the
programs these two supplemental feeding programs can be combined to
actually result in addressing food insecurity.
--Requiring FNS to hire at least one national tribal liaison
located in its Washington, D.C., offices and one regional tribal
liaison located in each regional FNS office subject to a federal Native
American hiring preference or high levels of experience with tribal
communities.
--Increase nutrition education funding to at least $5 million per
year and create an alternative to competitive funding so each tribal
program receives support for nutrition education program materials
through a coordinated approach.
--Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice,
salmon, blue com, and other products) to be a regular part of food
package purchases and not require supplemental or special
appropriations to purchase these foods.
--Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation to compile a
budget for FDPIR warehouse and other infrastructure needs to be
included in its entirety in each federal budget cycle and request until
it is fully funded.
--Requiring all FDPIR purchasing and distribution to occur on a
regional basis and include as much locally and regionally tribal-
produced food as reasonably possible.
--Remove the ``Urban Place'' definition to allow tribes and the
USDA to work collaboratively to serve even more tribal citizens who
need nutritious food, regardless of where they live.
Credit Title
Explicitly exempt tribal producers from the FSA requirement of
obtaining three denial letters from private credit sources in order to
participate in an FSA loan program. The general lack of private lending
available in Indian Country renders the requirement onerous and unduly
burdensome.
Rural Development Title
Develop a process to allow small, new and emerging Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFis) access to loan authority.
The concept ofbatching and obligating all loan guarantee authority
annually is a game changer. The requirements put upon CDFis to
participate in this endeavor are patently prohibitive. Only the largest
CDFis could secure any meaningful funding levels, and some had
threatened litigation to do that.
Research Title
--Provide tribal set-asides and preferences within all non-FRTEP
NIFA funding authorities while retaining the competitive nature of the
funding, which is necessary to continue building capacity and strength.
--Amend the agricultural legal funding authority contained in the
2014 Farm Bill to ensure that competition for the funds occurs and
funding is set-aside to be provided to organizations and entities that
have a proven specialty and primary focus on Indian law issues that
intersect with food and agriculture law.
--Require NIF A funding authorities to focus a portion of their
work on building knowledge and capacity in business development unique
to tribal lands and individual Indian owned land, and approach this
work separately due to the unique complexities in tribal land use, law,
regulatory burdens, and related issues. Since business training and the
development of solid business planning tools are also necessary,
funding would be best focused around risk management education programs
and the funding authorities in this area.
--Allow tribal governments and tribal organizations full access to
all nutrition education programs at NIFA, including SNAP-Ed, and all
research programs related to building knowledge in nutrition, health,
obesity, and diabetes prevention.
--Include a set-aside in Small Business Innovation Research
projects funded through NIFA for tribal projects leading for
commercialization of food products or food systems innovations.
--Ensure that the federal formula funding authorities that support
basic research, education, and extension funding for 1862 institutions
is revisited to ensure that the institutions receiving such funds based
on the federal formula actually provide research, education, and
extension services to the tribal communities, farms, ranches, farmers,
and rural citizens who are counted in the formula that establishes
funding allocations. At present tribal interests are considered in
establishing formula allocations but there is no follow through to
determine if actual projects result in such funding allocations.
Forestry Title
Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian sacred
places are maintained and strengthened, and that the responsibilities
of USDA and other federal departments to consult with tribes on an
ongoing basis concerning sacred places continually occurs. The
Memorandum of Understanding among departments of the federal government
must be kept in place indefinitely.
Energy Title
Create a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program in the
2018 Farm Bill to help spark economic development and energy
infrastructure development in tribal communities, while providing low-
cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding rural areas. This
grant program for tribal governments and wholly owned tribal entities
would operate much like a grant in lieu of tax credit, similar to the
existing Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REP I) Program.
Further, the Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program should
specify the eligibility of tribally chartered and federally chartered
tribal corporations for rural development programs, including for
grants and loan programs, as well as any technical assistance programs
available. Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made a policy
statement that it will recognize federally charted Section 17 Tribal
Corporations as eligible entities for rural development programs, the
program should codify this and clarify that tribally chartered tribal
corporations are also eligible.
Horticulture and Specialty Crops Title
Require USDA to take steps after tribal consultation to ensure that
tribal seeds are given the maximum protection available under federal
law and not allowed to be accessed for commercialized purposes without
the consent of tribal governments. Seeds of traditional foods are among
the most sacred items to Indigenous peoples and the protection of those
seeds, not only as food sources but as important cultural systems, must
be required.
Crop Insurance Title
Encourage RMA to develop a unique crop insurance policy product
designed to cover the production systems associated with tribal food
products, tribal livestock, and traditional food systems. The
production systems associated with such products should be recognized
as Good Agricultural Practices (OAPs), and tribal producers should also
be afforded the same opportunity to pay premiums upon the sale of the
crop or livestock instead of making an up front payment.
Miscellaneous
Require the BIA to coordinate with USDA in all aspects of
supporting any tribe or individual Indian landowner that wishes to
draft and implement (including receiving Secretary of Interior support)
an Agricultural Resource Management Plan (ARMP), authorized under the
American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act of 1993 (AIARMA).
This act has never been fully implemented, and only a few tribes and
individual Indian landowners have placed a plan in motion. The BIA,
working in concert with USDA, should prioritize finding resources to
assist tribes (including technical assistance resources) in
establishing plans authorized under the act. The BIA should be required
to accept any conservation plan or forest management plan conducted by
the NRCS or USFS agencies within USDA as equivalent to any
environmental assessment deemed necessary in implementing the AIARMA.
Tribes and individual Indian landowner should not be required to
conduct a full NEP A analysis to conduct food and agriculture
operations on their lands. The requirement is far more excessive than
any applicable law, and this interpretation violates principles of
rights to food, food access, environmental or food justice, and food
sovereignty. An ARMP created pursuant to the AIARMA should be allowed
as a fundable EQIP practice, and exempted from full NEPA analysis.
In closing, the Ho-Chunk Nation urges the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the
upcoming Farm Bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph Wildcat, President, Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Tribe in Wisconsin, we write to submit testimony for the record urging
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is
included in the upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
Historv & Background of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Waaswagonning, or Place of the Torch, was settled in 1745 by an
Ojibwe Tribal leader named Kilshkiman, and was later named Lac du
Flambeau by French fur-traders. Through the Treaties of 1847 and 1854,
the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation was established. Located in
Northern Wisconsin, the Reservation covers approximately 86,500 acres,
including 41,733 acres of forested uplands, 24,000 acres of wetlands,
and 17,897 acres of lakes and rivers (49 percent of the Reservation's
areas is covered by lakes, rivers and wetlands), within Vilas, Oneida,
and Iron Counties. Reservation land status includes trust (Tribal and
allotted) 66 percent and fee land 34 percent. There are currently over
4000 enrolled members, with approximately over 1,800 members residing
on the Reservation. Also, there is a high population of non-members
living within the Reservation boundaries.
Under the Treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854, in the ceded
territories of Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, the Tribe retains and
exercises their rights to hunt, fish and gather as well as for
cultural, spiritual and recreational practices. The Tribal population
depends on resources from both reservation and ceded territory to
sustain subsistence practices. Water is vital to the cultural,
spiritual and economic survival of the Lac du Flambeau Band. The name
of Lac du Flambeau or Waswawagonning reflects the connection of the
Band and its water-based natural resources. Traditional fishing
activities, as well as subsistence hunting and gathering, are also
dependent on those waters. Traditional beliefs and sacred places rely
on the purity of the waters for their vitality. The ties to water, have
existed from time immemorial, and the Band continues to rely heavily on
the Reservation waters and natural resources for its economic and
cultural survival.
Tribal Agriculture/USDA protects
The Tribe currently operates the Golden Eagle Farm on the
reservation; that grows strawberries, blueberries, and pumpkins for
purchase to the public and tribal elder use.
The Tribe is solely responsible for aquaculture management that
stocks walleye, musky, trout, sturgeon, etc. within the reservation and
in the ceded territory areas. There are approximately 200 +lakes,
rivers and streams within the reservation.
The Tribe is responsible for the management and restoration of wild
rice within the reservation as well as assisting the work in the ceded
territories.
The Tribe has utilized USDA funding to build infrastructure for
water & sewer, buildings and forestry management programs and the need
continues to improvements and upgrades.
Considering the state of agriculture for our community, the Lac du
Flambeau Tribe requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the
Senate Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation
regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Governments
throughout the entire Farm Bill Tribal Administration of the SNAP and
all Federal Food Assistance Programs through 638 Contracts Expand the
Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision across all Rural
Development programs In addition, the Lac Du Flambeau Tribe supports
the following recommendations to be included in any agriculture
legislation in this Congress.
