[Senate Hearing 118-176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                    S. Hrg. 118-176

               NATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2023 FARM BILL 
                               REAUTHORIZATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 26, 2023

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-210 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana                  STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
       Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  Amber Ebarb, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 26, 2023....................................     1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    36
Statement of Senator Daines......................................    37
Statement of Senator Hoeven......................................     4
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    34
Statement of Senator Mullin......................................     4
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     2
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1
Statement of Senator Smith.......................................     3

                               Witnesses

Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council/Executive 
  Director, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation......    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Fain, Abi, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Intertribal 
  Agriculture Council............................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Kissee, Trenton, Director, Division of Agriculture and Natural 
  Resources, Muscogee (Creek) Nation.............................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Peterson, Hon. Richard, President, Central Council Tlingit and 
  Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska..................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Price, Davis, Regional Director, Hawaii NDN Collective...........    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Spaan, Jay, Executive Director, Self-Governance Communication and 
  Education Tribal Consortium....................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26

                                Appendix

Baring, Nathan, Program Director, Kawerak's Reindeer Herders 
  Association, prepared statement................................    46
Firethunder, Cecilia, President, Little Wound School Board; 
  Oglala Lakota Nation Education Coalition, prepared statement...    49
Hoskin Jr., Hon. Chuck, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, 
  prepared statement.............................................    50
Initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal 
  Communities, prepared statement................................    54
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, prepared statement...........    47
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, prepared statement........    53
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, prepared statement......................    51
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, prepared 
  statement......................................................    43

 
        NATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2023 FARM BILL REAUTHORIZATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2023


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:43 p.m. in room 
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    The Chairman. Good afternoon. During today's hearing, we 
will receive stakeholder testimony on Native Priorities for the 
2023 reauthorization of the Farm Bill. Our goal is to consider 
these priorities with an eye toward compiling a bipartisan bill 
with the full support of the entire Committee.
    I want to thank the Agriculture Committee Chairman Stabenow 
and Ranking Member Boozman for being such great partners in 
advancing Native priorities in the Farm Bill.
    The 2018 Farm Bill was the first to meaningfully expand 
USDA program support for Native producers and Native 
communities. From tribal self-governance expansion to new 
authorities for forest co-management, the 2018 Farm Bill was a 
big step forward. But it was just a start, and we can and 
should build on that progress.
    For the upcoming reauthorization, Native stakeholders are 
calling for additional support, self-governance and autonomy in 
food production, inspection and distribution and management of 
natural cultural resources, including forest resources.
    They are also seeking acknowledgement and incorporation of 
traditional ecological knowledge in USDA's Conservation 
Practice Standards, so that Native land stewards can use 
traditional conservation methods while also modeling best 
practices for others to follow.
    Most notably, Native communities are calling for wraparound 
navigator services, that is, targeted engagement for on-the-
ground help to identify and apply for USDA grants, provide 
technical assistance with grant applications, and assist with 
compliance issues through the life of the grants. These are 
essential priorities for Federal agriculture policy.
    American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawiians have 
come together to advocate, engage, and be heard by Congress on 
their Farm Bill equities. This Committee in particular has been 
listening.
    In addition to regular engagement from Native stakeholder 
groups on their Farm Bill priorities, the Committee worked 
diligently with member offices over the course of two 
Congresses, gathering and analyzing input from Native 
communities. So far, our record reflects testimony from the 
Administration and Native producers on challenges with credit, 
insurance, infrastructure, access to markets, and technical 
assistance, numerous site visits to Native community farms, 
ranches, rivers, lakes, and fishponds, multiple field hearings 
on the continent and in Hawaii, a roundtable discussion with 
community leaders and the work continues with today's hearing, 
the next step toward our overall goal of developing a 
bipartisan bill.
    Before I turn to Vice Chair Murkowski for her opening 
statement, I would like to extend my welcome and thanks to our 
witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to your 
testimony and to our discussion.
    Vice Chair Murkowski?

               STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate that we are here today to talk about the Native 
priorities within the 2023 Farm Bill. I really want to thank 
all the staffs, all the staffs, for the work that they have 
done in getting us to this place.
    You mentioned all the different steps that have brought us 
to this place, in addition to the roundtable that we had. 
Everything that we have put in place is just another step 
forward in progress.
    But we know we need to do so much more here. Hunger and 
poverty in Indian Country are significant reasons why the Farm 
Bill matters. One in four Native Americans relies on federally 
supported nutrition assistance programs in the Farm Bill. 
Alaska Native and American Indian communities pay more for food 
than the average consumer while also earning incomes well below 
the national average.
    In places in my home State, fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, 
basic staples are just more expensive because of travel and 
storage costs. Oftentimes, you can't get anything fresh at all. 
So what we have in front of us is a major opportunity to 
support tribal producers, food sovereignty and traditional ways 
of life.
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, we authorized a demonstration 
program that allows tribal governments to procure tribally 
produced foods for USDA food projects. We did this by expanding 
638 self-governance contracting authority to the food 
distribution program, FDPIR. So as a result, more traditional, 
locally grown food is making it to the plates of Native elders 
and kids. But we need to take this further and expand the 
authority to the entirety of FDPIR, not just the sourcing.
    You have mentioned the forest management. I think we have 
some opportunities here to expand self-governance at the USDA 
Forest Service. In 2018, again, we extended the 638 contracting 
authority for certain forest management activities on Federal 
lands, including harvesting timber for subsistence and 
resources under the Tribal Forest Protection Act.
    But the authority is underutilized. I think we have seen 
the Forest Service approve only about a dozen agreements over 
the last 20 years, and only a handful of those utilize in any 
way the 638 authorities. Based on what we have heard from 
tribal leaders, this tool isn't working as intended. So, what 
more we can do there to develop a legislative proposal to bring 
meaningful self-determination and self-governance authorities 
to the USDA and Forest Service, again, is going to be one of my 
priorities as we move forward.
    I want to extend a special welcome and thanks to President 
Peterson from Central Council of Tlingit and Haida. He is 
participating virtually today. Tlingit and Haida has been a 
leading advocate for greater tribal self-determination across 
the board, including with respect to traditional food systems 
and incorporating traditional practices into forest and land 
management. I think we are going to hear President Peterson 
talk about his efforts on the 638 agreements with the Forest 
Service as it relates to Mendenhall Glacier.
    So I am looking forward to hearing his comments on 
expanding 638 authorities at USDA and all that that can do to 
make a difference, particularly in southeast Alaska.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this hearing, and for the 
good work of all of our Committee members in advancing this.
    The Chairman. I will now turn to Senator Smith for 
introductory remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Chair Schatz, and Vice 
Chair Murkowski.
    I want to say how much I appreciate the chance to work with 
both of you on Native Farm Bill provisions. We have had many 
conversations about this, and I greatly appreciate it. I am 
really grateful for this Committee's attention to the unique 
needs of Native and tribal communities in this upcoming Farm 
Bill.
    I serve as both a member of this Committee as well as a 
member of the Agriculture Committee, along with Senator Lujan 
and Senator Hoeven. I represent a State with 11 sovereign 
tribal nations and a very strong ag sector. So these issues are 
very close to my work and very close to my heart.
    For months, this Committee has been working to create the 
building blocks of a strong Native Farm Bill. I want to thank 
everybody who I have had a chance to work with on this, 
especially Senator Hoeven and Senator Mullin. We have been 
working together on various provisions as well as many others.
    I know that this hearing today is going to focus on our 
ongoing effort to build a strong bipartisan Native Farm Bill 
that expands self-governance, that boost Native agriculture, 
ranching, forestry, and food production and makes sure the 
tribal priorities are included in every title of the Farm Bill 
as we go forward.
    Thanks so much to our witnesses for being here today. I 
look forward to this discussion and the work we can do 
together.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hoeven?

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chairman Schatz. I appreciate 
it. I want to thank both you and Vice Chair Murkowski for 
holding the hearing, and I really look forward to the input 
that we will receive.
    USDA plays a critical part in supporting our farmers and 
ranchers. There are over 80,000 American Indian or Alaska 
Native producers in farming and ranching, and they generate 
over $3.5 billion in ag sales each year.
    I am on the Ag Committee as well, and when we wrote the 
2018 Farm Bill, I was actually chair of this Committee, and 
worked on it as a member of the Ag Committee, as did Senator 
Smith and others here. We included 62 different provisions in 
the Farm Bill which benefited tribes in the current Farm Bill. 
So now as we look to write the new Farm Bill, we need to be 
mindful of the kinds of things that we can do that are 
important in Indian Country.
    Senator Smith is right on top of it with the FDPIR, Tribal 
Food Sovereignty Act. We actually put that legislation in as a 
pilot program, included it in the 2018 bill. So now you are 
taking it to an established program and again, consolidating 
the administration of it, which will streamline and improve it. 
So I am really pleased to cosponsor that legislation with you, 
Senator Smith, and I thank you for taking this initiative. It 
is just a really cool program, and I think it is going to touch 
a lot of people, already is, but a lot more people in Indian 
Country, in a very important way, and certainly reflects our 
belief in self-determination.
    Also, I want to commend Senator Peters and Senator Fisher 
on the Tribal Conservation Priorities Inclusion Act which 
really gives Native Americans more say when it comes to the 
NRCS programs. Then also, I am working with Senator Tester, who 
is a member of this Committee, on bipartisan legislation that 
will greatly strengthen both the Livestock Forage Program and 
the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program, not just for tribal 
members but for all farmers and ranchers.
    But because we have so many Native farmers and ranchers, it 
is a really important provision, particularly as we try to get 
this next generation into, really young people, like Senator 
Smith and Senator Murkowski and Senator Cortez Masto, get this 
next generation into farming and ranching. The average age 
overall for farmers and ranchers is about 60 years old. And 
there are a lot of hurdles to getting into farming and 
ranching. We need to continue providing these programs.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I appreciate 
it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Mullin?

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we are 
having this hearing today, and I would like to say a few words 
about the bill Senator Smith and I introduced, the Prime Meat 
Processing in Indian Country Act. I believe the Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act has been one of the 
most successful policy initiatives in Indian Country to date. 
The 638 contracting has paved the way for Federal Indian policy 
to be one of the most self-determinations and empowerment 
programs around.
    The 638 contracting in Indian Country began with Interior 
in 1970, and later HHS had brought it into the fold. Neither 
agency accepted with open arms broad changes to how business 
would be done within Indian Country. Nevertheless, tribes and 
agencies stayed the course and worked extremely well together.
    Now tribes manage over one-half of the programs offered by 
BIA and IHS. I believe it is time for USDA to help move 638 
contracting in a new direction within Indian agriculture. That 
is why Senator Smith and I came together and introduced the 
Prime Meat Processing in Indian Country Act. This 
straightforward bill gives tribes full 638 contracting 
authority for USDA's meat inspection process.
    I understand that 638 contracting with tribes is new to 
USDA. This process was new to Interior and HHS at one point. 
But there can be and there are some very talented people at 
USDA, and I believe they will figure this out, because no one 
can deny that 638 has been a gold standard within Indian 
Country.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    We will now turn to our witnesses. Senator Murkowski, if 
you would like to introduce your witness from Alaska.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I briefly introduced President Peterson. As I mentioned, 
President Peterson is with the Central Council of Tlingit and 
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Not only has President Peterson 
been leading on matters related to self-determination, he has 
been truly a leader when it comes to all aspects of Native 
governance, not only in the southeastern region, in the Tlingit 
Haida region, but statewide.
    So, it gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome him 
back to the Committee today.
    The Chairman. We are also pleased to welcome Mr. Davis 
Price, the Hawaii Regional Director of NDN Collective in Ewa 
Beach, Hawaii; Mr. Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal 
Timber Council in Portland, Oregon; Ms. Abi Fain, the Director 
of Policy and Government Relations in the Intertribal 
Agriculture Council, Billings, Montana; and Senator Mullin, you 
have two witnesses to introduce.
    Senator Mullin. I do, thank you again for giving me time, 
Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to introduce two Oklahomans to this Committee. 
The first being Jay Spaan, a Cherokee citizen and Executive 
Director at Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal 
Consortium, in Tulsa. Earlier in his career, Mr. Spaan served 
as a senior analyst for GAO. We are very lucky to have someone 
with Mr. Spaan's skill and experience promoting self-governance 
and self-determination policy inside Indian Country.
    I thank you, Mr. Spaan, for coming to D.C. I am excited to 
hear your ideas on how this Farm Bill can be best for all of us 
inside Indian Country.
    Second, I would like to introduce Trent Kissee, Eastern 
Oklahoma Shawnee Tribe, member from Ottawa County, Oklahoma. 
Mr. Kissee currently serves as the Director of Agriculture and 
Natural Resources at Muscogee Creek Nation. Trent is also one 
of many talented individuals running Muscogee Creek's Looped 
Square meat processing facility in Beggs, Oklahoma. Trent also 
serves on the board of the Intertribal Agriculture Council.
    We are all very grateful to work with him and his guidance 
from the Intertribal Ag Council as we write the Farm Bill that 
works for Indian Country. Mr. Kissee holds an Ag degree from 
Oklahoma State, and a master's degree from OU. Very confused, 
there, sir. Oklahoma State is kind of known for Ag, but I got 
to tell you, I got one boy wrestling at University of Oklahoma 
and one boy wrestling at Oklahoma State, so I understand the 
confusion you have there. But we won't hold that against you or 
me hopefully.
    Thank you, Mr. Kissee, for joining us here today.
    The Chairman. Are they the same weight class?
    Senator Mullin. Unfortunately, yes.
    The Chairman. Oh, wow.
    Senator Mullin. Yes, I am trying to work that out. The 
other one I am trying to have eat a little bit more.
    The Chairman. I wish you luck.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Mullin. I want to wear a shirt when they wrestle 
each other that says, it is white and says ``America'' on it.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Or Mullin.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. All right. We will start with our witnesses, 
and we will remind our witnesses that we have your full 
testimony as part of the written record. We would like you to 
confine your remarks to five minutes or even less if possible.
    We will now start with Mr. Peterson. Please proceed with 
your testimony.

        STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD PETERSON, PRESIDENT, 
   CENTRAL COUNCIL TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA

    Mr. Peterson. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski, and honorable members of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
    My name is Richard Peterson, my Tlingit name is Chalyee 
Eesh, and I am Kaagwaantaan from the Eagle's Nest House. I grew 
up in the Haida village of Kasaan, Alaska. I have served as 
President of Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian 
Tribes of Alaska since 2014.
    Tlingit and Haida is the largest federally and State 
recognized tribe in Alaska and the 12th largest tribe in the 
Nation. I am grateful for the opportunity today to provide 
testimony on behalf of the over 35,000 tribal citizens we 
represent worldwide regarding our tribal priorities and our 
support for the expansion of authorities within the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's 2023 Farm Bill.
    As indigenous people, our connection to the land and 
waterways is not only deeply spiritual but practical, providing 
us with sustenance and resources vital to our existence. We 
advocate for co-management agreements that respect tribal 
sovereignty and traditional ecological knowledge while 
promoting cooperation between tribes and Federal and State 
agencies to protect the delicate balance of our ecosystems.
    Tlingit and Haida serves 18 villages and communities spread 
across 43,000 square miles, which is about the size of 
Kentucky, our traditional homelands here in southeast Alaska. 
The management of traditional indigenous lands and waters is 
crucial to maintaining our way of life and is an expression of 
our sovereignty.
    Our shared ancestral lands and waters provide incredible 
opportunities for indigenous-led, large-scale, collaborative 
projects that can connect and restore the lands, waters, and 
wildlife that are the foundation of our cultural existence and 
economic welfare.
    Tlingit and Haida strongly supports the 2023 Farm Bill 
policies that can positively impact tribal self-governance and 
co-management opportunities, as well as economic development 
opportunities to sustain present and future generations of 
Alaska Native peoples. Tlingit and Haida recognizes and is 
grateful for the incremental steps that have been made through 
the Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy, for example, but 
current agreements are limiting in scope for both tribes and 
the USDA.
    First and foremost, the expansion of 638 and self-
governance authorities is both an opportunity and obligation 
for the Federal Government. As you know, the Federal Government 
has fallen short in implementing its trust responsibility to 
adequately address the unique challenges and opportunities 
faced by Indigenous communities, particularly here in Southeast 
Alaska.
    Self-governance and the co-management that can go hand in 
hand with it are not gifts to Tribes. They are a recognition 
that the Federal Government cannot and does not have the right 
to tell our history upon our homelands or to shape the future 
of this place without us at the table.
    I would like to take a brief moment and share a personal 
story. Here in Juneau, we have the Mendenhall Glacier. The 
Glacier is operated under the Department of Agriculture and 
receives over a million visitors each year for tourism.
    While there, on a funding tour with both Federal 
representatives, State representatives and municipal 
representatives, along with philanthropic groups, when asked 
where are the Tlingit people recognized here in this visitor's 
center, the staff responded that the Tlingit didn't have 
anything to do with the glaciers.
    Now, I can tell you that is incredibly offensive. Because 
my own clan and many others have migration stories, our history 
is told about us traveling over, under, and through the 
glaciers. That is even substantiated now in western science, 
when the remains of a man were found and dated back nearly 
10,000 years, and DNA tested to find living Tlingit relatives 
here now, today.
    So our history is very important, and a part of this 
landscape. With that said, Tlingit and Haida is actively 
pursuing co-management of the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation 
Area and Visitor's Center here in Juneau, Alaska. The 
Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center attracts, as I said, over a 
million visitors each year.
    As I mentioned, there is no acknowledgment of indigenous 
peoples, our culture or our history at this location managed by 
the U.S. Forest Service. This is a failure to tell the story of 
that place that Tlingit and Haida seeks to remedy.
    More than enrichment, a visitor experience that 
incorporates and fosters cross-cultural understanding and 
appreciation of our heritage and the rights to tell that story 
and promoting indigenous-led tourism are incredibly important.
    Alaska tribes have a strong history and track record when 
it comes to successful 638 compacts and contracts. The Alaska 
Tribal System speaks for itself as a resounding success for 
compacting. Tlingit and Haida was one of the first of 20 tribes 
in the U.S. to compact with the government, and the very first 
to take on the full measure of self-governance, nearly shutting 
down the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Southeast Regional Office.
    If compacting authorities are expanded to USDA, it is a 
win-win scenario for the Federal Government, tribes, and the 
public. As governments, we will finally have the tools to allow 
us to work together for the management of our lands and waters. 
Anything less than this self-governance would continue the gap 
between the rhetoric of co-management from our Federal partners 
and the reality of what they can deliver using existing 
templates. Why re-create the wheel when it is 638 authority 
that has a demonstrated record for honoring indigenous 
sovereignty and successful implementation?
    Our people have stewarded the traditional homelands and 
waters of southeast Alaska since time immemorial. We are the 
experts of this place, where we thrived and nourished our 
people for tens of thousands of years.
    Again, we seek to work collaboratively to enhance co-
management and stewardship opportunities, not only for Alaska 
tribes, but to enrich that the way U.S. agencies operate and 
understand our unique challenges and opportunities within our 
region.
    Tlingit and Haida is actively working to advance our 
regional greenhouse program to support our youth and elders. We 
have traditional potatoes, distinct potato varieties that have 
been proven to trace their roots to Peru, which demonstrates 
how far our culture and economies have stretched. Our 
traditional foods should be included on the list of approved 
foods for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
    I realize, sir, I am over time. So I thank you for this 
opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Peterson, President, Central Council 
               Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
    Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, and honorable members of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
    My name is Richard Chalyee Eesh Peterson, and I am Kaagwaantaan 
from the Eagle's Nest House. I grew up in the Haida village of Kasaan, 
Alaska. I have served as President of Central Council of the Tlingit & 
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit & Haida) since 2014. Tlingit and 
Haida is the largest federally and state recognized tribe in Alaska and 
the 12th largest tribe in the nation. I am grateful for the opportunity 
to provide testimony on behalf of the over 35,000 tribal citizens we 
represent worldwide regarding our Tribal priorities and our support for 
the expansion of authorities within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's 2023 Farm Bill (USDA). As Indigenous people, our 
connection to the land and waterways is not only deeply spiritual but 
practical, providing us with sustenance and resources vital to our 
existence. We advocate for comanagement agreements that respect tribal 
sovereignty and traditional ecological knowledge while promoting 
cooperation between Tribes and federal/state agencies to protect the 
delicate balance of our ecosystems.
    Tlingit & Haida serves 18 villages and communities spread across 
43,000 square miles (about the size of Kentucky) of our traditional 
homelands throughout Southeast Alaska. The management of traditional 
Indigenous lands and waters is crucial to maintaining our way of life 
and is an expression of our sovereignty. Our shared ancestral lands and 
waters provide incredible opportunities for Indigenous-led, large-
scale, collaborative projects that can connect and restore the lands, 
waters, and wildlife that are the foundation of our cultural existence 
and economic welfare.
    Tlingit & Haida strongly supports the 2023 Farm Bill policies that 
can positively impact Tribal self-governance and co-management 
opportunities, as well as economic development opportunities to sustain 
present and future generations of Alaska Native peoples. Tlingit & 
Haida recognizes and is grateful for the incremental steps that have 
been made through the Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy, for 
example, but current agreements are limiting in scope for both tribes 
and the USDA.
    First and foremost, the expansion of 638 and self-governance 
authorities is both an opportunity and obligation for the federal 
government. As you know, the federal government has fallen short in 
implementing its trust responsibility to adequately address the unique 
challenges and opportunities faced by Indigenous communities, 
particularly in Southeast Alaska. Selfgovernance--and the co-management 
that can go hand in hand with it--are not gifts to Tribes--they are a 
recognition that the federal government cannot and does not have the 
right to tell our history upon our homelands or to shape the future of 
this place without us at the table.
    Tlingit & Haida is actively pursuing co-management of the 
Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area and Visitor's Center in Juneau, 
Alaska. The Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center attracts over 1,000,000 
visitors each year. Currently, there is no acknowledgment of Indigenous 
peoples--our culture or our history at this location managed by the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This is a failure to tell the story of that 
place that Tlingit & Haida seeks to remedy. More than enrichment, a 
visitor experience that incorporates and fosters cross-cultural 
understanding and appreciation of our heritage is the accurate 
narrative only the Indigenous people have the knowledge and the right 
to tell. By not only promoting Indigenous-led tourism, but shared 
management of this very significant ecosystem, we can generate economic 
opportunities for our people, support local businesses, and most 
importantly, showcase the rich cultural diversity of our region to the 
world. While this desire has been made clear to Secretary Tom Vilsack 
and all levels of leadership at the USFS, the development and 
implementation of meaningful agreements continues to be held up because 
USDA lacks 638 authorities.
    Alaska Tribes have a strong history and track record when it comes 
to successful 638 compacts and contracts. The Alaska tribal health 
system speaks for itself as a resounding success for compacting. 
Tlingit & Haida was one of the first of twenty tribes in the U.S. to 
compact with the government, and the very first to take on the full 
measure of self-governance, nearly shutting down the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' Southeast regional office.
    If compacting authorities are expanded to USDA, it is a win-win 
scenario for the federal government, tribes, and the public. As 
governments, we will finally have the tools to allow us to work 
together for the management of our lands and waters. Anything less than 
this selfgovernance would continue the gap between the rhetoric of co-
management from our federal partners and the reality of what they can 
deliver using existing templates. Why re-create the wheel when it is 
638 authority that has a demonstrated record for honoring Indigenous 
sovereignty and successful implementation?
    Our people have stewarded the traditional homelands and waters of 
Southeast Alaska since time immemorial. We are the experts of this 
place--where we thrived and nourished our people for tens of thousands 
of years. Again, we seek to work collaboratively to enhance co-
management and stewardship opportunities--not only for Alaska Tribes, 
but to enrich the way U.S. agencies operate and understand our unique 
challenges and opportunities within our region.
    As is true in the face of a rapidly changing climate, access to our 
traditional and customary foods has changed since colonization. Being 
one of the largest, most isolated, and most geographically dispersed 
Tribal populations nationwide, Tlingit & Haida citizens largely rely on 
foods and goods that are shipped by water or air from the lower 48. 
This makes access to healthy foods difficult, costly, and volatile. We 
seek to expand opportunities to secure access to healthy foods that 
support our physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing. In addition, our 
solutions have the further benefits of advancing opportunities for 
economic sovereignty for our communities as well.
    Tlingit & Haida is actively working to advance our regional 
greenhouse program to support our youth and elders, and the overall 
well-being of our communities. It's here that we've grown both Haida 
and Tlingit potatoes, distinct potato varieties that have been proven 
to trace their roots to Peru, which demonstrates how far our culture 
and economies have stretched. Our traditional foods should be included 
on the list of approved foods for the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Tlingit & Haida has recently become the 
owner of the Alaska Seafood Company in Juneau and we are thrilled about 
the opportunities this will provide to advance our traditional food 
security program and our economic sovereignty. Furthermore, our 
potatoes, seaweed, gumboots, salmon, halibut, berries, beach asparagus, 
kelp and seal nourish our bodies differently and better than the foods 
we currently import. We support Senator Murkowski's efforts for FDIPR 
and that of her micro-grants for food security opportunities that 
enhance the access to an improved quantity and quality of locally grown 
and harvested food for our communities.
    Finally, Tlingit & Haida supports efforts to better research and 
develop sustainable mariculture opportunities for our communities. 
Alaska's traditional foods, such as kelp, are not only part of our 
cultural heritage but also essential to our food security and health. 
The inclusion of these traditional foods within FDIPR and the 
development of mariculture programs is vital to preserving our cultural 
practices and ensuring the availability of nutritious and locally 
sourced food for our communities. We call upon this committee to 
support initiatives that promote sustainable mariculture practices, 
rooted in our traditional knowledge, and respect Tribal rights to 
harvest and co-manage mariculture resources.
    Tlingit & Haida is actively working with regional partners to 
develop and support programs for our communities that provide food and 
economic security. These programs offer not only the promise of 
nourishing foods and stable economies, but also an opportunity to 
restore the resources that have long sustained us as Indigenous people. 
The lands and waters were not pristine and untouched, they were 
stewarded for the success and longevity of our people and ecosystems.
    I express my most sincere gratitude to the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs for considering our testimony. As the President of 
Tlingit & Haida, I urge this committee to take meaningful action that 
supports Tribal self-governance, the expansion of 638 compacting, co-
management of our lands and waters, and opportunities to include, 
enrich, and protect access to our traditional foods. Together, we can 
build a future that preserves our culture, strengthens our communities, 
and ensures the well-being of generations to come.
    Gunalcheesh, Haw'aa (Thank you) for your time and consideration.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
    I am happy to welcome and say aloha to Mr. Davis Price, the 
Hawaii Regional Director of NDN Collective, Ewa Beach.

    STATEMENT OF DAVIS PRICE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HAWAII NDN 
                           COLLECTIVE