Commodities
Amend Definitions for the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance
Programs
Section 1501(a)(l)(B)(iv) must be amended to read: ``a
corporation, limited liability corporation, or other farm
organizational structure organized under Federal, State law and
Tribal law.'' This addition creates parity for tribal
governments and acknowledges the authority of entities
organized under tribal law or under federal law such as Section
17 corporations.
Update the livestock definition in Section 150l(a)(3) to
include other commonly raised livestock like ``reindeer,''
``caribou,'' ``elk,'' ``horses,'' or other animals raised or
harvested in tribal communities. All of these animals must be
further recognized as a livestock and eligible for full
protection and program participation Department-wide.
Increase livestock Indemnity Payments for Tribal Producers to 90
Percent
The current 75 percent Livestock Indemnity Payment under
Section 1501(b) to eligible producers who have incurred
livestock death lasses above the normal mortality rate, does
not address the lack of land equity that exists for tribal
producers on trust lands, and the unique challenges tribal
livestock producers have in obtaining secure markets for their
animals, which generally causes a lower rate of market return.
To put tribal producers on equal footing, indemnity payments
for tribally owned livestock should be increased to 90 percent.
Ensure Tribal Eligibility in the livestock Forage Disaster Program
A new provision under Section 1501(c) must be added to
protect tribal producers' eligibility in the Livestock Forage
Disaster Program through issues of federal government
preclusion outside of their control. For example, instances
relating to ``normal carrying capacity'' may inadvertently
exclude some tribal producers if the Bureau of Indian Affairs
does not negotiate or recognize the specific environmental or
other variances that impact production.
Due to the unique challenges facing tribal livestock and
forage producers, all other provisions of the program shall
ensure that payment rates are set at 90 percent levels (as
opposed to any lower rates identified in the law for non-tribal
producers).
Explicitly exempt tribal producers from any limitations on
receiving payments on any losses due to fire on ``public
managed land.'' Tribal lands are not ``public'' lands.
Farm Service Agency Co11nty Committee
Amend the FSA County Committee determinations on normal
grazing periods and drought monitor intensity to be established
at the national FSA office to ensure that separate carrying
capacities and normal grazing periods for each type of grazing
land or pastureland are set at different rates for tribal lands
and individual Indian-owned land after tribal consultation.
Require FSA to do an assessment based on Census data and
Agricultural Census data to determine the population makeup of
the county and conduct tribal consultation with tribal
governments to guarantee that tribal citizens s are effectively
and efficiently notified of the opportunity to be nominated and
considered for county committee membership. All FSA county
committees in predominantly tribal population areas and/or
tribal land base areas should have predominantly Native
membership and should reference the local administrative areas,
which are the voting districts mapped by FSA county committees.
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish
Explicitly include tribes and individual Indian producers as
eligible for Commodity Credit Corporation emergency relief
funds for livestock, bees, and farm-raised fish under Section
150l(d).
Trees
Make tribal producers eligible for 80-90 percent of the cost
of replacement, salvage, pruning, removal, or preparing the
land or replanting under Section 150l(e). This ensures that the
higher cost of providing these remediation activities on tribal
lands and individual Indian-owned land is accommodated within
the limitations of the program and tribal governments.
Recognize tribal business entities organized under tribal
law and individual tribal producers as ``legal entities'' and
``persons'' allowed to participate in the program.
Rulemaking Related to Significant Contribution for Active Personal
Management
Amend Section 1604 regulations related to ``active personal
management'' or ``active engagement in farming/ranching'' to
recognize that tribal producers, tribal business entities, and
tribal governments should not be excluded from any
determination of ``active personal management/engagement''
simply by the existence of an active lease relating to their
lands.
Require the Secretary of Agriculture to engage in tribal
consultation concerning the application of this requirement to
tribal producers.
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Amend Section 1606 on ``Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers
and Ranchers'' to ensure that tribal governments, tribal
entities, and tribal producers are explicitly recognized as
farmers or ranchers eligible to participate in the program, as
they are often left out even in the ``insular areas''
provision.
Base Acres
Require the Secretary to consult with tribal governments
regarding the determination and election of ``base acres''
applicable to all programs under the Commodity Title.
Conservation
Recognition of Traditional, Ecological Knowledge-Based Conservation
Develop a new section of the Conservation Title to
explicitly allow a tribe or a group of tribes within a state or
region to develop traditional, ecological, knowledge-based
technical standards that will control the implementation of all
conservation projects allowed under the Farm Bill. This new
section would codify current NRCS practices that encourage
traditional, ecological, knowledge-based conservation and would
further recognize the fact that tribal jurisdiction and use of
traditional practices to improve conservation project
implementation are decisions best left to tribal governments
and individual Indian producers who live on those lands and are
engaged in ongoing activities that are designed to improve
environmental conditions, habitats, and their lands for
agricultural purposes. These traditional, ecological,
knowledge-based standards already have a solid scientific basis
and are acknowledged by various federal research organizations
and agencies.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) And Availability for Beginning
Tribal Farmers and Ranchers
Create a new section of the Conservation Title to allow the
use of CRP land or other lands engaged in conservation
practices to be used by tribal citizens who are beginning
farmers and ranchers in ways that do not damage the conditions
of the land or resources.
Include Tribal Priorities in Definition of Priority Resource Concerns
Amend the definition of ``Priority Resource Concerns'' in
Section 12380(5) of the Farm Bill to include any natural
resource as determined by the Secretary that is identified at
the national, state, tribal or local level as a priority for a
particular area of a state or tribal area and to consider
environmental disaster mitigation as a priority resource
concern.
Allow Lands Held in Common and by Tribal Entities to Access
Conservation Programs
Create a new section of the Conservation Title or in
sections related to eligibility determinations to ensure that
lands held in common, such as reservation lands that are
controlled and farmed/ranched by groups of individuals, can
participate in all Conservation Title programs and that special
provisions are enacted in regulations to ensure that any tribal
government-allowed entity is the recognized conservation
program participant (as opposed to specific individuals).
Priority for Enrollment of Tribal Lands in the Conservation Reserve
Program
Section 200 I of the 2014 Farm Bill establishes priorities
for the Secretary to consider when implementing the
Conservation Reserve Program and Conservation Priority Areas.
Due to the prolonged periods that tribal lands and individual
Indian-owned lands have been under-enrolled in conservation
programs and due to the needs of those acres and watersheds to
have focused attention on enrollment in conservation programs
and utilization of conservation practices, all tribal lands
falling under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
tribal governments, tribal agricultural entities, and
individual tribal producers, landowners, or land operators
should receive mandatory priority consideration for all
conservation programs authorized in the upcoming Farm Bill.
Further priority should be given to beginning farmers and
ranchers seeking to establish or reestablish working land
activities on tribal lands and commercial activities related to
the reestablishment of working lands or the emergence of
beginning farmers and ranchers who are tribal citizens
utilizing those working lands. In any ranking activity
conducted by USDA officials to determine which lands or
resources to enroll in a conservation program allowed under
this title, the Secretary and/or state conservationists or
technical committees (state or tribal) shall give priority to
tribal lands for enrollment in relevant programs, provided
these lands or resources also meet requirements for inclusion
in the programs.
Notice Regarding Conservation Activities and ARMP Compliance
Ensure conservation activities will be required to be in
conformance with the tribal government's Agricultural Resource
Management Plan, if one is in place, and that proper
individuals or officials receive adequate notice of
conservation activities.
Recognizing Tribal Law Parity
Amend any reference to ``state law'' in the Conservation
Title to say ``state law or tribal law'' and any reference to
``state technical committee'' to ``state technical committee or
tribal technical committee.'' Tribal Technical Committee
Require each state conservationist to establish a separate
tribal technical committee should any tribal headquarters exist
within their state boundaries or any land exist under the
jurisdiction of tribal governments or the BIA. These tribal
technical committees shall be given the same respect and
deference that is currently given to the state technical
committee, and each tribal technical committee shall be able to
establish separate technical standards utilizing traditional
ecological knowledge and, to the extent that they do so, such
standards shall be the technical standards under which
conservation programming can be deployed on tribal lands.
Require establishment of state-level inter-tribal, regional
inter-tribal, and national tribal advisory committees regarding
conservation matters.
Alternative Funding Arrangements--EQIP and Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP)
The 2014 Farm Bill allowed for entering into alternative
funding arrangements with tribal governments to carry out the
intention of the EQIP program and the CSP if the Secretary
determined that the goals and objectives of the law would be
met by such arrangements and that statutory limitations on
entering arrangements with individual producers would not be
exceeded. This provision needs more attention and improved
implementation to ensure that each tribal government is offered
the opportunity for alternative arrangements.