    Mr. Price. Aloha mai kakou, greetings. My name is Davis 
Price. I am the Hawaii Regional Director for NDN Collective. I 
am kanaka `oiwi, or Native Hawaiian, and reside on the island 
of Oahu.
    I would like to extend sincerest gratitude to Senator 
Schatz and Senator Murkowski for the opportunity to testify 
today, and for the Committee's diligent efforts to include the 
voices of Native peoples in this highly impactful legislation.
    NDN Collective is a nationwide organization dedicated to 
empowering indigenous communities and nations to exercise our 
inherent right to self-determination. Since 2019, NDN has 
deployed philanthropic grants to over 700 indigenous led 
organizations and projects across the U.S. and its territories, 
from Puerto Rico to Guam. In Hawaii, NDN has deployed over $4 
million in grants to Native Hawaiian led projects.
    One of the core functions of our work is to foster and 
develop economic systems that center the transformative value 
of traditional ecological knowledge.
    Today, I would like to highlight the groundbreaking TEK 
work, Traditional Ecological Knowledge work, that has been 
underway in Hawaii for many years. This `aina-based, or land-
based work, is happening across Hawaii, and is focused on 
restoring culturally significant spaces that once supported a 
thriving population and food system that was completely self-
sufficient. Today, Hawaii is grappling with the impacts of a 
rapidly changing natural environment, and our traditional 
Hawaiian management practices are providing a guiding metric 
for what once existed and what is possible in the future.
    Hawaii is the most isolated land mass on earth, a small 
island chain in the center of the largest body of ocean on the 
planet that once supported an estimated population of 1 million 
people, prior to western contact with no imported goods. This 
is nearly the same size as the population today.
    However, today, Hawaii imports approximately 90 percent of 
its food, which leaves our entire island population extremely 
vulnerable to disasters, whether they be natural or man-made. 
This statistic has become a mantra of sorts in the Hawaiian 
community as a movement for self-determination, cultural 
revitalization, and reconnection to ancestral land has gained 
momentum. We know the solution to our own food insecurity and 
greater collective sustainability is grounded in our ancestral 
knowledge systems.
    For many years, most people overlooked the fact that Hawaii 
has become increasingly more dependent on outside sources of 
sustenance, such as importing nearly all of our food, while our 
land and water resources are used for other extractive economic 
purposes or neglected altogether.
    That was until the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent 
economic shutdowns actually gave everyone a taste of what 
happens when the ships stop coming. Empty store shelves, spikes 
in gas prices, and limited access to the bare necessities were 
wakeup calls to many who probably hadn't paid much attention to 
how vulnerable we actually are in the middle of a vast ocean.
    Since that time, much more attention has been given to the 
work happening in the Native Hawaiian community to restore 
spaces that are not only culturally relevant to our community 
but are also a glimpse into the economic bedrocks of a once 
thriving ecosystems, our traditional food system. Our 
traditional food system is traditional ecological knowledge in 
Hawaii, and it is recognizable to indigenous communities 
throughout the Country and around the globe.
    Indigenous ancestral knowledge systems most often highlight 
the capacity that humans have to enhance our environment, not 
only extract from it. This is the foundation of TEK, and it is 
imperative that we embrace the potential for a truly symbiotic 
relationship between our human societies and the environment.
    Developing these relationships better positions us to 
protect our resources and leave future generations with healthy 
environments that can continue to provide the resources they 
need not only to survive, but to thrive.
    The conservation and research titles of the Farm Bill 
provide opportunities to codify the value of TEK and ensure 
that we continue to enhance conservation standards and 
practices. This also requires the compilation of data that 
measures the positive impacts of TEK related work. There are 
many examples in Hawaii of restoration projects that focus on 
restoring land and food system resources. We can visibly see 
the positive impacts of these projects.
    When traditional mahi `aikalo, or wetland taro fields are 
restored, the surrounding streams become healthier, native 
species return, and habitats are reinvigorated. Where 
traditional loko i`a, or fishpond spaces, are restored, the 
shoreline and reefs become healthier, the upland streams become 
healthier, and native species return.
    These are the magnificent outcomes when people are engaging 
the land to amplify the natural occurrences of mother nature 
and optimize the natural environment's capacity to produce 
food. True symbiosis.
    I have been a part of a small working group that has been 
gathering input from 70 Native Hawaiian food producers 
regarding this year's Farm Bill. In addition to being food 
producers, these are cultural, environmental, and community 
stewards. This group represents just a fraction of the work 
happening across Hawaii to achieve self-determination and 
develop solutions to some of the greatest challenges we 
collectively face in our island society.
    TEK is recognition that our indigenous communities around 
the world hold foundational knowledge that can help us mitigate 
the existential threats we face with rapidly increasing natural 
disasters. Inclusion of TEK into the conservation and research 
titles was just one of many recommendations from the Native 
Hawaiian producers and members of the Native Farm Bill 
Coalition.
    Mahalo. I am humbled to be just one voice amongst the many 
thousands of our ancestors and relatives to carry forth the 
work of our lahui Hawaii, or Hawaiian Nation. Mahalo for your 
time and consideration.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Davis Price, Regional Director, Hawaii NDN 
                               Collective
    Aloha mai kakou, my name is Davis Price and I am the Hawai`i 
Regional Director for NDN Collective. I am kanaka `oiwi (Native 
Hawaiian) and reside on the island of O`ahu. I would like to extend 
sincerest gratitude to Senator Schatz and Senator Murkowski for the 
opportunity to testify today and for the Committee's diligent effort to 
include the voices of Native peoples in this highly impactful 
legislation.
    NDN Collective is a nationwide organization dedicated to empowering 
indigenous communities and nations to exercise our inherent right to 
self-determination while fostering a foundation of justice and equity 
for all people and mother earth. Since 2019, NDN has deployed 
philanthropic grants to over 700 indigenous led organizations and 
projects across the U.S. and its territories, from Puerto Rico to Guam. 
In Hawai`i, NDN has deployed over $4 million dollars in grants to 
Native Hawaiian-led projects. One of the core functions of our work is 
to foster and develop economic systems that center the transformative 
value of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK.)
    Today, I would like to highlight the groundbreaking TEK work that 
has been underway in Hawai`i for many years. This `aina-based (land-
based work) is happening across Hawai`i and is focused on restoring 
culturally significant spaces that once supported a thriving population 
and food system that was completely self-sufficient. Today, Hawai`i is 
grappling with the impacts of a rapidly changing natural environment 
and our traditional Hawaiian management practices are providing a 
guiding metric for what once existed and what is possible in the 
future.
    Hawai`i is the most isolated land mass on earth. A small island 
chain in the center of the largest body of ocean on the planet that 
once supported an estimated population of 1 million people prior to 
western contact, with no imported goods. This is nearly the same size 
as the population today. However, today, Hawai`i imports approximately 
90 percent of its food, which leaves our entire island population 
extremely vulnerable to disasters, whether they be natural or manmade. 
This statistic has become a mantra of sorts in the Hawaiian community 
as a movement for self-determination, cultural revitalization, and 
reconnection to ancestral land has gained momentum. We know the 
solution to our own food insecurity and greater collective 
sustainability is grounded in our ancestral knowledge systems.
    For many years, most people overlooked the fact that Hawai`i has 
become increasingly more dependent on outside sources of sustenance, 
such as importing nearly all of our food, while our land and water 
resources are utilized for other extractive economic purposes or 
neglected altogether. That was until the COVID-19 pandemic and 
subsequent economic shutdowns actually gave everyone a taste of what 
happens when the ships actually stop coming. Empty store shelves, 
spikes in gas prices, and limited access to the bare necessities were 
wake up calls to many who probably hadn't paid much attention to how 
vulnerable we actually are in the middle of a vast ocean. Since that 
time, much more attention has been given to the work happening in the 
Native Hawaiian community to restore spaces that are not only 
culturally relevant to our community but are also a glimpse into the 
economic bedrocks of a once thriving ecosystem, our traditional food 
system. Our traditional food system is traditional ecological knowledge 
in Hawai`i, and it is recognizable to indigenous communities throughout 
the country and around the globe.
    Indigenous ancestral knowledge systems most often highlight the 
capacity that humans have to enhance our environment, not only extract 
from it. In practice, this is recognition that our treatment of natural 
resources impacts our communities and the larger environment, and those 
impacts are considered as much as potential profits are when evaluating 
land use. This is the foundation of traditional ecological knowledge 
and it is imperative that we embrace the potential for a truly 
symbiotic relationship between our human societies and the environment. 
Developing these relationships better positions us to protect our 
resources and leave future generations with healthy environments that 
can continue to provide the resources they need for survival.
    The conservation and research titles of the Farm Bill provide 
opportunities to codify the value of TEK and to ensure that we continue 
to enhance conservation standards and practices. This also requires the 
compilation of data that measures the positive impacts of TEK related 
work. There are many examples in Hawai`i of restoration projects that 
focus on restoring land and food system resources, and we can visibly 
see the positive impacts of these projects.
    When traditional mahi `ai kalo (wetland taro fields) are restored, 
the surrounding streams become healthier, native species return and 
habitats are reinvigorated. When traditional loko i`a (fishpond) spaces 
are restored, the shoreline reefs become healthier, the upland streams 
become healthier, and native species return. These are the magnificent 
outcomes when people are engaging the land to amplify the natural 
occurrences of mother nature and optimize the natural environment`s 
capacity to produce food. True symbiosis.
    I have been fortunate to be a part of a small working group that 
has been gathering input from 70 Native Hawaiian food producers 
regarding this year's Farm Bill. In addition to being food producers, 
these are cultural, environmental, and community stewards. This group 
represents a fraction of the work happening across Hawai`i to achieve 
self-determination and to develop solutions to some of the greatest 
challenges we collectively face in our island society. This work is 
also reflective of aligned work happening in Native communities 
throughout the country. TEK is recognition that our indigenous 
communities around the world hold foundational knowledge that can help 
us mitigate the existential threats we face with rapidly increasing 
natural disasters. Inclusion of TEK into the conservation and research 
titles was one of many recommendations from Native Hawaiian producers 
and members of the Native Farm Bill Coalition. Attached is a report 
that summarizes the outreach effort to gather input from Native 
Hawaiian producers and in it are a handful of recommendations that we 
hope this committee can work to include in the 2023 reauthorization of 
the Farm Bill.
    I am humbled to be just one voice amongst the many thousands of 
ancestors and relatives to carry forth the work of our lahui Hawai`i 
(Hawaiian Nation), mahalo for your time and consideration.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    We will now hear the testimony of Mr. Desautel. Please 
proceed.

   STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER 
COUNCIL/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE 
                          RESERVATION

    Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
Committee. I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal 
Timber Council and Executive Director for the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
    On behalf of the ITC and its more than 60 member tribes, I 
appreciate this opportunity to speak about the ITC's priorities 
for the next Farm Bill. We appreciate the work this Committee 
and its members did to provide tribes with new authorities in 
the 2018 Farm Bill. In the years since, the ITC has worked with 
Federal agencies and tribes across the Country to make sure 
those authorities are understood and utilized.
    The growing risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded 
by the thousands of miles of shared boundary with Federal 
agencies, primarily the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management. There are countless examples of wildfire spilling 
over from Federal lands onto tribal lands, causing significant 
economic and ecological losses. Congress recognized the need 
for cross-boundary restoration and the result was the Tribal 
Forest Protection Act in 2004.
    The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded that TFPA authority, 
but also gave tribes and counties the authority to enter into 
good neighbor agreements with Federal agencies. Unfortunately, 
a drafting error in the final text precludes tribes or counties 
from retaining revenue generated from GNA projects for 
restoration services. GNA provides latitude in retaining 
project revenues needed to build additional tribal capacity to 
expand this work as States have done since 2014.
    With respect to TFPA, the ITC recommends expansion of the 
TFPA authority. First, we would like to see the 638 contracting 
authority expanded to include additional Forest Service and BLM 
functions within the context of an approved tribal co-
management or co-stewardship agreement. The Secretaries would 
be authorized to carry out forest management demonstration 
projects by which tribes may contract to perform 
administrative, management, and other functions of Federal 
programs under applicable co-management agreements and project 
planning areas of up to 50,000 acres.
    The ITC also recommends creating broad pilot authority for 
638 agreements within USDA and beyond the TFPA structure. This 
could cover all of the Forest Service and NRCS.
    Other Farm Bill priorities, the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law authorized increased pay for Federal firefighters. However, 
the law has been interpreted to exclude firefighters operating 
under a 638 contract pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination 
and Education Assistance Act. Without statutory and 
administrative changes, these tribal firefighters are treated 
the same as contractors subject to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations. Such an interpretation fails to capture the unique 
relationship between tribes and Federal agencies.
    In its Fiscal Year 2024 budget justification, the Biden 
Administration proposed legislation to establish a special base 
rate salary table for wildland firefighters, to create a new 
premium pay category that provides additional compensation for 
all hours a wildland firefighter is mobilized on an incident, 
and establish a streamlined pay cap that provides waiver 
authority to the Secretary using specific criteria.
    The ITC supports these recommendations and requests new 
legislation that is inclusive of tribal firefighters working 
under 638 contracts.
    The 2018 Farm Bill also authorized the Large Landscape 
Scale Restoration Program which clearly intended to include 
Indian tribes. The ITC recommends a technical change to the 
statute to ensure tribal participation is not challenged in the 
future due to land classification.
    The Tribal Biomass Demonstration Project was authorized in 
Public Law 115-325 and directed the Secretary of Interior to 
enter into contracts and agreements with Indian tribes for 
biomass projects by providing reliable supplies of woody 
biomass from Federal land. The demonstration project expired in 
2021 and the ITC recommends an extension of this authority for 
five years to give tribes an additional opportunity.
    Lastly, the Small/Isolated Parcel Conveyance Authority. 
Current law provides a process for the conveyance of excess 
Federal property to the Secretary of Interior when such 
property is located within the reservation of any tribe.
    The ITC recommends providing the Forest Service and BLM 
with pilot authority to convey small, isolated parcels of land 
to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust when such 
parcels are adjacent to Indian lands, and of such small size 
and isolation to make Indian forest management a more practical 
option for maintaining forest health and resilience.
    With that, thank you for the opportunity to share my 
comments.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber 
    Council/Executive Director, Confederated Tribes of the Colville 
                              Reservation
    I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council 
(ITC) and Executive Director for the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation in Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its 
more than 60 member Tribes, I appreciate this opportunity to speak 
about the ITC's priorities for the next Farm Bill.
    We appreciate the work this committee and its members did to 
provide tribes with new authorities in the 2018 Farm Bill. In the years 
since, the ITC has worked with tribes across the country and federal 
agencies to make sure those authorities are understood and utilized. 
Tribes are an important part of landscape scale forest restoration that 
is needed in every region of the United States.
    All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed and used by 
Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those lands remain under 
direct Indian management. On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 
19.3 million acres of forests and woodlands are held in trust by the 
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians.
    Tribes actively manage their forests for multiple uses, including 
economic revenue, jobs, cultural foods and materials and for other 
cultural purposes. Catastrophic wildfire can negatively impact all of 
these uses for multiple generations.
    The risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded by the thousands 
of miles of shared boundary with federal agencies, primarily the U.S. 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. There are countless 
examples of wildfire spilling over from federal lands onto tribal 
forests, causing significant economic and ecological losses. These 
fires regularly pose a risk to human life on Indian lands and have 
resulted in fatalities.
    Congress recognized the need for tribes to work closely with their 
federal neighbors to reduce the threat of fire across shared 
boundaries. The result was the Tribal Forest Protection Act (``TFPA''), 
which allows tribes to petition the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior to perform stewardship activities on their lands adjacent to 
Indian lands.
    The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded TFPA authorities but also gave 
tribes and counties the authority to enter into Good Neighbor 
Agreements with federal agencies. Unfortunately, a drafting error in 
the final text precludes tribes or counties from retaining revenue 
generated from GNA projects for planning. This is a key component of 
building successful GNA stewardship programs as states have done since 
2014.
    GNA provides tribes and federal agencies an additional tool for 
improving forest health across boundaries. While the scope of GNA 
projects is slightly narrower than what tribes may accomplish with TFPA 
and 638 authorities, GNA provides greater latitude in retaining project 
revenues and building additional capacity.
    There is freestanding legislation in the Senate to make the 
necessary correction to this issue: S.697, the ``Treating Tribes and 
Counties as Good Neighbors Act,'' sponsored by Senator Risch.
    With respect to TFPA, the ITC recommends expansion to TFPA 
authority. First, we would like to see the 638 contracting authority 
expanded to include additional Forest Service/BLM functions within the 
context of an approved tribal co-management/co-stewardship agreement. 
The Secretaries would be authorized to carry out forest management 
demonstration projects by which tribes may contract to perform 
administrative, management, and other functions of federal programs 
under applicable co-management agreements. Demonstration projects may 
include project planning areas of up to 50,000 acres.
    The ITC also recommends creating broad pilot authority for 638 
agreements within USDA, and beyond the TFPA structure. This could cover 
all of the Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Other ITC Farm Bill Priorities
    Tribal Firefighter Pay Parity: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
authorized increased pay for ``federal'' firefighters. However, the law 
has been interpreted to exclude firefighters operating under a ``638'' 
contract pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Without statutory and administrative changes, 
these tribal firefighters--fighting federal fires on federal lands--are 
treated the same as contractors subject to the Federal Acquisitions 
Regulations (FAR). Such an interpretation fails to capture the unique 
relationship between tribes and federal agencies.
    In its FY24 budget justification, the Biden Administration proposes 
legislation--and the ITC supports--to establish a special base-rate 
salary table for wildland firefighters, create a new premium pay 
category that provides some additional compensation for all hours a 
wildland fire responder is mobilized on an incident, and establish a 
streamlined pay cap that provides waiver authority to the Secretary 
using specific criteria.
    Large Landscape Scale Restoration Program Technical Correction: The 
2018 Farm Bill authorized this program which clearly intended to 
include Indian tribes, and the term itself was included in the 
definitions of various landowners to participate in the program. While 
the USDA has correctly decided that Indian tribes are eligible, the ITC 
recommends a technical change to the statute to ensure tribal 
participation is not challenged in the future.
    Tribal Biomass Demonstration Project: This program was authorized 
in Public Law 115-325 (``Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
Determination Act Amendments of 2017'') and directed the Secretary of 
the Interior to enter into contracts/agreements with Indian tribes for 
biomass projects by providing ``reliable supplies of woody biomass from 
Federal land.''
    The demonstration project expired in 2021 without any significant 
agreements with tribes accomplished. The ITC recommends extension of 
this authority for five years.
    Small/Isolated Parcel Conveyance Authority: Current law provides a 
process for the conveyance (at no cost) of excess federal real property 
to the Secretary of the Interior when such property is located ``within 
the reservation of any.tribe.'' (40 U.S.C.  523). Additionally, the 
Forest Service has had limited authority to convey excess buildings/
structures and associated land. The BLM has limited authority (under 
the Recreation and Public Purposes Act) to sell public lands for public 
purposes to state and local governments, and certain non-profit 
organizations. The ITC recommends providing the Forest Service and BLM 
with pilot authority to convey (at no cost) small, isolated parcels of 
land to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust when such 
parcels are (1) adjacent to Indian lands and (2) of such small size and 
isolation as to make Indian forest management a more practical option 
for maintaining forest health and resilience.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    We will now hear from Ms. Abi Fain. Ms. Fain, please 
proceed.

          STATEMENT OF ABI FAIN, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND 
         GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE 
                            COUNCIL

    Ms. Fain. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
submit testimony on behalf of the Intertribal Agriculture 
Council as it relates to agriculture priorities in tribal 
communities in 2023.
    My name is Abi Fain, and I am here in my capacity as the 
Director of Policy and Government Relations for the IAC, an 
organization headquartered in Billings, Montana, that has 
worked alongside tribal producers in their agriculture resource 
development for more than 35 years.
    I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and 
currently reside within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek 
Nation Reservation. Prior to joining IAC, I had the opportunity 
to spend eight years at law firms that represented tribal 
governments, tribal economic development entities and tribal 
individuals.
    It was during this time that I began to learn more about 
tribal agriculture through Janie Hipp, the Chickasaw founder of 
the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, and most 
recently General Counsel for the USDA, and the untapped 
opportunities in tribal agriculture as well as existing hurdles 
for both tribes and individual tribal producers in their 
agriculture endeavors.
    Today I appear as an extension of my colleagues at IAC who 
provide direct services to tribes and tribal producers 
throughout Indian Country to ensure they are equipped with 
information about available resources at USDA, and have access 
to assistance to navigate these resources.
    For more than three decades, IAC has come before this 
Committee on several occasions to emphasize the importance of 
agriculture in tribal communities and the need for laws that 
support tribes and individual tribal producers in accessing 
critical programs at USDA and the Department of Interior free 
of bureaucratic barriers. While great strides have been made in 
the last 35 years, much remains to be done.
    The upcoming Farm Bill marks a unique opportunity for 
Congress to ensure we continue to build momentum that supports 
the conservation, development, and use of tribal agriculture 
resources for the betterment of our people.
    For the purposes of today's hearing, I am going to focus my 
testimony on the value of technical assistance opportunities 
available at USDA. It is also important to consider how these 
proposals will impact tribal producers whose livelihoods are 
inextricably linked to the laws that govern agriculture in 
Indian Country to ensure that well-intended provisions achieve 
their purpose upon implementation.
    When IAC was founded in 1987, we were originally funded 
through the BIA. The lack of dedicated resources and funding 
available at the BIA prompted the IAC to look to the USDA for 
opportunities to develop Indian Country's agricultural 
resources. While AIC spent more than two decades working to 
improve tribal producers' access to USDA programs, it wasn't 
until 2010 that a technical assistance framework was developed 
for better addressing USDA service delivery in Indian Country.
    It was at this time that the IAC and USDA's Office of 
Tribal Relations began to work on an agreement that would 
establish a network of offices in different regions in Indian 
Country for the purpose of providing technical assistance to 
tribes and tribal producers. IAC's technical assistance network 
is at the heart of many of our efforts. We have approximately 
20 technical assistance specialists who are strategically 
located in IAC's 12 regions that mirror BIA's regions.
    The objective of the network is to improve and enhance 
Indian participation in USDA programs, and in the last 10-plus 
years has worked to fill a void in delivery of programs to 
Indian Country to begin addressing tribal producers' lack of 
access to capital, exclusion from conservation programs, and 
USDA's historic failure to provide outreach to potential 
producers.
    While IAC's cooperative agreements with the USDA encompass 
technical assistance in Indian Country, these agreements are 
not the result of any one program enshrined in statute. Even 
so, the agreement deeds opportunities to enter agreements 
directly with multiple agencies at USDA have steadily increased 
over time. These represent a marked improvement at USDA that 
warrants continued growth and greater accessibility around 
these opportunities.
    When it comes to codifying technical assistance support, 
the IAC cannot overemphasize the value of outreach to tribal 
producers from technical assistance specialists who come from 
their same communities and are often producers themselves. Even 
so, we would caution that the language that is drafted to 
support this type of legislation be considerate of creating 
potential barriers at USDA.
    First, language around broad technical assistance 
requirements at USDA, depending on how written, might be 
interpreted as a quota that serves as a cap to these types of 
agreements. Second, the language, if not carefully drafted, 
could result in a program that lacks funding and support to 
adequately address the agriculture needs within Native 
communities.
    I have reached my time limit, and I want to thank you for 
this opportunity to discuss the importance of technical 
assistance outreach from community-based organizations, and let 
you know that IAC remains available to talk about opportunities 
to draft language that would fulfill its intended purpose. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fain follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Abi Fain, Director, Policy and Government 
               Relations, Intertribal Agriculture Council
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf 
of the Intertribal Agriculture Council as it relates to agriculture 
priorities in Tribal communities in 2023. My name is Abi Fain, and I am 
here in my capacity as the Director of Policy and Government Relations 
for the Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC); an organization 
headquartered in Billings, Montana, that has worked alongside Tribal 
producers in their agriculture resource development for more than 35 
years. I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and currently 
reside within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation 
Reservation. Prior to joining IAC, I had the opportunity to spend 8 
years at a law firm that represented Tribal governments, Tribal 
economic development entities and Tribal individuals in litigation, and 
matters related to Tribal governance and federal advocacy. It was 
during this time I began to learn about Tribal agriculture through 
Janie Hipp--the Chickasaw founder of the Indigenous Food and 
Agriculture Initiative, and most recently, General Counsel for the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)--and the untapped 
opportunities in Tribal agriculture, as well as existing hurdles for 
both for Tribes and individual Tribal producers in their agriculture 
endeavors.
    Today, I appear as an extension of my colleagues at IAC who provide 
direct services to Tribes and Tribal producers throughout Indian 
Country to ensure they are equipped with information about available 
resources at USDA, and have access to assistance to navigate these 
resources. Further, I hope to build upon the foundation provided by my 
predecessors at IAC who, for more than three decades, have come before 
this Committee on several occasions to emphasize the importance of 
agriculture in Tribal communities and the need for laws that support 
Tribes and individual Tribal producers in accessing critical programs 
at USDA and the Department of the Interior--free of bureaucratic 
barriers. While great strides have been made since IAC's establishment 
as an outgrowth of the National Indian Agricultural Working Group that 
the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs tasked with reporting on 
the status of agriculture in Indian Country in the 1980s, much remains 
to be done. The upcoming Farm Bill marks a unique opportunity for 
Congress to ensure we continue to build momentum that supports ``the 
conservation, development and use of [Tribal] agriculture resources for 
the betterment of our people'', some of which may be accomplished 
through:

        1. Enhanced Technical Assistance;

        2. Supporting Tribal Self-Determination by:

           a. Expanding 638 authority to include Tribal administration 
        of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);

           b. Making permanent the 638 Food Distribution Program on 
        Indian Reservations; and

           c. Establishing an Office of Self-Governance within the 
        Office of the Secretary of the USDA.

        3. Removing barriers, including additional costs uniquely borne 
        by Tribal producers in accessing USDA programs, and developing 
        USDA services & programmings tailored to Tribes and Tribal 
        Producers.

    Within these priorities, it is also important to consider how these 
proposals will impact Tribal producers, whose livelihoods are 
inextricably linked to the laws that govern agriculture in Indian 
Country, to ensure that well-intended provisions achieve their purpose 
upon implementation.
Enhanced Technical Assistance
    When IAC was founded in 1987, we were originally funded through 
Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations. The lack of dedicated 
resources and funding available at the BIA, however, prompted the IAC 
to look to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for opportunities to 
develop Indian Country's agriculture resources. IAC's efforts to bring 
the resources of the USDA to Indian Country were not always met by 
welcoming overtures. Even so, the IAC stayed true to its mission, and 
continued to promote the improvement of Indian Agriculture. While IAC 
spent more than two decades working to improve Tribal producers' access 
to USDA programs, it wasn't until 2010 that a framework was developed 
for better addressing USDA service delivery in Indian Country. It was 
at this time the IAC and USDA's Office of Tribal Relations began to 
work on an agreement that would establish a network of offices in 
different regions in Indian Country for the purpose of providing 
technical assistance to Tribes and Tribal producers.
    Tribal land issues are inextricably linked to the delivery of 
services under USDA programs Tribes and Tribal producers access. Since 
its inception, the Intertribal Agriculture Council (or IAC), has worked 
to close the gap between the Department of the Interior and the USDA in 
order to make relevant and needed agriculture programs more accessible 
to Tribes and Tribal producers alike. IAC's technical assistance 
network is at the heart of these efforts. We have approximately 20 
technical assistance specialists who are strategically located in IAC's 
12 regions that mirror BIA's regions. The objective of the Network is 
to improve and enhance Indian participation in USDA programs, and in 
the last 10 plus years has worked to fill a void in delivery of 
programs to Indian country to begin addressing Tribal producers' lack 
of access to capital, exclusion from conservation programs, and USDA's 
historic failure to provide outreach to potential producers. While the 
IAC's cooperative agreements with the USDA encompass technical 
assistance in Indian Country, these agreements are not the result of 
any one program enshrined in statute. Even so, the opportunities to 
enter agreements directly with multiple agencies at USDA have steadily 
increased over time. Currently, IAC has 23 cooperative agreements with 
USDA to provide technical assistance to Tribes and Tribal producers in 
relation to 8 different USDA agencies and/or programs. These represent 
a marked improvement at USDA that warrants continued growth around 
these types of agreement.
    When it comes to codifying technical assistance support, the IAC 
cannot overemphasize the value of outreach to Tribal producers from 
Technical Assistance specialists who come from their same communities 
and are often producers themselves. Even so, IAC would advise caution 
around codifying technical assistance requirements for the following 
reasons: in the first instance, language around broad technical 
assistance requirements at USDA--depending on how written--might be 
interpreted as a quota that serves as a cap to these types of 
agreements; and in the second instance, the language, if not carefully 
drafted, could result in a program that lacks funding and support to 
adequately address the agriculture needs within Native communities. One 
example of this is the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program 
(FRTEP)--a program that is of tremendous value, but has never been 
fully funded, nor has its authorization amount changed since it was 
established in 1993. The result? Approximately 35 FRTEP agents expected 
to serve the whole of Indian Country through a competitive grant 
process.
Supporting Tribal Self-Determination
    Food security issues are always present in Indian Country. Tribal 
members across Indian Country live in the most remote regions of the 
United States. This presents significant food access challenges when 
Tribal members, both food program recipients and producers, are 
expected to access resources in the same manner as those with easier 
access to more readily available options. There are common sense 
proposals that would not only serve to better address food security, 
but would also improve the efficiency of feeding programs in Tribal 
communities.
a. Expand 638 authority to include Tribal administration of the 
        Supplemental 
        Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    Government programs administered at the local level are best suited 
to be responsive to the needs of local community members and more 
effective in identifying eligible participants. The same is true for 
SNAP and supports the need for Congress to authorize federally 
recognized Tribes to administer SNAP pursuant to the Indian Self 
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA), Pub. L. 
93-638--more commonly referenced as ``638'' contracts.
    The Native Farm Bill Coalition, in Gaining Ground, notes: 
``Expanding `638' authority to the SNAP program would allow for a more 
robust Tribal option than programmatic administration and be a 
significant acknowledgment of Tribal sovereignty in food systems. `638' 
has been shown to reduce programmatic costs and produce cost-savings in 
other arenas and could do so here as well.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized a 638 pilot program for 
Tribal authority over the procurement of food for the Food Distribution 
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Participating Tribes 
administered the programs within their communities with great success--
providing fresher, locally procured food items, while building Tribal 
economies. While every Tribe may not choose to exercise 638 authority, 
for those that do, it is an option--within SNAP and FDPIR--to build 
food security and local economies.
b. Make permanent the 638 Food Distribution Program on Indian 
        Reservations
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized a 638 pilot project that 
enabled participating pilot Tribes to procure food included in their 
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) offerings.The 
pilot project was a success, with Tribes procuring food from their own 
agriculture operations, for Tribal producers in their communities, and 
from neighboring Tribes' agriculture operations. This not only ensured 
eligible Tribal members received high quality, fresh food, it created 
market opportunities for Tribal producers that did not previously exist 
and served to further support Tribal economies. Accessing USDA vendor 
opportunities can be incredibly challenging for Tribal producers, who 
are required to invest significant resources without the guarantee of a 
contract. By making the 638 FDPIR pilot project permanent, Congress 
would be affirming the stability of a market that more Tribal producers 
may be able to reply upon and participate in.
c. Establish an Office of Self-Governance within the Office of the 
        Secretary of the USDA
    Finally, as Tribes and Tribal advocates continue to push for 
greater recognition of fulfillment of the government-to-government 
relationship between federally recognized Tribes and the USDA, it is 
critical that the self-governance opportunities are administered within 
the USDA, in an Office of Self-Governance housed in the Secretary's 
Office. This would provide the expertise needed to negotiate 638 
agreements across all of USDA in a centralized place, instead of 
spending USDA dollars to contract services from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA), as has been the case with the 638 pilot projects from 
the 2018 Farm Bill.
Removing barriers, including additional costs uniquely borne by Tribal 
        producers in accessing USDA programs, and developing USDA 
        Services & Programmings Tailored to Tribes and Tribal Producers
    1. Enhanced USDA Services and cooperatorship that re-imagines farm 
loans, conservation support, and disaster responsive programming to 
better serve small family operations that account for the majority of 
Tribal producers. Livestock operations should have the same options as 
crop growers; including market assistance, price loss support, or on-
farm storage facility loans that crop producers have had access to for 
generations. There should also be more realistic values attributed to 
livestock losses in disaster programs.