Tribal Conservation Technical Committee
Authorize the Secretary to work with the BIA and a technical
committee made up of tribal government representatives from
each of the BIA regions to formulate a set of initiatives and
programs that can be carried out under existing laws as well as
a set of programs that may be needed under future conservation
program authorities to improve the conditions of tribal lands
and individual Indian-owned lands throughout the United States.
This interdepartmental entity shall be put in place no later
than 12 months after the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill and
shall issue its report no later than 24 months after passage of
the 2018 Farm Bill. The interdepartmental efficiencies and
improvements shall be undertaken immediately upon the issuance
of the interdepartmental report, and annual reports of
improvements and actions taken under this provision shall be
made to Congress.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Create a pilot program to explore the use of livestock to
improve soil health in CRP fields, and allow for a rental rate
over and above the CRP payment to be made to the producer.
Scientific studies have demonstrated the effect that a lack of
animal impact can have on the soil. This program would seek to
determine the impacts and benefits of this pilot program, for
consideration in subsequent iterations of the Farm Bill or
conservation legislation. Preference in the use of this land
would be afforded first to SDR producers, Young and Beginning
Producers, and then to customary producers. The more need that
is met through the rental agreement, the smaller the reduction
in CRP payment.
Beginning Producers in Conservation Programs
Encourage and allow all beginning producers to participate
in conservation programs and amend all conservation programs to
incentivize beginning producers by removing the ``one year of
control'' requirement.
Rollback CSP Program to 2013 Standards
Reinstitute the CSP program to 2013 standards.
Next Generation Easement
Incorporate a new ``next generation easement'' in
conservation programs. This ``easement'' should incorporate tax
credits for landowners who are mentoring new and beginning
producers and should include a death tax ``write-off' for farm
transfer to the next generation.
Trade
Expand Market Access Program (MAP)
Expand MAP by substantially increasing the funding available
to the existing agreements that facilitate coordination and
administration of the MAP program and result in increasing
tribal food business participation in the program so that
tribal audiences and more tribal food and agriculture
businesses can benefit from the program. The impact of such
engagement will further solidify local food economies and food
businesses and stabilize tribal economies.
Supporting Unique Tribal Foods and Fighting Native Food Fraud
Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
institute a system by which fraudulent foods that mimic tribal
foods and tribal food businesses can be uncovered and prevented
in the marketplace. Food fraud is on the rise throughout the
world, and unscrupulous food business entities are already
trying to mimic or replicate unique tribal food products. Those
businesses should not be allowed to participate in programs
that allow them to access markets with products that perpetrate
frauds on tribal food producers or food businesses.
No Additional Compensation for Expired Conservation Measures
When a conservation practice installed on tribal or
individual Indian-owned land expires, or when a lease/permit
expires, do not require individual tribal citizens, tribal
governments, or tribal entities to compensate the former lessee
of the tribal lands for the installation or maintenance of such
practice since those practices have already been the subject of
cost share with the federal government. Any further payment to
lessees or users of the lands would constitute a windfall or
unjust enrichment to such user of the land.
NRCS Report on Natural Resource Inventory Investments Needs on Tribal
Lands
Require USDA-NRCS to immediately develop a report to be
delivered to all tribal governments and individual Indian
producers identifying which tribal lands still need proper
Natural Resource Inventory funding support to perform soil and
range surveys to create a baseline report of needs for said
lands.
Traditional Ecological Knowledge Consideration for Conservation
Compliance
Consider traditional ecological knowledge whenever the
Secretary determines the level of compliance of landowners who
have lands or resources enrolled in any of the Conservation
Title programs, particularly when determining whether a
meaningful stewardship threshold has been reached.
BIA Actions Responsible for Non-Compliance
Do not determine any tribal landowner or operator of lands
in violation of any term of a conservation program enrollment
requirement when the BIA can be established as the cause for
any alleged non-compliance, whether through delay in action,
other non-action in decision-making requirements, or any other
reason.
Tribal Priority in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Give priority consideration to tribal governments, tribal
entities, and individual tribal landowners and operators to
participate in EQIP program activities, in addition to the 5
percent tribal set-aside. This priority shall be widely
advertised throughout each state in which the lands are
located, and each tribal headquarters in the state shall
receive notice of all activities related to the EQIP program.
Tribal and individual Indian landowners and operators shall be
entitled to additional priority for any activities related to
organic and organic transition practices on their farms and
ranches. Each tribal government shall be invited to at least
two meetings with the state conservationist in a government-to-
government conversation concerning the implementation of NRCS
conservation programs that could be beneficial to tribal lands.
When requested by tribal headquarters, the state
conservationist shall enter into cooperative agreements and
other activities that will establish a plan by which NRCS
programming will be deployed on tribal lands for which the
tribal government has an ongoing plan for conserving and
protecting habitat, grasslands, rangelands, and other lands and
land uses within tribal jurisdiction.
Tribal Parity in the Conservation Title
Include a provision in all sections of the Conservation
Title allowing tribal governments, tribal producers, and tribal
entities or organizations created for conservation and natural
resource protection purposes to have full access to every
program allowed under the Conservation Title. Wherever
reference is made to ``state'' or ``local'' or ``regional''
agricultural producer, the terms ``tribal'' should be inserted
into that section to ensure that inadvertent failure to list
tribal governments, tribal producers, or tribal organizations
does not preclude them from participating or relegate them to a
lesser importance or priority within the relevant section.
Technical Assistance Funding for Tribal Governments and Organizations
Due to the relatively low use of all conservation programs
on tribal lands and individual Indian-owned land, give the
Secretary the authority to create a permanent fund within the
available technical assistance funding authorities,
appropriations, and programs to ensure that specialized
technical assistance is made avaiJable on a continual basis to
tribal governments, tribal organizations, and tribal landowners
and producers throughout Indian Country, including in all
tribal areas of Alaska and Hawaii. These targeted technical
assistance funds shall be given priority to tribal
organizations that have an established record of providing
technical assistance to tribal audiences and shall demonstrate
their knowledge of and ability to successfully complete
projects involving conservation programming with tribal
audiences. The funding shall not be provided to predominately
non-Native organizations with little to no experience and
knowledge of working with tribal audiences. Multi-year
cooperative agreements should be authorized under such
technical assistance programs.
Interdepartmental Coordination to Support Tribal Trade
Include Indian Country as the USDA develops a stronger
relationship with the Department of Commerce on food and
agriculture trade. A special interdepartmental coordination
group with USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of State,
and other applicable agencies should be created to ensure that
tribal food production is properly supported and encouraged on
tribal lands and is thereafter made a part of the U.S. trade
missions and efforts to promote agricultural trade.
Tribal Representatives on U.S. Trade Missions
Include tribal governments, tribal food businesses, and
individual tribal food producers on all foreign trade missions
undertaken by the United States to further assist the access of
tribal food products to such markets. Study 011 Tribal
Representation on USDA Advisory Bodies
Require the Secretary to study all Trade Title programs to
ensure that tribal representatives are included on all advisory
bodies related to agricultural trade issues and concerns.
Nutrition
Tribal Administration of the SNAP and All Federal Food Assistance
Programs
Provide tribal governments and tribal organizations the
direct authority to administer SNAP and all other federal food
assistance programs which they are currently not allowed to
directly manage. This can be achieved by providing tribes with
``638'' self-governance contract authority for nutrition
programs which exists for Department of the Interior and Indian
Health Service programs. Allowing tribes to take over these
functions from the federal government will improve efficiency,
reduce regulatory burdens, and support tribal self-governance
and self-determination.
Improvements to the FDPIR and Other Federal Feeding Programs
Since 2015, several tribal leaders have consulted with the
USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) over significant
improvements needed to FDPIR. While tribes have made some
headway with USDA, significant legislative changes still need
to occur within the FDPIR program, including:
--Eliminating the matching funds requirement for each of the
FDPIR program sites to participate, or limiting the matching
requirement to 5 percent.
--Providing tribal feeding sites with parity to state
counterpart programs by allowing them to engage in carryover of
unspent funds from year to year. This unequal treatment is
problematic to tribal feeding programs whose funding needs,
particularly for food distribution infrastructure (e.g.,
warehouses), could be met by allowing carryover funding.
--Requiring FNS to continue to engage in tribal consultation.
--Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation concerning
reasonable alternatives to the regulatory-approved practice of
``tailgating'' at FDPIR program sites. No FDPIR program site
should be allowed to engage in this demeaning practice.