    2. Solutions must encompass Cost-shared Risk Mitigation and Price 
Guarantee Tools that are affordable and enhance a small family 
operation's management; ensuring that the value received at the farm 
gate is proportional to the retail price enjoyed later on in the supply 
chain.

    3. Further, Unrestricted and Quality Access to Fair Credit that 
models a greater appreciation for small family operations as the multi-
generational businesses they truly are would prove monumental to the 
future of small family-sized farms.

    4. Lack of access to credit is exacerbated by the lack of financial 
investments in the operational infrastructure that otherwise ensures 
family operations can continue stewarding our most important 
ecosystems. This is especially true in Tribal communities.

    5. Smaller operations are limited in the manner in which they can 
plan and grow when there is a lack of diversified market opportunities 
& a lack of transparency in the marketplace.

    6. Tribal producers become victims to the demands of homogeneity 
and uniformity preferences that offer them nominal value but demand 
tremendous investment; Increasing market options & practicing rigorous, 
unbiased scrutiny of the industry monopolies that currently amass 
wealth at the expense of our livelihoods and sanity is long overdue. 
IAC will follow this summary of Farm Bill priorities with comprehensive 
written testimony within two-weeks of the date of the July 26, 2023 
hearing.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Fain.
    Mr. Kissee, please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TRENTON KISSEE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE 
         AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

    Mr. Kissee. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
members of the Committee, mvto, niyawe, thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today to discuss ways that the Farm Bill 
can better serve agricultural production and the food supply in 
Indian Country.
    My name is Trent Kissee, I am the Director of the Division 
of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the Muscogee Creek 
Nation. I am also a citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe, and I 
also serve on the IAC board of directors representing Eastern 
Oklahoma. My family also raises beef and sells direct-to-
consumer on our allotment land in Shawnee and Modoc territory.
    The Muscogee Creek Nation is the fourth largest tribe in 
the United States, and the Division of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources houses programs supporting tribal youth and producers 
and manages the nation's agribusinesses, our beef cattle ranch 
and Looped Square Meat Co., a USDA-inspected meat facility and 
retail space which features our own beef. The facility is 
located in a USDA-designated food desert, filling a much-needed 
void of fresh food access within the heart of our reservation.
    The nations operate robust FDPIR, WIC, child nutrition, and 
TANF programs. The retail space, which is open to the public, 
accepts SNAP. Feeding our people nutritious food and offering 
healthy choices for families in our community is of utmost 
importance to us.
    Since opening in December of 2021, Looped Square has served 
over 20,000 customers with fresh, wholesome and nutritious 
food, some of which is grown and produced right there on the 
Muscogee reservation. I receive calls weekly from livestock 
producers and other tribes about entering the processing or 
direct-to-consumer sales space.
    The food supply and the players involved are changing for 
the better, and a sound Farm Bill policy can accelerate the 
enhanced security, sustainability and fairness of our 
agricultural markets and food supply.
    One of the most effective ways to increase the efficiency 
and effectiveness of Federal programs is to allow tribes to 
administer these programs ourselves. Tribal governments are 
sophisticated enough to carry out complex programming and know 
the nuanced needs specific to our individual communities.
    The 638 compacts have proven successful in the delivery of 
some of the most critical services, and there is strong support 
in Indian Country for the expansion of 638 authority throughout 
USDA programs. Whether food procurement or distribution, 
disaster relief or meat and food inspection, offering tribes 
the opportunity to compact Federal programs expands 
opportunities within our communities, allows tribes to 
prioritize needs and sovereignty and uniqueness of each tribal 
nation.
    Recent investments in infrastructure and capacity were an 
important step in increasing the security and viability of our 
food supply by expanding processing capacity and market share 
for livestock producers and increasing choices and availability 
for consumers. Additional investments are needed in workforce 
development and technical assistance to ensure these operations 
can get off the ground in a good way and maintain the skilled 
workforce needed to meet the increasing demand for safe, 
locally produced meat and other foods.
    Tribes throughout Indian Country offer an array of 
education benefits, scholarships and training programs. Many 
tribal communities even have training centers or colleges, like 
the College of the Muscogee Nation, which makes tribes the 
perfect conduit for increased investments in workforce 
development programs.
    Finally, Indian Country continues to push for parity 
throughout Federal law and policy. In the Farm Bill this would 
be particularly impactful, as tribes are often limited by rules 
and procedures set by State committees or governments. 
Decisions that affect tribal citizens and governments are best 
for everyone when those decisions are made respecting the 
tribes as sovereign nations, not through the lens of varying 
tribal-State relations. Including tribal language where State 
and local governments, committees and standards are mentioned 
is crucial.
    It is my honor to work towards stronger, healthier and more 
sustainable communities in Indian Country. Tribal agriculture 
is thriving, but there is still work to be done.
    I look forward to the good this Congress can do with a new 
Farm Bill prioritizing the needs of tribes and tribal ag 
producers. Mvto.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kissee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Trenton Kissee, Director, Division of Agriculture 
             and Natural Resources, Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Introduction
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and members of the 
Committee, mvto, niyawe, (thank you) for the opportunity to be here 
today to discuss ways that the Farm Bill can better serve agricultural 
production and the food supply in Indian Country. My name is Trent 
Kissee, I am the Director of the Division of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a citizen of the Eastern 
Shawnee Tribe, and I also serve on the Intertribal Agriculture Council 
board of directors representing Eastern Oklahoma. My family and I raise 
our own beef and sell direct-to-consumer on our allotment land in far 
northeast Oklahoma.
    The Muscogee (Creek) Nation is the fourth largest tribe in the 
United States, and the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources 
houses programs supporting Tribal producers and manages the Nation's 
agribusinesses: our beef cattle ranch and Looped Square Meat Co., a 
25,000 square foot meat processing facility and retail space which 
features our own Tribally-raised beef. We purposely placed the facility 
in a USDA-designated ``food desert'' in order to fill a much-needed 
void of fresh food access within the heart of our reservation. The 
Nation operate robust FDPIR, WIC and TANF programs, and the retail 
space accepts SNAP. Feeding our people and communities nutritious food 
and offering choices for families is of utmost importance to us.
    The demand for locally- and Tribally-produced food is stronger than 
ever before. Since opening in December of 2021, the retail space at 
Looped Square has served over 20,000 customers with fresh, wholesome 
and nutritious food, some of which is grown and produced right there on 
the Muscogee reservation. I receive inquiries weekly from livestock 
producers, Tribes and others about entering the processing or direct-
to-consumer space. The food supply and the players involved are 
changing for the better, and sound Farm Bill policy can accelerate the 
enhanced security, sustainability and fairness of our agricultural 
markets and food supply.
Self-Governance and ``638''
    A tested and proven way to efficiently deliver federal programs in 
Indian Country is by allowing Tribes to administer these programs 
themselves. Tribal governments interact with our communities every day 
and are both sophisticated enough to carry out complex programming and 
agile enough to know the intricate needs specific to each community. 
638 compacts have proven successful time and again, and there is strong 
support in Indian Country for the expansion of 638 authority throughout 
USDA programs. An Office of Self Governance within USDA would give the 
agency a touch-point to streamline this process. Whether food 
procurement or distribution, FSA farm enrollment or meat and food 
inspection, offering Tribes the opportunity to compact and administer 
federal programs expands opportunities within our communities, gives 
Tribes a say in what is important to us and respects the sovereignty 
and uniqueness of each Tribal nation.
Meat Processing Training and Technical Assistance
    Recent timely investments in infrastructure and capacity by Tribes 
and the federal government were an important step in increasing the 
security, sustainability and viability of our food supply by expanding 
processing capacity for livestock producers and increasing choices and 
availability for consumers. Additional investments are needed in 
workforce development and technical assistance to ensure these 
operations can get off the ground in a good way and maintain the 
skilled workforce needed to meet the increasing demand for safe, 
locally-produced and processed meat and other foods. Tribes throughout 
Indian Country offer vast education programs and benefits, scholarships 
and training programs. Many Tribal communities have training centers or 
colleges, like the College of the Muscogee Nation, which makes Tribes 
perfect conduits for increased investments in workforce development 
programs.
Tribal Parity
    Finally, Indian Country continues to push for parity throughout 
federal law and policy. In the Farm Bill this would be markedly 
impactful, as Tribes are often subject to rules and procedures put 
forth by state committees or governments. Decisions that affect Tribal 
citizens and governments are best for everyone when those decisions are 
made respecting the Tribes as sovereign nations, not when through the 
lens of tribal-state relations. Additionally, parity in funding should 
be considered for all programs. About 2 percent of Americans identify 
themselves as Native American or Alaskan Native. If funding for a 
particular initiative falls short of at least 2 percent when compared 
to the funding allocated to state governments, this allocation should 
be reconsidered.
Conclusion
    It is my honor to work towards stronger, healthier and more 
sustainable communities in Indian Country and to be here today to 
discuss these priorities. I look forward to submitting additional 
comment for the written record by the deadline.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Spaan, please proceed with your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF JAY SPAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SELF-GOVERNANCE 
         COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION TRIBAL CONSORTIUM

    Mr. Spaan. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski and members of the Committee.
    My name is Jay Spaan. I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation 
and Executive Director for the Self-Governance Communication 
and Education Tribal Consortium. I also serve as an adjunct 
faculty to Arizona State University, teaching courses on tribal 
self-governance.
    It is a great honor to be here today to share and discuss 
priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization. I am going 
to start with a few remarks about self-determination and self-
governance authorities, then quickly move to the Farm Bill 
priorities.
    For decades, self-determination contracting and self-
governance compacting have proven to be effective mechanisms 
that tribal governments use for delivering Federal programs to 
tribal communities. Nearly all tribes administer Federal 
programs through self-determination contracts and more than 365 
tribes administer Federal programs through self-governance 
compacts.
    While both self-determination and self-governance are 
authorized in the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act, or Public Law 93-638, they are each distinct 
authorities and mechanisms with their own attributes, benefits, 
and regulatory framework.
    Self-governance was developed as a tribally driven 
initiative to improve upon and move beyond the limitations that 
tribal nations experienced when taking over administration of 
programs using self-determination. As such, self-governance 
authority provides tribes with greater flexibility and more 
efficiencies. For instance, under self-governance, tribes have 
the authority to revise Federal programs in ways that will 
better address local needs without Federal interference. Self-
determination authority differs, and it requires tribes to 
submit redesigned proposals for Federal review and approval.
    Overall, self-governance authority facilitates tribes using 
Federal funds more effectively because they can integrate 
related resources to reduce fragmentation, redesign programs, 
and waive some Federal agency rules that can hinder local 
solutions. It also reduces administrative and reporting 
burdens, allowing more focus on program delivery.
    Moving to priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill 
reauthorization, I respectfully offer the following for your 
consideration. First, the Food Distribution Program for Indian 
Reservations Self-Determination Demonstration Project has 
already demonstrated success incorporating local, higher-
quality and more nutritious foods into tribal programs. The 
program is also boosting local economies.
    To build upon that success, Congress can include self-
governance compacting, not just self-determination contracting, 
as a tribal option for delivery of the program. Congress can 
also expand the authority for the entirety of FDPIR, not just 
the sourcing opportunity. Expanding authority beyond the 
sourcing provision, along with the addition of self-governance 
authority, will provide tribal governments the ability to 
quickly respond to the unpredictability of growing seasons and 
current economic conditions.
    Two, allow tribal nations to directly administer their 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, with the option to 
use self-determination or self-governance authorities. And 
three, remove statutory prohibition for individuals that 
qualify for both FDPIR and SNAP. Doing so would allow tribal 
governments to develop more comprehensive approaches to address 
food insecurity in their communities.
    Number four, allow tribal nations to assume administration 
for meat processing inspections, again, with the option to use 
either self-determination of self-governance authorities. 
Conducting inspections for food service licensing is something 
that tribes are very familiar with already, and often do under 
their IHS self-governance compacts. Through this process, they 
are ensuring compliance with applicable Federal, tribal and 
State laws. There is no reason to believe we would not have 
similar success under this program.
    Number five, direct USDA to prioritize and dedicate funding 
for additional tribal forest management self-determination 
demonstration projects. Six, direct the USDA to determine the 
feasibility of self-governance demonstration projects for 
additional USDA agencies and programs, including rural 
development programs, conservation programs, rural utility 
service programs, and additional food and nutrition programs, 
such as Women, Infants and Children.
    We believe this study should be conducted by a workgroup 
that includes both tribal and Federal representatives that 
collectively demonstrate knowledge of USDA programs, self-
determination authority and self-governance authority. For 
programs the Department deems feasible for self-determination 
or self-governance, Congress could provide USDA with the 
authority to move forward for the agency to initiate these 
types of projects.
    Demonstration projects have proven to be a successful 
approach for identifying how tribal nations and Federal 
agencies can implement new program delivery models and to 
identify any obstacles that need to be addressed before 
widespread rollout.
    Lastly, establish an Office of Self-Governance at USDA. An 
Office of Self-Governance could help with successful 
implementation by serving as a central point of contact within 
the Department to help educate USDA agencies and programs.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present priorities for the 
2023 Farm Bill reauthorization to the Committee. This completes 
my prepared statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spaan follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Jay Spaan, Executive Director, Self-Governance 
             Communication and Education Tribal Consortium
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee:
    On behalf of the Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal 
Consortium (SGCETC), I am pleased to be here today to share and discuss 
priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization. SGCETC appreciates 
this Committee's long-standing support for Self-Determination and Self-
Governance authorities. SGCETC, a non-profit intertribal consortium, 
supports Tribal Nations and federal agencies in implementing Self-
Determination and Self-Governance authority, showcases Tribal Nations' 
success and innovation in delivering governmental programs, fosters 
information sharing, and promotes leading practices related to program 
administration and use of Self-Governance authority.
    The enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (Public Law 93-638) marked a significant shift 
in federal Indian policy. Before the act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) administered most federal 
resources and programs that serve Tribal citizens and communities. 
Passage of the ISDEAA and its subsequent amendments provide Tribal 
Nations with alternative models for delivering some Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and IHS resources and programs. Tribal governments now 
have the option to use Self-Determination contracting and/or Self-
Governance compacting to transfer the administration of some federal 
programs from DOI and IHS to their governments.
    Self-Determination and Self-Governance are distinct authorities and 
mechanisms--each with its' own attributes, benefits, and regulations. 
For instance, Self-Governance authority allows Tribal Nations to 
administer and redesign federal programs based on their priorities and 
local needs, free from federal interference. Self-Determination 
authority generally requires Tribal governments to submit standards and 
redesign proposals for federal review and approval. Self-Governance was 
developed as a Tribally driven initiative to improve upon and move 
beyond the limitations that Tribal Nations experienced when taking over 
the administration of programs using Self-Determination contracts.
    Each Tribal Nation decides the most effective institutional 
arrangement for delivering federal programs and services to its 
citizens and community. Nearly all Tribal Nations entered a Self-
Determination contract with BIA and/or IHS, and more than 385 Tribal 
Nations entered a Self-Governance compact with the BIA and/or IHS to 
assume administration of one or more federal programs.
    In recent years, Congress expanded Self-Determination and Self-
Governance authorities to more federal agencies and programs. Examples 
include:

   In 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
        allowed Tribal Nations to negotiate Self-Governance agreements 
        with the Department of Transportation for certain programs. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Section 1121 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act, Pub. L. 114-94.

   In 2018, the Farm Bill established a Self-Determination 
        Demonstration Project for the USDA's Food Distribution Program 
        on Indian Reservations. \2\ Seven Tribal Nations and one Tribal 
        consortium now participate and report successful outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-
334).

   The 2018 Farm Bill also established the Tribal Forest 
        Management Demonstration Project authorizing the USDA's Forest 
        Service to negotiate project-specific Self-Determination 
        contracts with Tribal Nations for activities covered under the 
        Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA). \3\ The Congressional 
        Research Service reported in May 2023 that at least one Tribal 
        Nation successfully entered a Self-Determination contract with 
        Forest Service for a watershed restoration project. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (TFPA), 25 U.S.C.  
3115(a).
    \4\ CRS Report R47563. Tribal Co-management of Federal Lands: 
Overview and Selected Issues for Congress by Mariel J. Murray.

    Decades of experience demonstrate that Tribal Nations' use of 
alternative program delivery models, like Self-Determination and Self-
Governance, is tremendously successful. Yet, Self-Governance authority 
remains limited in both the number of applicable agencies and programs 
and the scope of authority. Expanding Self-Governance authority to 
additional agencies and programs could significantly assist Tribal 
governments as they build and maintain strong and healthy communities. 
For example, the Native Farm Bill Coalition reports that extending 
Self-Determination and Self-Governance to USDA's Conservation Title 
programs will increase Native producers' access, due to Tribal 
governments' understanding of land holdings issues. \5\ In another 
example, the Indian Law and Order Commission reported in 2013 that 
expanding Self-Governance authority to the Department of Justice could 
help reduce the high rates of violent crime that have plagued Indian 
country for decades. \6\ Self-Governance authority provides flexibility 
for Tribal Nations to use federal funds more effectively by (1) 
redesigning programs to meet local priorities, (2) integrating related 
resources to reduce fragmentation at the Tribal government level, and 
(3) providing opportunities to waive some federal agency rules and 
guidance that hinder local solutions. It also reduces administrative 
and reporting burdens, allowing more focus on program delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Parker, Erin, and Griffith Hotvedt, Carly, et al. September 
2022. Gaining Ground: A Report on the 2018 Farm Bill Successes for 
Indian Country and Opportunities for 2023. Prior Lake, Minnesota: 
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.
    \6\ In 2010, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Tribal 
Law and Order Act, P.L. 111-211 (TLOA), which created the Indian Law 
and Order Commission. The Commission is an independent national 
advisory commission comprised of nine members who have all served as 
volunteers in unanimously developing the Roadmap. The President and the 
majority and minority leadership of Congress appointed these 
commissioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization
    SGCETC wishes to highlight the following policy priorities for the 
2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization:

        1.  Make permanent the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration 
        Project, expand opportunities for additional Tribal Nations to 
        participate, add Self-Governance compacting as an option for 
        FDPIR, and expand the authority for the entirety of FDPIR, not 
        just the sourcing opportunity. Expanding authority beyond Self-
        Determination for the sourcing provision will provide Tribal 
        Nations with an even greater opportunity to implement FDPIR 
        efficiently and effectively. For instance, Tribal Nations 
        should have the option to decide the food provided through its 
        food distribution program without federal review and approval. 
        This authority would allow Tribal governments to quickly 
        respond to the unpredictability of growing seasons and current 
        economic conditions. It would also provide Tribal Nations the 
        opportunity to ensure that all ingredients required to prepare 
        traditional foods are available through its food distribution 
        program.

        2.  Expand Self-Determination and Self-Governance authorities 
        to SNAP, allowing Tribal Nations to assume administration for 
        the program. Nearly 25 percent of all native households receive 
        SNAP benefits. Tribal governments are best positioned to shape 
        and administer SNAP to meet local needs. SGCETC supports the 
        bipartisan Tribal Food Sovereignty Act. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The Tribal Food Sovereignty Act proposes to give Tribal 
governments a more active role in the administration of the USDA's 
vital Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as 
SNAP). If passed, the bill would help make sure SNAP is administered in 
a culturally-appropriate way that promotes the health and economic 
well-being of Tribal communities.

        3.  Expand Self-Determination and Self-Governance authorities 
        to Food Safety and Inspection Services, allowing Tribal Nations 
        to assume administration for meat processing inspections. 
        SGCETC supports the bipartisan Promoting Regulatory 
        Independence, Mastery, and Expansion (PRIME) for Meat 
        Processing Act. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Promoting Regulatory Independence. Mastery, and Expansion 
for Meat Processing Act proposes to amend ISDEAA to provide Tribal 
Nations with the opportunity to enter Self-Determination contracts with 
the FSIS for meat processing inspection, keeping processing local and 
available and facilities running smoothly and safely.

        4.  Provide Tribal governments an exemption or waiver option 
        for the simultaneous program participation limitation. Decades 
        of experience with Self-Governance have proven that it fosters 
        and enables local innovation in delivering federal resources. 
        Yet, statutory limitations can hinder Tribal Nations' ability 
        to implement innovative approaches to address unique, local 
        needs. For instance, under current Title IV provisions, Tribal 
        citizens cannot simultaneously participate in both SNAP and 
        FDPIR. This restricts access and choice about where and what 
        kinds of food the participants can purchase. It also restricts 
        Tribal governments from developing holistic approaches to 
        address local food insecurity challenges. Tribal Nations 
        administering both SNAP and FDPIR under Self-Determination 
        contracts or Self-Governance compacts should have the option to 
        decide when and how their citizens can participate in each 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        program.

        5.  Expand Self-Determination and Self-Governance authorities 
        to USDA's Conservation Title programs. Providing Tribal Nations 
        with these options would enable Tribal governments to directly 
        administer Conservation Title programs to eligible Native 
        producers--placing program access within easier reach for 
        Native producers because their Tribal governments understand 
        the land holdings issues that often prevent participation.

        6.  Provide additional funding or direct USDA to prioritize and 
        dedicate funding for additional Tribal Forest Management Self-
        Determination Demonstration Projects.

        7.  Direct the USDA to determine the feasibility of a Self-
        Governance demonstration project for additional USDA agencies 
        and programs, including Rural Development programs; Rural 
        Utilities Service programs; and additional Food and Nutrition 
        programs, such as the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the 
        Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Women, Infant, and 
        Children Program (WIC). The study should identify, at a 
        minimum, (1) the probable effects on specific programs and 
        program beneficiaries of such a demonstration project; (2) 
        statutory, regulatory, or other impediments to the 
        implementation of such a demonstration project; and (3) 
        strategies for implementing such a demonstration project.

           The study report could include the results of the 
        feasibility assessment and a list of the USDA programs, 
        services, functions, and activities (or portions thereof) that 
        would be feasible to include in a Self-Governance Demonstration 
        Project. The list must indicate which programs would be 
        feasible to include both with and without amending statutes or 
        waiving regulations that the Secretary may not waive. In the 
        case of those programs and other functions that could be 
        included only with amending statutes or waiving regulations 
        that the Secretary may not waive, the study must identify 
        legislative actions required to include those programs.

           The study should be conducted by a workgroup that includes 
        both Tribal and Federal representatives that are knowledgeable 
        of USDA programs, Self-Determination authority, and Self-
        Governance authority.

           For programs that the Tribal-Federal workgroup deems 
        feasible for Self-Governance authority, Congress could provide 
        USDA with the authority to initiate demonstration projects. 
        Self-Determination and Self-Governance are not ``one-size-fits-
        all'' mechanisms, and each Tribal Nation negotiates the terms 
        of these agreements based on its unique situation. 
        Demonstration projects have proven to be a successful approach 
        for identifying how Tribal Nations and federal agencies can 
        implement the authorities and to identify any obstacles that 
        need to be addressed before the widespread rollout of the 
        authority.

        8.  Establish an Office of Self-Governance at USDA. Although 
        USDA has limited authority for Tribal Nations to assume greater 
        control over federal resources and activities through Self-
        Determination contracts and Self-Governance compacts, SGCETC is 
        optimistic that those opportunities within USDA will increase. 
        As such, authorization for an Office of Self-Governance could 
        significantly benefit the implementation and success of 
        authorities as they are provided to the Department.

           The office should have the flexibility to transition its 
        primary focus over time. For instance, when initially 
        established, it could serve as a lead for (1) establishing a 
        Tribal/Federal workgroup that will evaluate feasibility of 
        Self-Determination contracting and Self-Governance compacting 
        across USDA, (2) negotiations with Tribal Nations for the Self-
        Determination authority currently available at USDA, and (3) 
        educating USDA agencies and programs about the mechanics of 
        Self-Determination and Self-Governance authorities. As Self-
        Governance within USDA evolves from a concept under evaluation 
        to full implementation, the office could transition to manage 
        Self-Governance compacts, Self-Determination contracts, and to 
        provide technical assistance to Tribal Nations considering and 
        negotiating Self-Determination and Self-Governance agreements 
        with the Department.

    SGCETC appreciates the opportunity to present priorities for the 
2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization to the Committee. Chairman Schatz, Vice 
Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the Committee, this completes my 
prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that 
you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Smith?
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Chair Schatz, and 
thanks to all of you, and Vice Chair Murkowski. Thanks very 
much to all of you for being here.
    Mr. Spaan, I think your testimony touched on everything 
that I am hoping we can accomplish in the Native Farm Bill. So 
I really appreciate that.
    Let me just dive in a little bit on this question of self-
governance. Ms. Fain, I am going to come back to you, too.
    I think the history of self-governance and self-
determination has really proven that tribes are the best 
stewards of Federal resources. What we did in the last Farm 
Bill was to include the first ever self-governance program at 
USDA. I want to thank Senator Hoeven and others, a lot of us 
worked on that in the pilot project for FDPIR.
    Now the question is, how do we build on this, and how do we 
take it to the next level. Could each of you just talk briefly 
about why the self-governance for SNAP and FDPIR, what it would 
mean for tribes and tribal citizens as we work to move this 
forward? Ms. Fain?
    Ms. Fain. With both of those opportunities, I think the 
benefits are two-fold. With regard to FDPIR, you are providing 
opportunities for fresher, higher quality food products to the 
community members. You are also supporting opportunities for a 
new market for tribal producers who don't have that to rely 
upon.
    But when the tribes are able to make those determinations 
for the good of their community, they can either rely on their 
own ag operations or work directly with tribal producers who 
have otherwise been unable to participate in that type of 
program.
    Then within SNAP, it is an opportunity to administer a 
program at the local level and to achieve a greater efficiency 
and a greater impact because the administration of the program 
is happening on the ground by the government most familiar with 
the people that that program is supposed to be serving.
    Senator Smith. Thanks very much.
    I want to pull you into this, get your take on this. Maybe 
you could also talk about why having a dedicated Office of 
Self-Governance would be helpful to an agency that by its own 
admission doesn't have a ton of experience working with 638 
authority and other kinds of self-governance.
    Mr. Spaan. Thank you for that question. I agree with 
everything that the prior witness mentioned as far as the 
benefits. We are also seeing that invoking a sense of pride in 
the customers of the food distribution programs, that they are 
very proud to go in and see Oneida beef, Oneida buffalo, in 
their food distribution program.
    In fact, in the Oneida Nation, they found that one item on 
their approved food list was catfish and they swapped it out 
for local whitefish. However, because the beef and buffalo are 
coming directly from Oneida, that was just going off the 
shelves like crazy. They actually had to change out and 
implement, bring in more beef and more buffalo, and substitute 
it for the fish. Because people were so proud to see that it 
was locally grown and locally produced.
    So I think there are a lot of benefits to these programs. I 
think that the Office of Self-Governance would benefit, we have 
heard USDA express concern about having the capacity or the 
knowledge to be able to negotiate with tribes. I think that an 
Office of Self-Governance or even a single point of contact 
could really help to educate all the different programs. USDA 
is a huge, massive organization, and lots of different 
departments.
    So having somebody that has that knowledge about what is 
self-governance, what is self-determination, and helping guide 
the rest of the agency and the rest of the programs through, we 
feel that would be very beneficial. It would also help building 
that internal capacity. Once more authorities are provided, 
then that office could start handling being the primary contact 
for negotiation for tribes across all USDA, they are sitting 
in.
    There are similar approaches at IHS where they have agency 
lead negotiators that will sit in. They focus just on the 
negotiations process. I see something similar for USDA as a 
benefit.
    Senator Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, if I could just ask, I want to take a little bit 
more time. I really appreciate that, and I think the USDA has 
relied on other Federal agencies when it comes to doing this 
kind of contracting. It seems to me high time that they develop 
their own expertise and their own capacity to do this which the 
Office of Self-Governance could accomplish.
    Last thing I just want to touch on, in my conversations 
with the Native Farm Bill Coalition and others it has become 
clear to me that we need to look through all the titles of the 
Farm Bill to look for places where we can ensure that issues of 
equity for tribal producers and agriculture are addressed. Even 
if the USDA continues on a journey, I will say, they continue 
on a journey of addressing equity in all of its work, something 
that I know Secretary Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Torres Small 
are committed to.
    So let me just ask a follow-up. Do you think it is 
important that we look through all the titles of the Farm Bill 
to make sure we are looking for those issues of equity where we 
can address them?
    Mr. Spaan. Absolutely. I completely agree with that. Yes.
    Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And thank you for your 
leadership on both committees, Senator Smith.
    Senator Mullin, likewise.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Kissee, Muscogee Creek Nation obviously is very lucky 
to have the ability to have a dedicated USDA inspector in your 
meat processing plant, and very fortunate to be able to get 
that. However, other tribes and other businesses have to rely 
on a traveling inspector, which means they are very limited on 
when they can process the proteins.
    How does that affect the bottom line for these other tribes 
and businesses out there?
    Mr. Kissee. Sure. Actually, the FSI's inspector that we 
have onsite now was formerly a traveling inspector. So he talks 
a lot about the fact that he is glad to be in one place. It is 
frustrating for USDA as they try to fill those gaps.
    It is hard to project for the businesses. Because I have an 
inspector onsite every day if we need them. I can set our 
schedule, whether that is bringing in new producers or our own 
livestock from the ranch. I am a little more easily able to 
forecast that need out. It helps with staffing, because I am 
not going to have a bunch of guys standing around all day 
because someone couldn't show up, or because another plant 
needed the inspector.
    Having that dedicated inspector onsite every day, it goes a 
long way. I have a great staff. I have no complaints about the 
staff, but it also helps just having that extra set of eyes and 
that accountability on the cleaning staff, on the staff as they 
go about their day. Having that dedicated staff onsite every 
day goes a long way in ensuring cleanliness and wholesomeness 
and safety of the product.
    But from a business standpoint, like I said, it just keeps 
logjams from happening, it keeps me from having to turn away 
customers because I am not sure when or what day I am going to 
be able to carry out slaughter and processing. Because you have 
to have a USDA inspector onsite for both of those activities.
    So you can run custom, you can run custom exempt, but then 
the customer that brings that livestock in is limited with what 
they can do with that animal. So it limits their marketability 
as well.
    Senator Mullin. So you have one dedicated inspector, right?
    Mr. Kissee. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mullin. So what happens if an emergency takes place 
and he can't be there that day?
    Mr. Kissee. The responsibility then would fall to the USDA 
to get a substitute, which has only happened one time. 
Thankfully we were able to pull from another plant that was not 
doing any slaughter that day. But it does create issues. Like I 
said, we have only been open a year and a half. It has only 
happened once. But it can create issues. At that point, the 
front-line supervisor has to call all the plants within the 
region.
    Eastern Oklahoma, as you well know, Senator, is fortunate, 
we have several, we have four tribally owned and several other 
locally owned meat processing facilities, a couple are USDA 
inspected as well. So we sort of have a pool that makes us a 
little bit unique in terms of Indian Country meat processing 
facilities.
    But I don't want the record to show that as the norm, 
because it is not. Tribes throughout Indian Country are in 
remote areas, difficulty getting processors. I am an hour away 
from the next nearest plant, and some may be three or four or 
more hours away from the nearest inspected plant. So that 
creates even more issues not in eastern Oklahoma.
    Senator Mullin. So do you feel like if we would have 638 
and tribes were allowed to do their own inspections, would it 
be able to increase reliability and production in the areas to 
which they serve?
    Mr. Kissee. I believe so. Just as a general stance, I am 
always in favor of self-governance and using 638 compacting 
when appropriate. I know there may be some issues in terms of 
just kinks that need worked out in the negotiations with tribes 
and staff. Again, all tribes are unique. That is why these 
compacts are important, because they allow tribes to negotiate 
directly with the agency to come up with a solution that works 
best for them.
    If we were looking at marketability and things, as long as 
there is parity there with the Federal inspector and the tribal 
inspector, so that there is no limitation on what a tribe can 
do with their product inspected by the tribal inspector, that 
would be fantastic. I know the CFR in Section 9 already talks 
about voluntary inspection and export. So whether that is a 
non-amenable species, such as bison, what voluntary means is 
that USDA will inspect it, but you are charged a fee, you have 
to reimburse them for that cost.
    So it is not like beef and pork, which is taxpayer funded. 
The facility is responsible for non-amenable species, bison or 
venison or other products, buffalo. The same would be true for 
the export certification. So you can be a non-USDA inspected 
facility and meet export criteria. You just have to do that on 
a voluntary basis currently.
    So as long as there were no limitations put on the tribes, 
if they do choose to go the 638 route, I would be in full 
support.
    Senator Mullin. Thank you.
    Ma'am, quickly, we have heard concerns from USDA that 
implementing 638 authority for meat inspections would be 
difficult and impractical at the agency. What are your thoughts 
on that?
    Ms. Fain. My thought is that where there is opportunity to 
improve at the agencies, government-to-government relationship, 
then that needs to happen. Even if that takes time and space 
for people to get comfortable with tribes in that space, at 
least from IAC's view, it is always our position that we are to 
support tribal sovereignty, and 638 is a component of that, 
including with the FSIS services.
    Senator Mullin. In your experience, though, tribes have 
been able to do the job with HHS and BIA, correct?
    Ms. Fain. Absolutely. Tribes have undertaken very complex 
systems in life and death situations, especially when it comes 
to IHS in particular. I think that is something that we always 
encourage agencies to understand, that there are other models, 
while they may not be identical to what it looks like for a 
transition with regard to meat, that there was a process in 
place for tribes to build out the program and make sure that 
there is not a gap in services or some other risk that might 
justify not going down that route.
    So generally, I always like to share the really complex 
systems that tribes have taken over. Again, I am fortunate to 
get to work throughout Indian Country, but having grown up in 
Oklahoma, have been able to see that first-hand, especially 
through my own tribe and the services they provide.
    Senator Mullin. Great panel when everybody there has 
Oklahoma ties. Can't get something better than that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Mullin. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. [Presiding.] Senator Mullin, I really 
appreciate what you have worked out here in the sense that, 
look, every agency that has to take that first step, whether it 
was within Interior, BIA, we have some examples in Alaska 
between Park Service, where Park Service is not working as well 
as Forest Service when it comes to the 638 compacting.
    And it is a little bit of a learning curve, and I think 
with some of the agencies, it really is a matter of bringing 
them along. This is not that scary; it can be done. And it can 
be done in a way that meets the needs of all involved.
    I really appreciate the conversation that you had with Mr. 
Kissee about what happens if you don't have that individual 
that can be onsite when you are ready to go to slaughter. I 
went out to Nunivak Island. Look at it on a map, it is off the 
coast of Alaska, community of Mekoryuk. Mekoryuk is known for 
muskox and reindeer. They are really anxious to try to get a 
small livestock production facility. They had one before. They 
have the facility that they have built. I saw it, they are 
ready to go.
    But their biggest challenge is, you are not going to be 
able to get a USDA inspector out there for the inspection to 
look at the cleanliness of the facility, to be there for the 
slaughter. So how do you bring along this nascent industry in a 
remote area like that, where the tribe stands ready and is 
anxious for what you and Senator Smith have really been working 
hard on?
    So I commend you for those efforts. I think we just need to 
get these agencies used to it. You can show them, again, we are 
not recreating the wheel here. There are good examples. 
Sometimes capacity can be a bit of a challenge, but we help 
with that. We help with that, and the tribes have demonstrated 
time and time again that they will surpass all of the 
expectations, all of the naysayers who said, you can't do this, 
you can't do it. We have to make that possible.
    I want to ask a question to you, President Peterson, 
because you have raised the issue of the Forest Service and the 
potential for management at the visitor's center out there, and 
what true management authority could look like for Tlingit 
Haida there at Mendenhall.
    It really hurt to listen to your story about the response 
from the Forest Service that the Tlingit people had nothing to 
do with the glacier. It completely ignores the history of the 
people, the history of the region. It was a really offensive 
statement by probably somebody who was not very well informed.
    So if you can, in the two minutes that I have given you 
here, explain what you think management authority would look 
like for Tlingit Haida there at Mendenhall Glacier.
    Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and your staff, 
for all your work. To me, I think what co-management looks like 
for us is coming in and really taking over the tours, hiring 
staffing, and making sure that everybody has that base 
education and understanding of not only the area. It is an 
important scientific area, because of the glacier receding and 
all those things. So you need to have a baseline on those 
sciences.
    But it is incredibly important also to have the true 
history of the area, the people of the area, and to understand 
that, so when those visitors come and are looking for that 
experience, that we are able to fully give that experience.
    So we are looking at not only those staffing needs, but 
also for all the maintenance and infrastructure needs there as 
well, so that we are offering a first-class experience through 
our nation's resources.
    Senator Murkowski. So if this is a matter of Forest Service 
needing Congressional authority, would a demonstration program 
be helpful, or have you given much thought to that?
    Mr. Peterson. Absolutely, I think it would be incredibly 
helpful. We have met with everybody from Secretary Vilsack, 
Assistant Secretary Homer Wilkes, and they have all said they 
really want to work with us and have us take over the 
management of the visitor's center.
    But they always come back with the lawyers saying they 
don't have the ability to do it. And we know that 638 
contracting is that tool. We have a really long history with 
IHS, with the Department of Interior, on 638 contracting.
    Senator Murkowski. You absolutely have, and have 
demonstrated that time and time again in a very good and strong 
way. Thank you for being part of this Committee this afternoon, 
and for your words. We will look forward to working with 
Tlingit Haida under your leadership.
    Mr. Peterson. Gunalcheesh to you, [phrase in Native 
tongue.]
    Senator Murkowski. Gunalcheesh.
    The Chairman. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator 
Murkowski.
    Senator Lujan, followed by Senators Cortez Masto and 
Daines.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you to our Chair and Vice Chair for 
this important conversation as more and more legislation is 
being established and built, filed, to make a positive 
difference, especially in the area of food security and 
addressing problems that have been identified with pilot 
programs and things of that nature. Thank you all for being 
here.
    This week I am proud to introduce the Tribal Nutrition 
Flexibility Act and the Tribal Nutrition Program Administration 
Act to improve FDPIR, which as we all know is the Food 
Distribution program. One of the things that my bill addresses 
is the need for greater tribal ownership over program 
implementation and flexibility to source traditional and local 
foods.
    My first question, Ms. Fain, yes or no, did the FDPIR 648 
pilot result in higher take rates with traditional and tribally 
procured foods?
    Ms. Fain. From what we have gleaned from the pilot tribes, 
the answer is yes. One of the interesting examples that Mr. 
Spaan shared was about Oneida, and it actually entered into an 
agreement with Menominee. Menominees were purchasing Oneida 
produced, I think it was Black Angus beef.
    What was shared by Menominee was that they saw a 
significant increase in program participation and general 
excitement around the food that was actually coming through 
their offerings.
    So some of the things I think are important to note about 
that is, and again one that was brought up, was those tribes 
that were able to do that know what is the right type of food 
for the region they are in.
    I believe it was Mississippi Choctaws that replaced some of 
the vegetables in their package with vegetables that are more 
appropriate for Mississippi and the southern region of the U.S. 
Whereas tribes that haven't been able to participate in that 
program, some we have heard from, especially in the Great 
Plains region were, we have a whole lot of whitefish left over, 
we want beef or we want bison.
    So I think for those pilot tribes in particular, there was 
really good participation and an increase in more appropriate 
foods by region, by season, things that the nationwide 
administration don't necessary take advantage of because the 
framework doesn't permit it.
    Senator Lujan. I hope we can strength it and learn from it.
    President Peterson and Mr. Spaan, yes or no, would increase 
sourcing flexibility under FDPIR, the Food Distribution 
Program, help more tribes include more traditional and tribally 
procured foods in their packages? President Peterson?
    Mr. Peterson. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Spaan?
    Mr. Spaan. Yes, I agree.
    Senator Lujan. Ms. Fain, yes or no, would increased 
sourcing flexibility have allowed tribes to better meet the 
needs of program participants during supply chain shortages 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Ms. Fain. Absolutely, it would.
    Senator Lujan. Likewise, added flexibility to source 
regional and local ingredients can help support more, as we 
have seen, with those Title I programs. Mr. Kissee, yes or no, 
does the Muscogee Creek Nation FDPIR program currently allow 
local tribally raised and processed beef to be included in the 
food packages?
    Mr. Kissee. No, not yet, Senator.
    Senator Lujan. I hope we can fix that. And yes or no, would 
you agree that added flexibility to include these types of 
locally and regionally produced products is important to 
address food insecurity?
    Mr. Kissee. Absolutely.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that very much.
    Ms. Fain, yes or no, do you agree that the Federal 
Government should remove the cost match for tribes 
administering FDPIR on tribal lands?
    Ms. Fain. Yes, definitely.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that very much. Another bill 
that I have been proud to work on and that I introduce into the 
record, Mr. Chairman, and to our Vice Chair, is around farmer-
to-farmer education, which would allow the USDA to contract 
with tribes and State-based organizations to provide technical 
assistance outreach and improve access to these conservation 
programs.
    These are important, but we need to ensure that everyone 
can access them. By working with USDA and State partners, I 
believe that we will only grow those opportunities as well.
    Thank you for the time today. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto?