--Requiring FNS to consult with tribes and develop a written,
public contingency plan in the event of any lapses in funding,
disasters, government closures, or related incidents that might
interrupt or cause the stoppage of food delivery.
--Allowing those who participate in FDPIR to also
simultaneously participate in SNAP. Neither program provides
enough food for participants in remote places; by allowing
simultaneous usage of the programs these two supplemental
feeding programs can be combined to actually result in
addressing food insecurity.
--Requiring FNS to hire at least one national tribal liaison
located in its Washington, D.C., offices and one regional
tribal liaison located in each regional FNS office subject to a
federal Native American hiring preference or high levels of
experience with tribal communities.
--Increase nutrition education funding to at least $5 million
per year and create an alternative to competitive funding so
each tribal program receives support for nutrition education
program materials through a coordinated approach.
--Requiring FDPIR traditional food purchases (bison, wild rice,
salmon, blue com, and other products) to be a regular part of
food package purchases and not require supplemental or special
appropriations to purchase these foods.
--Requiring FNS to engage in tribal consultation to compile a
budget for FDPIR warehouse and other infrastructure needs to be
included in its entirety in each federal budget cycle and
request until it is fully funded.
--Requiring all FDPIR purchasing and distribution to occur on a
regional basis and include as much locally and regionally
tribal-produced food as reasonably possible.
-- Remove the ``Urban Place'' definition to allow tribes and
the USDA to work collaboratively to serve even more tribal
citizens who need nutritious food, regardless of where they
live.
Credit
Structuring Loans to Suit the Business
Authorize several innovative loan structuring measures in
the 2018 Farm Bill. For example, currently FSA will lend 100
percent the cost of bred livestock. It will then subordinate
its lien position to a local commercial lender for annual
production costs, increasing the amount of debt secured by the
same amount of assets, sometimes by as much as 25 percent. If
the first year of operating expenses could be included in the
original loan, and amortized over the life of the secured
asset, producers would end the year with cash in the bank,
allowing producers to take advantage of pricing opportunities
on input materials, replacement stock, or expansion
opportunities. Such an approach would incentivize operating
from available resources, instead of what could be borrowed on
an annual basis.
Debt Restructuring for FSA Planning Prices
When commodity price cycles run contrary to the mandated FSA
Planning Prices, despite a producer's inclination to plan
conservatively, producers are often faced with choice of
accepting a plan based on those planning prices or shutting
down their operation. In cases that FSA planning prices are
more than 20 percent higher than the actual prices, a producer
should be able to restructure their debt in a way that will not
count towards lifetime limits on loan servicing.
Socially Disadvantaged Interest Rate
Update the Socially Disadvantaged Rate (SDR) interest rate
for FSA loans from a static number (currently 5 percent) to be
indexed to the prevailing rate and set a commensurate
proportion of that rate, 50 percent of the standard rate. The
current rate was set years ago when the prevailing interest
rate was in the double digits and should already have been
revisited and revised.
FSA Food Loan Authority
Under current program guidelines, there is some latitude for
producers whose production will take a period to fully ramp up.
Initial payments can be made at an 18-month mark rather than
within the first year. This same methodology should be employed
for producers wishing to take their raw product to the next
step in the value chain. Keepseagle-Ciass Forgiveness
The Keepseagle litigation proved there was a systemic and
deeply rooted history of discrimination at the USDA against
Native and other producers. While Native Americans could avail
themselves of the opportunity for debt settlement and a small
monetary award to attempt to make them whole, some successful
claimants also received a ``clean slate'' when dealing with the
FSA in the future. With only 3,000 successful claimants of an
anticipated 12,000 potential claimants, many Native producers,
still feeling the disenfranchisement of decades of disparate
treatment, did not take part in the claims process. Allowing
the larger pool of potential Keepseagle claimants to experience
a ``clean slate'' would be a no-cost change that would improve
future opportunities for many tribal producers.
Remove tile Graduation Requirement for FSA programs
Due to the general lack of credit availability on and near
Indian reservations, it is difficult to access viable credit
rates for even experienced producers operating farms and
ranches on trust lands. Removing the statutory requirement for
producers on Indian reservations to have graduated from FSA
programs would allow agriculture operations to be more stable
and assist other producers who farm and ranch in areas where
credit access is tenuous at best.
Remove tile Requirement for Private Credit Denial
Explicitly exempt tribal producers from the FSA requirement
of obtaining three denial letters from private credit sources
in order to participate in an FSA loan program. The general
lack of private lending available in Indian Country renders the
requirement onerous and unduly burdensome.
Create Common Definition of Land Owned by Indian Tribes across All USDA
Currently, there is no common definition of ``land owned by
Indian Tribes'' across all USDA programs, creating inconsistent
program access even within programs run by a single agency.
Miscellaneous
Fully Fund tile Office of Tribal Relations at USDA
Fund the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) at a minimum of
$1.5 million, because insufficient funding limits OTR's ability
to provide the programs, technical assistance, content, or even
the basic communications to tribes and tribal producers
regarding USDA's education and training programs. Adequate
funding is essential to carrying out OTR duties, including the
oversight of all USDA tribal consultation.
Authorize tile Establishment of an Office of Tribal Agriculture
Establish a broad reaching Office of Tribal Agriculture
within the Office of the Secretary to coordinate all USDA
programs as those programs apply to tribes, maximize the value
of the programs, address issues in compliance and access of
programs that are carried out within USDA, and serve as a
liaison between the USDA, tribes, and individual Indian
producers. Among other requirements, the Office of Tribal
Agriculture should periodically report to the House Committee
on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry at least once each fiscal year on the
activities and progress in advancing tribal agriculture. The
Office should also report annually to the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs. The Office of Tribal Agriculture should receive
an appropriation of $2 million for each fiscal year.
Tax Credits or other Tax Incentives for Buying Indian Food and
Agriculture Products
The 2018 Farm Bill should create a new ``Buy Indian'' tax
credit or other tax incentives to encourage consumers and those
within the food supply chain to buy American Indian and Alaska
Native food products. This will not only help Native food
products in the supply chain, it will also provide incentive
for distributors, retailers, and related food purchasers to
examine Native food product purchases to meet their food supply
needs.
Increase Cooperative Agreements between APHIS and Tribes
Enhanced authority for the livestock and plant disease
agency of the USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS)--could dramatically increase the number of cooperative
agreements it has with tribal governments and tribal
organizations. Since tribal lands and individual Indian-owned
land are among the most remote in the United States, it is
important to ensure that animal and plant health is monitored
closely and that animal and plant disease is dealt with
properly and in ways that do not cripple Native agriculture and
food production. Increasing the amount of funding of
cooperative agreements is an important way to not only further
the growth of agriculture management and governmental control
at the tribal government level, but also meet the goals and
concerns of APHIS.
Recognize Tribal Departments of Food and Agriculture
Permanently recognize and incorporate Tribal Departments
charged with administration of Agriculture and Food Systems
into the ongoing interface of all agencies within USDA and the
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at USDA with other offices
of government.
Country of Original Labeling and Beef Checkoff
Reinstate Country of Origin Labeling and create a set-aside
within the Beef Check off funds that is devoted to the
marketing and promotion of Native American Beef. Education,
Training and Scholarship Programs to Support Native Producers
and Scientists.
Develop a new program that focuses on educating and training
the tribal agriculture labor force, provides key scholarships
to Native producers, and encourages Native scholars and
scientists to focus on food and agriculture. USDA currently has
multiple internship, scholarship, mentoring, and other programs
focused on increasing the diversity of American agriculture by
educating the next generation of tribal leaders in food and
agriculture. However, Native representation is low, and
outreach to Native communities is weak. A Native scholarship
program should be adequately funded and coordinated throughout
the land grant system. A minimum of $10 million is needed to
adequately endow a centralized scholarship fund for Native
youth and scholars. This program should be managed by the
Office of Tribal Relations and any new Office of Tribal
Agriculture.
Maintain and Fund the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network
Permanently maintain and fund the Intertribal Technical
Assistance Network, which has been in place for more than five
years through a cooperative agreement between USDA and the
Intertribal Agriculture Council, through contributions from
each of the agencies and offices of USDA. This effort should be
funded at least $3 million annually, and it must continue to
maintain regional offices in each of the 12 BIA regions to
ensure access for all Native producers. interdepartmental Task
Force 011 Indian Agriculture
Create an Interdepartmental Task Force on Indian Agriculture
with the Office of Tribal Relations, the Office of the
Secretary, and representatives of each of the agencies and
offices of USDA, along with the BIA. The purpose of the Task
Force shall be to develop administrative efficiency and
regulatory changes needed to ensure Native agriculture is
supported and allowed to increase. The Task Force must report
annually to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
Interior.
OAO Outreach and Internships for Native Students
Require the USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) to
fund internships for Native students at a level equal to the
number of internships the office supports for any other
socially disadvantaged group (e.g., Hispanic, African American,
Asian American, women, etc.). The OAO has been inconsistent in
funding these internships for Native students, and they should
be required to do so if they fund members of other groups. The
Tribal Liaison position within the OAO that focuses on the
relationship between the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium (AIHEC) and USDA (and staffs the joint leadership
council of AIHEC and USDA officials) should be moved to the
Office of Tribal Relations.
Coordination with BIA on Agricultural Resource Management Plan
Require the BIA to coordinate with USDA in all aspects of
supporting any tribe or individual Indian landowner that wishes
to draft and implement (including receiving Secretary of
Interior support) an Agricultural Resource Management Plan
(ARMP), authorized under the American Indian Agricultural
Resource Management Act of 1993 (AIARMA). This act has never
been fully implemented, and only a few tribes and individual
Indian landowners have placed a plan in motion. The BIA,
working in concert with USDA, should prioritize finding
resources to assist tribes (including technical assistance
resources) in establishing plans authorized under the act. The
BIA should be required to accept any conservation plan or
forest management plan conducted by the NRCS or USFS agencies
within USDA as equivalent to any environmental assessment
deemed necessary in implementing the AIARMA. Tribes and
individual Indian landowner should not be required to conduct a
full NEPA analysis to conduct food and agriculture operations
on their lands. The requirement is far more excessive than any
applicable law, and this interpretation violates principles of
rights to food, food access, environmental or food justice, and
food sovereignty. An ARMP created pursuant to the AIARMA should
be allowed as a fundable EQIP practice, and exempted from full
NEPA analysis.
Increase FSMA Technical Assistance Funding for Tribal Producers
An increase in Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) training
and technical assistance funding for tribal producers must
occur. There are unique legal, jurisdictional, production,
water, land use, and related issues and concerns regarding its
implementation that will inhibit tribal food production if not
addressed through enhanced food safety training and technical
assistance. The Native American Outreach, Training, Technical
Assistance, and Education cooperative agreement funded through
the FDA attempts to reach the technical assistance and training
needs of tribal producers, but USDA is not funding such efforts
on a regular basis and FDA funding is not at the level
necessary to cover the needs of producers in more than 30
states and with 567 tribes. The Farm Bill should require that
the FDA and USDA double the amount of funding received by the
Native outreach organization, since that organization is
required to conduct activities that cover twice the land base
that any other regional training center covers. The Farm Bill
should also require that the USDA fund an additional equivalent
amount of activities to ensure that tribal producers are
reached with this information, which is vital to their
compliance and their ability to reach markets for their
products. USDA and FDA must conduct joint tribal consultation
with regard to any current and future interpretations of the
FSMA rules in order to determine potential continuing impacts
on Indian Country producers and food businesses. Produce Safety
Alliance (PSC) at Cornell University designs a]) approved
curriculum on FDA FSMA implementation but the curriculum is not
appropriate to the legal, jurisdictional, land, and water
resources or food systems in Indian Country and appropriate
curriculum and resources must be focused on the needs of Indian
Country producers.
Tribal Representation on All Federal Advisory Committees
Require USDA to recruit and appoint tribal citizens to each
of the more than 100 federal advisory committees it seats and
supports. In addition, the Council for Native American Farming
and Ranching should receive funding to support its work, and it
should become a permanent FACA advising the Secretary and USDA.
Weather Reporting Stations
Energy
Establish a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program
Create a Tribal Bio-Based Energy Development Grant Program
in the 2018 Farm Bill to help spark economic development and
energy infrastructure development in tribal communities, while
providing low-cost energy to tribal communities and surrounding
rural areas. This grant program for tribal governments and
wholly owned tribal entities would operate much like a grant in
lieu of tax credit, similar to the existing Renewable Energy
Production Incentive (REPI) Program. Further, the Tribal Bio-
Based Energy Development Grant Program should specify the
eligibility of tribally chartered and federally chartered
tribal corporations for rural development programs, including
for grants and loan programs, as well as any technical
assistance programs available. Since the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has made a policy statement that it will recognize
federally charted Section 17 Tribal Corporations as eligible
entities for rural development programs, the program should
codify this and clarify that tribally chartered tribal
corporations are also eligible.
Horticulture and Specialty Crops
Tribal Consultation on Fruit and Vegetable Programs
Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies
primarily responsible for specialty crops to engage in ongoing
tribal consultation concerning the impact and growth of the
fruit and vegetable sector within Indian Country and the
opportunities and challenges that can be positively impacted by
changes in USDA regulations.
Tribal Inclusion in tile Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
Change the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program to ensure that
tribal departments of food and agriculture are eligible for
funding under this important program and that tribal projects
are not required to go through state funding mechanisms at
state departments of agriculture to receive support. There are
very few tribal projects that currently receive support and, at
the same time, the number of tribal departments of agriculture
is likely to continue to grow over time. This program is
critical to the growth of this sector in Indian Country, and
tribal sovereignty must be respected by allowing these new
departments to receive funding parity.
Honey and Beekeeping Reports
Include the growth and increase in beekeeping and honey
operations in Indian Country in any reports on honey or
beekeeping
Tribal Farmers, Markets
Require that a minimum of 10 percent of available funding in
farmers' market and local food promotion programs grant funding
authorities go to tribal and tribal producer farmer's markets
and local food promotion activities. All definitions of
farmers' market and local food promotion activities must ensure
that tribal food systems and producers are not excluded from
participation based on the unique ways that such markets and
activities iterate in Indian Country.
Support for Tribal Organic Producers
Launch a special program in USDA designed to increase
technical assistance to those within Indian Country who are
interested and prepared to transition to organic production.
Increased Support for FSMA Outreach
Ensure that tribes and tribal producers receive adequate
technical assistance from USDA and/or Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on the Food Safety Modernization Act
of2011 (FSMA) and that the ongoing implementation of FSMA does
not inequitably or disproportionately negatively impact Indian
Country food systems. The impact of FSMA implementation on
tribal producers is different from the impact on any other U.S.
producer due to the unique land base, legal jurisdiction, and
production systems in Indian Country. At present, there is not
enough funding to adequately reach tribal producers to ensure
their knowledge of and compliance with FSMA requirements. In
addition, the unique legal and political systems in Indian
Country are not taken into consideration by USDA or FDA in
fashioning approaches to FSMA compliance.
Protecting Native Foods in the Marketplace
Require USDA to work with tribal governments, tribal
organizations, and tribal producers to develop programs that
are designed to protect the integrity of Native food products
from fraudulent versions of their foods in the marketplace. The
federal trust relationship requires that USDA work with tribal
governments, tribal food companies, and tribal food producers
to ensure that market regulatory mechanisms can be used to
augment the ability and inherent legal authority of tribes to
protect their unique food products. This can be done through
geographic inteUectual property mechanisms put in place by
tribal governments to protect unique tribal foods or other
appropriate legal mechanisms that must receive recognition by
the federal government. These processes for protection should
be fully supported and recognized by USDA.
Protect Tribal Seeds and Traditional Foods
Require USDA to take steps after tribal consultation to
ensure that tribal seeds are given the maximum protection
avai1able under federal law and not all owed to be accessed for
commercialized purposes without the consent of tribal
governments. Seeds of traditional foods are among the most
sacred items to Indigenous peoples and the protection of those
seeds, not only as food sources but as important cultural
systems, must be required.
Crop Insurance
Parity for Indian Country And Production
With more than 50 percent of the $3.4 billion Indian
Agriculture Industry being comprised of cattle, it is critical
to design risk management products that meet the need.
Currently there are few options available, and those that do
exist require up-front premium payments (LFP, LRP). Simply
changing the timing of premium payment to coincide with
production would ease the burden of participation for Indian
producers. Increasing the federal subsidy rate for this type of
programs has also been demonstrated to incentivize
participation and mitigate federal outlay in times of disaster.
RMA Study on Crop Insurance in Indian Country
Require the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to conduct a study
to ascertain the efficacy and applicability of the current crop
insurance products as they relate to Indian Country agriculture
production as indicated by the 2012 National Agricultural
Statistics Service And Census. If that study reveals that
either the specific crop insurance products or the general
guidance documents of RMA do not adequately consider unique
tribal production issues, a separate administrative guidance or
notice should be issued by RMA to solve these concerns, and
unique crop insurance products and crop insurance
administration systems should be pursued.
Development of Crop Insurance for Traditional Foods and Livestock
Encourage RMA to develop a unique crop insurance policy
product designed to cover the production systems associated
with tribal food products, tribal livestock, and traditional
food systems. The production systems associated with such
products should be recognized as Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs), and tribal producers should also be afforded the same
opportunity to pay premiums upon the sale of the crop or
livestock instead of making an up-front payment.
Tribal Producer Education Programs
Ensure that at least 10 percent of all projects funded
through RMA' s Risk Management Education Program are focused on
tribal producer risk management training needs and tribal food
production systems and the unique risks associated with those
systems.
Allow Tribal Insurance Companies to Insure Tribal Producers
Engage AMERIND Risk, a 100 percent tribally owned and
operated insurance provider, to begin the process of offering
crop insurance products in Indian Country because it has
significant experience offering and underwriting insurance
needs in Indian Country and serves a national intertribal
audience. The current crop insurance research, product
development, and policy sales areas are not developed for, and
do not adequately reach, smaller tribal producers. Many of
these unique problems can be addressed by working directly with
AMERIND Risk.
Appoint Tribal Producers to FCIC Board
Consider appointing tribal producers to fill future
vacancies on the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)
Board and thereby ensure that every FCIC Board has at least
one, if not more, tribal producers on the board whose role will
be to address the unique issues associated with tribal
production systems.
Provide tribal set-asides and preferences within all non-
FRTEP NIFA funding authorities while retaining the competitive
nature of the funding, which is necessary to continue building
capacity and strength.
Amend the agricultural legal funding authority contained in
the 2014 Farm Bill to ensure that competition for the funds
occurs and funding is set-aside to be provided to organizations
and entities that have a proven specialty and primary focus on
Indian Jaw issues that intersect with food and agriculture Jaw.
Require NIF A funding authorities to focus a portion of
their work on building knowledge and capacity in business
development unique to tribal lands and individual Indian owned
land, and approach this work separately due to the unique
complexities in tribal land use, law, regulatory burdens, and
related issues. Since business training and the development of
solid business planning tools are also necessary, funding would
be best focused around risk management education programs and
the funding authorities in this area.
Allow tribal governments and tribal organizations full
access to all nutrition education programs at NIFA, including
SNAP-Ed, and all research programs related to building
knowledge in nutrition, health, obesity, and diabetes
prevention.
Include a set-aside in Small Business Innovation Research
projects funded through NIFA for tribal projects leading for
commercialization of food products or food systems innovations.
Ensure that the federal formula funding authorities that
support basic research, education, and extension funding for
1862 institutions is revisited to ensure that the institutions
receiving such funds based on the federal formula actually
provide research, education, and extension services to the
tribal communities, farms, ranches, farmers, and rural citizens
who are counted in the formula that establishes funding
allocations. At present tribal interests are considered in
establishing formula allocations but there is no follow through
to determine if actual projects result in such funding
allocations.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Reauthorize the Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program with a set-aside for tribal sustainable
agriculture project funding.
Agricultural Research Service Projects on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge
Launch and support a significant number of research projects
within the Agricultural Research Service that focus on the
important role that traditional knowledge plays in the
environmental, natural resource, ecological, food science,
nutrition, and health arenas. Funding provided in these unique
content areas must be done with full consultation with tribal
governments and full compliance with modem cultural practices
and recognition.
Multi-Tribal Funding for Research Title Programs
Develop a separate funding authority, like the Sun Grant or
Sea Grant authorities, to allow multi-tribal, multi-state, and
consortium approaches to meeting the research, education, and
extension needs of Indian Country.
Native Youth Grants
Include a provision of grants for youth-focused
organizations in Indian Country that focus on developing food
and agriculture leadership and scientific knowledge in all
grants for youth organizations.
TCU Center of Excellence
Encourage, allow, and include the Centers of Excellence
approach to funding in the next Farm Bill Research Title.
Forestry
Improve the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA)
Adopt the legislative text from the Sections 301 and 303 of
the 114mCongress's H.R. 2642 (Rep. Westerman) in the new Farm
Bill.
Include the TFP A streamlining provisions to improve the
timelines for review and implementation of forest restoration
projects requested by tribes.
Allow for greater tribal participation in TFP A projects by
authorizing, as a discretionary pilot program, the application
of ``638'' contracting authority to TFPA projects on Forest
Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
Cooperative Management of Adjacent Federal Lands
Since tribes continue to have legal, historic, and economic
connections to adjacent federal forests, include a pilot
program authorizing tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) to conduct cooperative, discretionary forest restoration
activities on Forest Service and BLM lands using existing
regulations governing the management of Indian forests.
Additional means and legal and financial arrangements that
would support the cooperative management of forest lands with
and through Tribes must be explored.
Tribal Forestry Workforce Development
Authorize the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to fund
a Native American forestry workforce coordination and
development program through an intertribal organization
familiar with Tribal forestry issues. The Indian Forest
Management Assessment Team, an independent panel of scientists,
has identified the need to recruit, train and retain a future
forestry and fire workforce to address the growing shortage of
trained workers for the management and operation of Indian
forests. This shortage of forest workers constrains the ability
of tribes and related federal agencies to effectively manage
and protect tribal forests and forest-related natural resources
and to participate in broader landscape-based forest management
activities.
McIntire-Stennis Parity
Allow Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) offering a
bachelor's degree in forestry or higher to perform tribally and
state-relevant forestry research and develop a well-trained
Native forestry workforce. The Mcintire-Stennis Act of 1962
dedicates funds to states to pursue forestry research at state
colleges and universities and to help train the next generation
of forest scientists and professionals. All 1862land grant
institutions and, since the 2008 Farm Bill, 1890 Historically
Black Colleges and Universities have access to funding, yet the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture made just under $32
million available under Mcintire-Stennis. While tribal trust
lands are included in the formula that a11ocates funding to the
individual states, the 1994 Land Grant TCUs remain ineligible
to receive research funding.
Fire Suppression Priorities
Any federal wildfire suppression efforts in the Farm Bill
should ensure that Indian forests are properly prioritized in
fire suppression activities and funding. Current priorities
place protection of private structures above protection of
tribal forest assets held, managed and protected by the U.S. as
trustee. As a result, in the 2015 fire season, suppression
crews were removed from wildfires on Indian trust forests to
protect private structures. The fires on Indian trust forests
exploded, destroying hundreds of thousands of acres and
millions of board feet of timber vitally important to tribal
economies. These priorities, allowing federally protected trust
assets essential to tribal communities to be sacrificed to
protect private structures, needs review.
Support Anchor Forests
Provide authority to develop more Anchor Forest initiatives.
The Inter-Tribal Timber Council, its member Tribes, the U.S.
Forest Service, and other forest resource stakeholders have
recently completed a pilot study in Washington State and report
on an ``Anchor Forest'' concept to foster landscape-scale
forest collaboration and management projects intended to
improve forest health while preserving local logging, milling,
and other critical infrastructure. The pilot study was
successful and many tribes in the Great Lakes states and
Southwest are interested in developing Anchor Forest projects
in their own regions.
Protection of Sacred Places
Ensure that interdepartmental efforts to protect Indian
sacred places are maintained and strengthened, and that the
responsibilities of USDA and other federal departments to
consult with tribes on an ongoing basis concerning sacred
places continually occurs. The Memorandum of Understanding
among departments of the federal government must be kept in
place indefinitely.
Tribal Representatives on Forestry Advisory Bodies
Require tribal representation on all local, regional and
national planning and implementation bodies which serve in
advisory capacities to USDA and the U.S. Forest Service.
Parity between Forest Services and NRCS Land Language
Create parity between Forest Service management agreement
language and Natural Resources Conservation Service
determination of land control language to preserve tribal
sovereignty and rights to gather/manage traditional plant
stands and enhance opportunities for tribes to leverage
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) assistance on
traditional lands under Forest Service jurisdiction.
Credit Title or another a section having application broadly
across the entire Department, is to place it within the
Definitions section of the Conservation Title, where many
problems associated with lack of common definition are most
pronounced. Regardless of where such definition is placed,
attention should be paid to consistency across the family of
USDA programs and authorities.
GAO Study on Credit Access in Indian Country
Conduct an in-depth analysis by the Government
Accountability Office into the nature of credit in Indian
Country; specifically examining compliance with the Community
Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian reservations.
Rural Development
Implement SUTA Provisions Throughout all Rural Development Programs
Further broaden the Substantially Underserved Trust Area
(SUTA) provision across all RD programs. Currently, SUTA is
only applied to a small segment of infrastructure programs, but
more explicit guidance must be provided to allow the Secretary
to exercise this discretion more broadly. This change will help
ensure more equitable access to RD programs and authorities,
and can be used to provide much-needed support to tribal
citizens living in rural communities. The change would, among
other things, allow the waiver of matching requirements for
projects funded through RD, which can be a significant barrier
to socially disadvantaged applicant participation in RD
business and infrastructure projects.
Rural Development Tribal Set-Aside
Provide a tribal set-aside in either terms of percentage of
the funding portfolio or a specific funding level for tribal
applications within each of the RD program authorities to
address the inadequacy and general lack of rural infrastructure
in Indian Country. The trust responsibility of the federal
government to tribes provides the broad foundation for such set
aside. Without dedicated funding for tribal rural development,
the promise of these places will never be realized and Indian
Country's infrastructure will continue to decline. In many
areas around the country, tribal governments are the strongest
remaining rural government entity. In some locations, tribal
governments have taken over the management of key
infrastructure (such as water systems, electric, and other
utilities) because there is no other sound governmental or non-
governmental entity that can handle these functions.
Establish a Permanent Rural Development Tribal Technical Assistance
Office
Establish a permanent office providing technical assistance
across all RD funding authorities via a cooperative agreement
with USDA for two reasons. First, the complexities of lending
and infrastructure establishment in Indian Country -tied to the
nature of the trust land base- call for the establishment of
such an office that can prepare and monitor lessons learned,
establish user-friendly application systems, and assist staff
at the tribal or business level in preparing applications. This
is a function the federal government cannot readily undertake.
Such assistance will also provide needed insight to federal
staff in the ongoing execution of their roles by providing a
single point-of-contact for all concerned. Second, the trust
responsibility of the federal government to tribes supports the
need to establish such assistance interventions. This is not
unheard of, as RD (particularly in the infrastructure arena)
has field staff who assist agency staff and the applicant in
analyzing financial viability, key engineering specifications,
and related technical requirements for more complex
infrastructure projects.
Maintain the Under Secretary for Rural Development Position
Maintain an Under Secretary for Rural Development in the
2018 Farm Bill and all additional sequent legislation and
appropriations packages. Having an Under Secretary whose
primary duties are to focus on RD programs and funding is
critical for Indian Country and rural America. Any changes that
would impact the Under Secretary role for Rural Development
must be the subject of tribal consultation.
Uplift America by Supporting CDFIs Loan Authority
Develop a process to allow small, new and emerging Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFis) access to loan
authority. The concept of hatching and obligating all loan
guarantee authority annually is a game changer. The
requirements put upon CDFis to participate in this endeavor are
patently prohibitive. Only the largest CDFis could secure any
meaningful funding levels, and some had threatened litigation
to do that.
Extend Rural Electric Loan and Grant Program Authority to CDFIs
Rural electric cooperatives are uniquely poised to be
economic development drivers in their communities. Often, they
choose not to avail themselves of this opportunity. In cases
where a rural electric cooperative chooses not to participate
in this program in the past, local CDFis should have the
opportunity to carry out the function.
Maintain Rural Water Program Funding
Rural water and wastewater systems are essential to
community support and economic growth in Indian Country. The
rural water and wastewater program funding in the RD Title
should never be lost. Tribal governments, individual Indian
producers. reservations, and remote and isolated communities
will be severely undercut in the protection and growth of their
food systems and their ability to access markets for their food
production markets if access to funding for rural water systems
is lost or diminished. This is a matter of food insecurity and
economic and environmental justice.
Research
Parity in Funding for FRTEP
Increase funding for FRTEP to at least $10 million, and
preferably increased to greater levels of funding. FRTEP
supports farmers, natural resources managers, youth (via 4-H
youth programs), and communities by providing an agent to
liaise with other USDA programs, provide training in farm and
ranch business management, supervise 4-H and youth development
activities, and coordinate special training programs, including
the application of new agricultural technologies, among many
other vital activities. While there are more than 3,100
extension offices available to farmers nationwide (through the
institutions in the land grant system). the current $3 million
funding level provides only 36 FRTEP extension agents to serve
more than 50 million acres of tribal lands, a growing number of
tribal food producers, and 567 federally recognized tribal
reservations as well as many state-recognized tribal
communities. Providing more than $10 million in funding would
begin to address this persistent inequity by nearly doubling
the FRTEP staff and the number of Native youth served by the
program. Greater attention must be given to whether the land
grant extension system funding is being used appropriately or
in such a way that tribal communities and producers receive the
resources they need in relation to the proportionate formula
funding distributed. The current system of competitive funding
is also in need of adjusting. as it results in long-standing
and effective programs being cast aside in favor of new
programs with no established track record and states like South
Dakota, with nearly 19 percent of the land owned by Indians.
not receiving funding at all. Consultative review of all FRTEP
applications must be reinstated.
Research Title Funding Mechanisms
Update funding systems to reflect the research and
educational needs of tribal communities. The competitive and
formula funding mechanisms within the Research Title can
provide much-needed research and development, infrastructure
development, education, and extension of knowledge, but the
assumptions about the funding systems have outlived their
usefulness.
TCU Eligibility for all National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) Funding
Make TCUs eligible for all USDA-NIFA funding authorities.
TCU extension professionals are not present among enough
tribes, and they are currently not provided with even the
minimum level of funding to accomplish their work. However,
FRTEP. due to its unique history and implementation. must be
excluded from this requirement as the circumstances of the
FRTEP program is entirely different.
Additional Resources for Tribal College Extension, Research and
Education Programs
Increase non-FRTEP funding considerably for Tribal College
extension programs so they can effectively address the needs
for tribal research and education related to tribal food
systems and food producers.
Require extension programs funded at 1862 institutions to
provide services to tribal food systems, so that there is not a
gap in tribal educational scholarships, internships. and
critical needs. The growth of Native food systems requires the
improvement of access and parity within the Research Title.
Commission a comprehensive study to explore the potential
ability of 1862 Land Grant Institutions to share administrative
functions, classroom and faculty resources, and other related
support mechanisms.
Tribal Set-Aside, Preference, and Funding at NIFA
USDA should be required to work alongside other relevant
federal departments to ensure that weather reporting systems
and stations are located on tribal lands and individual Indian-
owned lands throughout the U.S., because the gathering of that
information is vital to predicting production yields and
assessing disaster impacts, among other weather-related needs.
Currently, very few weather reporting stations are located on
tribal lands, and USDA should take the lead in working with
other departments to ensure this is addressed.
Buy Indian and Indian Preference for USDA Food Purchasing
Amend the language that controls USDA contracting and
procurement, including the language that controls the
procurement of food, to not only recognize and support a ``Buy
Indian'' provision, but also allow an ``Indian preference''
particularly when USDA is purchasing any product, including
food, being utilized by Native people within their communities
(such as food in the commodity food programs, like the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations).
Establish an Indian Agriculture Development Trust Fund
Production agriculture has the potential to provide a
private sector economy for rural tribal governments. Some of
the highest unemployment rates in the country are located on
tribal lands- several with chronic unemployment rate as high as
80 percent. Many of these tribal communities have land bases
that can support production. A secure and stable source of
technical assistance and expertise in the development of their
agriculture-related economies could improve the quality of life
for Indian peoples living on those reservations.
Make the Indian Agriculture Trust Fund Available to All Tribes
Require that all funds used in the Indian Agriculture Trust
Fund should also be available to tribes in other parts of the
country and that a study be performed by USDA to find other
similar sources of income to fund such a trust fund and report
back to Congress as to the findings. The need for such a trust
fund is pervasive throughout Indian Country, not just in the
Midwest or Missouri River basins and watersheds.
USDA and BIA Work Group on Farming and Ranching
Require USDA and the BIA to form a permanent working group
that examines all aspects of the interface of farms and ranches
on tribal lands and individual Indian owned lands, and reports
annually to both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary
of Interior concerning administrative changes that should be
made to further the access of tribal governments, tribal
producers, and tribal food businesses to all programs and
authorities of USDA.
Tax Extenders
Extend the Indian Employment Tax Credit (26 U.S.C.
45A) and the Accelerated Depreciation Tax Incentive for
business property located on Indian reservations (26 U.S.C.
168) because agriculture is increasingly dependent on
financing and development tools. Both tax incentives expired at
the end of 2012; however, many businesses operating on the
reservation rely on these tax credits to help subsidize the
cost of materials and workers. While these should be extended,
the accelerated depreciation and Indian employment tax credits
are inconsistent, because they continue to be renewed year
after year instead of being made permanent or renewed for a
longer duration (four to seven years). This uncertainty makes
them unreliable as investment incentives to attract the multi-
year, large-scale projects they were intended to attract.
Making these incentives permanent does not increase costs on an
annual basis, and would attract new businesses into Indian
Country instead of only benefitting those non-Indian businesses
already operating on the reservation.
Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Lac du Flambeau Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe. If you need further information please
do not hesitate to contact us. Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of Carole M. Palmer, Food Systems Specialist, COPE
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
Working closely with community members throughout Navajo Nation, we
write to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is fully represented in
the upcoming Farm Bill and included in all relevant discussions.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs consult with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this important
piece of legislation.
The Navajo Nation contains nearly 15,000 farm sites, covering
almost 17 million acres of land, but only a fraction of these are being
farmed. Navajo farmers face challenges with regard to land and water
access, and Navajo families face challenges accessing healthy,
affordable, and traditional foods. Many advocates in Navajo Nation are
working to pursue food sovereignty and the growth of a healthy,
sustainable food system. This work occurs at all levels of government:
federal, state, and tribal.
Federal efforts to delineate and regulate Navajo lands have caused
significant land access and land use issues. As a result, today it is
incredibly challenging for new farmers to access land. Farmers of all
ages and experience levels also contend with issues including livestock
overgrazing and the trespass of cattle onto fertile cropland, soil
degradation, and the lengthy and complex process required to obtain a
grazing permit. Several programs contained in the Farm Bill have the
potential to help alleviate these issues.
Primary Goal: Support Training and Technical Assistance for Beginning
Farmers
With over 14,000 small producers and a growing number of small
farms, it is crucial that Navajo Nation maintain a strong support
system for tribe members seeking to transition into the agriculture
sector. Programs such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program
(RMAP) and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BRFDP)
can help Navajo Nation build support systems for new producers by
providing loans and grants for organizations that provide technical
assistance and education to small and beginning farmers. In the 2018
Farm Bill, Navajo Nation advocates can encourage Congress to increase
the set-aside funding for socially disadvantaged farmers in the BFRDP,
and alter the terms of RMAP loans for minority and socially
disadvantaged farmers, in order to improve the likelihood that farmers
and organizations in Navajo Nation will benefit from these programs.
Incentivize aging farmers to prioritize transition planning, and
provide training and information for farmers and professionals
about farm transition planning.
According to the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture, the average age
of a Navajo farmer/rancher is 58 years old. As Navajo's almost 23,000
farmers and ranchers age, it is vital to ensure that their farmland
will be protected for the next generation. Engaging younger generations
and connecting retiring Navajo farmers to younger Navajo Nation members
interested in farming can help to preserve traditional farming
practices and provide younger Navajo farmers with access to farmland.
Farm Bill programs such as the Transition Incentives Program can assist
farmers with transitioning land to young and beginning farmers. This
program provides retiring farmers with additional rental payments on
land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) if the farmers
sell or rent that land to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers when the enrollment expires. Altering the terms of this
program in the next farm bill to lower the experience level required
for applicants, and to give priority consideration to tribal lands,
could make this program more accessible to farmers in Navajo Nation.
Additional Goals
Provide loans or grants for the purchase of agricultural
equipment, tools, and infrastructure
Promote land transfers to Navajo farmers and beginning
farmers
Restore tribal land soil quality in the face of
environmental degradation.
Especially as new and beginning farmers gain access to farmland,
access to infrastructure such as equipment, tools, and training
represents an important need. Agricultural infrastructure will also be
critical as climate patterns shift and weather emergencies become more
frequent and intense-enhanced agricultural resiliency and
diversification of crops can help Navajo Nation ensure the future
integrity of their agricultural sector as a cultural, economic, and
ecological enterprise. The survival and continued use of traditional
agricultural methods also represents a cultural priority.
Getting local and healthy foods to markets within Navajo Nation
remains a challenge, due to factors such as the vast and rural nature
of the Nation. There are few grocery stores in Navajo Nation, and the
grocery and convenience stores often do not carry healthy or
traditional foods. To address these challenges, advocates in Navajo
Nation are pursuing solutions that prioritize local food production,
increase access to healthy food in Navajo Nation, and keep economic
resources within the tribe. The next Farm Bill can support these local
efforts by providing funding for the development of processing
facilities, markets, and transportation in Navajo Nation.
Primary Goals: Support the creation of value-added goods, the
development of shared-use commercial kitchens and other food
processing facilities.
Access to food processing infrastructure can play a key role in
building a sustainable local food system. Processing can allow for more
local goods to be prepared, which can create local jobs while
increasing access to local, traditional and less highly-processed
foods. Yet critical processing infrastructure, such as certified
kitchens and cold storage, is largely absent. Expanded availability of
commercial kitchens and other infrastructure could increase local food
processing capacity in the Navajo Nation. Existing farm bill programs
such as Value-Added Producer Grants and the Community Foods Project
program provide funding to support these initiatives. Advocates can
push for maintenance of such programs in the 2018 Farm Bill, with
modifications such as set-aside funding for socially disadvantaged
producers or for projects in tribal communities, in order to increase
access to these programs in Navajo Nation.
Support the creation and operation of mobile slaughterhouse units.
As of 2012, there were 23,082 farmers and ranchers in Navajo Nation
and 71,605 cattle and calves. However, many meat slaughter and
processing facilities are far from the Navajo Nation, and no
USDAinspected slaughterhouse on the Nation. Development of a
slaughterhouse that complies with USDA and state requirements is
extremely expensive. Mobile Slaughter Units (MSUs), while still
expensive, are a potential solution for rural producers who want to
process and sell their meat to local consumers. MSUs can reduce
transportation costs for farmers and could allow for the use of
traditional slaughter and processing methods. Farm Bill programs such
as Value-Added Producer Grants and the Rural Business Development
Program can be used to study the feasibility of an MSU, and to cover
planning and equipment costs. Advocating for expanded set-asides for
socially disadvantaged or tribal applicants, and waiving matching
requirements for these applicants, could increase the likelihood that a
project in Navajo Nation could receive funding to develop an MSU.
Additional Goals
Support the formation of agricultural cooperatives and food
hubs in Navajo Nation.
Support livestock producers by improving access to risk
management.
Modify the Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Program to better support Navajo Nation.
COPE gives its full support to tribal leadership and grassroots
efforts on the Navajo Nation to address these critical issues. We
appreciate your strong consideration of tribal perspectives as you move
forward with this legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brandon Yellowbird Stevens, Vice-Chairman,
Oneida Nation
Dear Chairman Hoeven and Vice Chairman Udall,
On behalf of the Oneida Nation in the State of Wisconsin, we write
to submit testimony for the record urging the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs to ensure that Indian Country is included in the
upcoming Farm Bill.
With Congress considering the Farm Bill this session, we request
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to work closely with the Senate
Agriculture Committee to address Indian Agriculture in this impmiant
piece of legislation.
The Oneida Nation is a federally recognized Indian Tribe with
approximately 17,000 Oneida citizens. Currently, there are 4,487 Oneida
citizens living on the Oneida Reservation with the remainder living
worldwide. The Oneida Indian Reservation was established in 1838 and
covers nearly 65,400 acres. Although, we own approximately 26,000 of
those acres, the boundaries of our reservation remain unchanged while
seven local municipalities overlap onto the reservation. Our Nation is
originally from upstate New York. After the Revolutionary War, we lost
nearly 5 million acres of our original homelands to the birth of the
United States and the state ofNew York. Our people began to relocate to
Wisconsin. In 1838, the Treaty with the Oneida established the 65,400-
acre Oneida Indian Reservation along Duck Creek. For nearly 200 years,
we have lived here, a place we now call home.
The Oneida Nation Farms and Agriculture Center grows 5,000 acres of
crops which includes traditional cash crops, our traditional white
corn, raises 450-550 head of feeders, 150 head of grazed cow-calf, and
177 head of grass-fed bison. Other lands in steep soils (slopes) are
being used for 30 acres of non-cultivated apple crop productions
without causing soil erosion and 10 acres are used for production of
strawberries, raspberries, pumpkins, and squash. The Oneida Nation
recently established an aquaponics system that will produce between 10-
15,000 heads of lettuce and 800 fish.
The Oneida Nation has utilized many USDA programs such as Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP), Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and Rural
Development. Each of these programs has been extremely helpful in
improving the quality oflife for reservation residents.
Considering the state of agriculture for our community, Oneida
Nation requests the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate
Agriculture Committee include the following in any legislation
regarding the Farm Bill:
Tribal Governmental Parity with State and Local Govemments
throughout the entire Farm Bill, including access to funding,
technical assistance, and other programs.