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me stay on the same vein of conversation. I do 
appreciate my colleague, Senator Lujan, for what you are doing 
with respect to the food insecurity that I see amongst my 
tribes in Nevada, and that I am hearing across the Country.
    We do know that about one in four Native Americans 
experience food insecurity compared to one in nine Americans. I 
do believe, and I think everybody here believes that the 
Federal Government, Congress, has an obligation to really 
uphold our trust responsibility to support tribal members and 
work with tribes and tribal communities to ensure that their 
basic needs are met.
    One anomaly that has come to my attention, and this is why 
Senator Murray and I have introduced legislation, is that a 
tribal member's inability to use SNAP and FDPIR within the same 
month cannot occur. So if you can touch on this, Mr. Spaan, or 
any panel member, what impact does this have on our tribes when 
they are limited to one or the other and they cannot utilize 
them in the same month, unlike in other areas that we have 
allowed that to occur?
    Mr. Spaan. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. I 
believe that the statutory prohibition really limits tribes 
from being able to develop comprehensive approaches to address 
food insecurity in their communities. The self-determination 
project through FDPIR has been wonderful in providing tribes 
with additional flexibilities that they need to implement those 
programs appropriately.
    But there are still emergency situations, there are still 
unpredicted growing seasons, things that can occur where it can 
displace some foods that are intended for a food distribution 
program. In those cases, it would be nice for tribes to have 
that option of incorporating SNAP benefits so whenever they 
need to, they have these different tools in their toolbox that 
they can pull upon to devise the best approach for addressing 
the issues in their local communities.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. This week, Senator Murray 
and I introduced legislation to reduce that tribal food 
insecurity by allowing tribal members who qualify for the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations to use both 
programs in any given month. Let me ask, does anybody disagree 
that that is necessary or not necessary? Would everybody agree 
that this is an important piece of legislation? Ms. Fain?
    Ms. Fain. It definitely is. I just want to highlight that 
the current prohibition doesn't acknowledge the realities of 
many tribal members who, due to school or jobs, maybe within 
one month on their reservation and may be in a more urban area 
where they are forced to choose a program that they may not be 
able to have access to later in the month because of the more 
mobile nature that a lot of us live in today.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Anyone else?
    Mr. Kissee. Thank you, Senator. I would like to touch on my 
experience in the retail space, because the Muscogee Nation 
does have both a FDPIR program and the retail space which 
accepts SNAP. We are sort of uniquely positioned.
    I have had conversations with tribal citizens who come in 
the shop and have lamented the fact that if they were to stop 
FDPIR there would be a month or more lapse in their benefit. So 
not only would they not be able to receive the benefit that 
month, but they would have to go a full additional month or 
even longer before they were able to utilize their SNAP 
benefits.
    That really hurts. And overall, it affects the stretch of a 
dollar, because we have had a few sales where they could have 
gotten more food for the benefit cost, if they would have been 
able to come to the plant and utilize SNAP that month, as 
opposed to going to the FDPIR program. Like I said, it 
fluctuates a lot of months, the FDPIR program, they get more 
food to feed those families.
    But at certain times, it would be fantastic if they had the 
flexibility to be able to switch over without having to stretch 
a month or even longer without any benefit.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Because let me just say, 
my understanding, there are currently estimated 276 tribes that 
receive benefits under FDPIR. In the Fiscal Year 2020, the 
program served 75,000 Native American adults and children each 
month. According to the 2009 Urban Institute study, 87 percent 
of FDPIR participants are eligible for SNAP. So this would make 
a difference for so many of our communities.
    I thank you. Thank you for being here. I will yield the 
remainder of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Daines?

                STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, thank you. Thank you, Ms. 
Fain, for being here to represent the Intertribal Agricultural 
Council, which is headquartered in Billings. That is where my 
mom and dad grew up. My dad literally married the girl next 
door from Billings. It is always a pleasure to highlight the 
important work being done back home.
    Farming and ranching, as we all know, is truly the 
foundation of our economy in Montana. It is the number one 
economic driver. It is our Montana way of life. It also plays a 
very important role in our tribal communities.
    As the Senate crafts the Farm Bill, it is important to 
ensure that Montana's tribal ag producers and their voices are 
heard. Supporting crop insurance, promoting ag research, 
protecting drought and disaster relief programs, and 
maintaining important conservation programs are a few of 
Montana's biggest Farm Bill priorities.
    The Farm Bill also provides a great opportunity to advance 
important forest management and conservation reforms. We are 
already well into fire season. It is the time of year when I am 
making those phone calls back to folks on the front line, to 
forest supervisors, spending time when I am back home on the 
front lines getting updates on these fires. They are already 
burning in a significant way in Montana as we speak.
    Ensuring that we can advance these forest management 
priorities to produce more healthy forests, thin forests, 
better wildlife habitat, better watersheds, more jobs, and 
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires is so important. In 
fact, in 2018, Congress amended the Good Neighbor Authority 
Program to allow the Forest Service to partner with our tribes 
to advance some of these vital forest management projects.
    Some of the stark contrasts I have in my office, I have 
pictures, if you take a look at private land, oftentimes State 
lands, you see vibrant green forests. You look at Federal 
lands, you will see gray, dying, decaying forests, literally 
the section line running up the boundary, the dying forest that 
has not been managed, a vibrant forest that has. Our problem is 
on national forest ground. It is not on the State ground, it is 
not on private ground.
    There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that 
tribes are fully empowered to manage forests and invest in 
conservation and restoration projects, which is why I was glad 
to support Senator Risch's Treating Tribes and Counties as Good 
Neighbors Act, so tribes can fully participate in this 
effective program.
    To my questions. As the wildfires are now burning in 
Montana, I am keenly aware of the urgent need to get on-the-
ground management work done. This commonsense legislative fix 
would fully incorporate tribes as partners with the Forest 
Service by allowing them to retain timber receipts for 
restoration projects they undertake. It will keep a great 
incentive to keep the tribes engaged in forest management. 
These receipts could then be used by tribes to fund additional 
work to further protect communities and forests from 
catastrophic wildfires.
    Mr. Desautel, you previously talked about a good neighbor 
authority project in the Colville National Forest in Washington 
State that the Colville Tribe had to abandon because of the 
cost. What would the impact be for tribes working to improve 
forest health if we could successfully expand full good 
neighbor authority for tribes?
    Mr. Desautel. Thank you for the question. As I noted in my 
testimony, States have done a great job implementing this 
authority really since 2014 when it was expanded. But the 
limitation that tribes have is that we are already limited in 
the amount of funding we have available and what we receive 
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to do forest management is 
limited to trust acres.
    So unless we have access to that program revenue to do the 
planning and restoration services allowed for with good 
neighbor authority, those would have to come from tribal 
dollars and tribal investment in every single situation. Most 
tribes just don't have adequate funding to manage their own 
lands, as the most recent info-matter report showed, in 
addition to adding those costs to adjacent Federal lands, which 
we know get three to four times per acre what the tribes do.
    So if we had a mechanism that allowed us to retain revenue 
to continue that work, to build staffing and capacity, to be 
able to help our adjacent Federal land managers, that would be 
huge. I think it would completely solve the problem, and you 
would see much more utilization of that program.
    Senator Daines. There couldn't be a better answer. You just 
gave it. Completely solve, it is huge, this is clearly 
something we can address legislatively. That is a really 
important statement you made here for the record in this 
hearing as to why we need to get this done. Thank you.
    I often hear from producers in Indian Country about the 
barriers that make it difficult to participate in some of these 
valuable farm programs. Ensuring fair access to these programs 
is going to help grow tribal economies, help improve food 
access, and support infrastructure investment. Ms. Fain, what 
steps can Congress take to increase tribal access and 
participation in valuable Farm Bill programs?
    Ms. Fain. Thank you, Senator. Congress, a way they can do 
this is to recognize tribes within Farm Bill provisions and 
actually tailor existing programs to recognize the unique 
places that tribes have within USDA. Right now especially, a 
lot of the programming is administered in a way that leaves 
tribes out of the process where it might be, for instance, 
around disaster and where a drought occurs.
    I know that for a lot of our producers, some arbitrary 
county lines make a difference between whether they are 
eligible for disaster funding or not. It is not reflective of 
the fact that they are operating on tribal lands and the 
reservation as a whole, instead of within a county that, 
depending on where the weather monitor is, may not account for 
where they are within the reservation.
    So being careful and mindful of how these programs are 
reaching tribal producers or alternatively aren't because they 
haven't been designed for input from tribes and individual 
producers is an important step to making sure producers do have 
that same type of access that their neighbors do who aren't 
necessarily operating on tribal lands.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Fain, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Daines.
    Mr. Price, you know better than most, Hawaii has 
successfully incorporated traditional ecological knowledge in 
its agricultural practices, including biocultural restoration, 
agroforestry and food systems. Can you share a specific example 
that shows how traditional conservation practices are best 
practices?
    Mr. Price. Mahalo, Senator Schatz, mahalo for that 
question. There are many examples that highlight the value of 
traditional conservation practices in Hawaii. I would like to 
answer that first by pointing out that what we often think of 
as conservation is to protect land from overdevelopment and 
just leave it as open space, which oftentimes incentivizes 
neglect or power stewardship.
    In Hawaii, neglected land actually becomes a threat to 
surrounding communities as invasive species take root, and 
massive invasive trees, such as albizia or opeuma 
[phonetically] can become uprooted projectiles in massive flood 
events, for example. We have seen this happen over and over 
again.
    Overgrown land also becomes cover for seedy activity that 
feeds the underbelly of society. So we need to incentivize 
proper stewardship. Traditional conservation practices are 
grounded in human engagement and maintenance of land and water 
resources and is rooted in enhancing ecosystems and increasing 
productivity of the natural environment.
    What I hope is that by codifying TEK we can open a door to 
greater investment to capture the impacts of TEK work through 
the use of technology such as environmental sensors, LIDAR and 
GPS, just a few examples, to track environmental data such as 
soil health, nutrients, and moisture, to tell the story of TEK 
in practice through data.
    Some sites that are doing this groundbreaking work, to 
answer your question, are [name in Native tongue] on Oahu, 
`Aina Momona and Sustainable Molokai on Molokai, on the island 
of Molokai, [place names in Native tongue] Foundation on 
Kaua'i. These are just a few, and these are projects that are 
restoring spaces utilizing traditional conservation practices.
    I will be adding a report to the record that was produced 
by our working group that outlines the input gathered through 
our engagement process that lists 70 Native Hawaiian producers 
and practitioners, which all serve as examples of the TEK work 
happening across Hawaii. If we can use the Farm Bill to further 
empower creating investment in that work, this will be 
transformative for Hawaii and potentially the world. Mahalo.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Price. I just want to say, I 
have that aloha shirt, so it is a good thing I didn't wear it 
today.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Spaan, USDA previously testified that 
there are structural barriers to 638 expansion with the 
Department. How can we set up USDA for successful expansion of 
this program?
    Mr. Spaan. Thank you, Chairman Schatz. Federal agencies 
identifying structural barriers to self-determination and self-
governance are certainly not new. You can look back to the 
1970s, 1980s, 1990s, as early as the 2010 timeframe, you look 
at DOI, IHS, Department of Transportation, all presenting 
barriers that they said it couldn't happen.
    However, what we have seen is that once everybody comes 
together, we can make it happen. And I fully believe the same 
would be true with USDA. I do think that having a feasibility 
study to take a very systematic look at all programs and 
agencies across USDA could really help to ease some of that 
uncertainty.
    What we tend to find is there are a lot of agencies that 
come up with hypothetical can't-dos. And when you actually get 
into the weeds, it is like, hang on, it is not that difficult 
to overcome. So I think that a systematic look at all the 
programs would be beneficial.
    There was a study for HHS feasibility 20 years ago that 
found it was feasible, and it has never been implemented. So I 
think that if Congress were to consider giving that flexibility 
to USDA, let it initiative some limited administration projects 
when they find a program feasible, that that could be helpful 
to make sure that this is action-oriented and not just a report 
that goes on the bookshelves for 20 years.
    I also think the use of demonstration projects has been 
critical across all agencies that have self-governance 
authority now, and allows a small number of tribes to 
participate, work with the agency to identify what the 
challenges are, how do we overcome these the best way. Self-
governance and self-determination, one of the beauties of it is 
that it is unique for every single tribe that implements it.
    So you have a nice sampling of different tribes 
participating in it, and it allows the tribes to work with the 
agency to overcome the challenges. It also allows the agency 
not to get overwhelmed before they are comfortable with it.
    So I think those would be two recommendations I would have.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Just some final thoughts on that. We did a lot in IIJA and 
IRA to include Native communities in programs that already 
existed. First of all, that is great news. That is a huge 
policy victory.
    But what we are finding is it is not quite enough to say, 
and Indian Tribe and Alaska Natives and Hawaiians, because 
those people who are administering whatever program they are 
administering don't know really what that means. They don't 
understand the trust relationship, they don't understand the 
government-to-government relationship. So they end up 
interacting with tribes and Native people as though they are 
just some county sub-grantee or some NGO or some trade 
association.
    So first of all, we have a long way to go to enact the Farm 
Bill and all these provisions in it. But we really have to 
track implementation, because it is not someone's fault if they 
work at USDA all their lives and they haven't actually had to 
interact with tribes because it hasn't been public policy yet.
    So I just have a real keen eye toward implementation and 
saying to the Department of Energy, some of these long-time 
civil servants are just not familiar with the relationship. I 
don't want to have a couple of years of failure and then we all 
point our fingers in the air and, why aren't you doing this. I 
think we have to have an eye toward how hard it is going to be 
to get agencies that are not accustomed to interacting with 
sovereigns to do so.
    If there are no more questions for our witnesses, members 
may also submit follow-up written questions for the record. The 
hearing record will be open for one month. I want to thank all 
of the witnesses, both in-person and online, for their time and 
their testimony today.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

  Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 
                              Reservation
Introduction
    The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Tribe) 
appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony for the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs' hearing on Native Priorities for the 2023 
Farm Bill Reauthorization. While the Farm Bill addresses several 
important issues for Indian Country, there is no more important issue 
than restoring tribal homelands. We respectfully request that the 
Committee champion efforts to ensure that the Farm Bill includes 
authority for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 
the Forest Service return and help restore tribal homelands. We have 
drafted legislative proposals that would restore tribal homelands for 
the Committee's consideration.
    Through countless misguided and intentional laws, failed federal 
policies, and devastating court decisions, the Federal government and 
state governments continue to attack and take tribal homelands reserved 
in treaties and agreements with the United States. Some of the lands 
taken are currently being held by the USDA and Forest Service. The 
Committee should seek provisions in the Farm Bill that would ensure 
that Indian tribes are provided the first right of refusal to obtain 
any Forest Service lands that are up for disposal or purchase. Such 
lands should be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be 
held in trust for the tribe at no cost to the tribe.
    This authority should apply within exterior boundaries of an Indian 
reservation, within a tribe's ancestral homelands, and where a tribe 
maintains rights, interests, or resources. Congress should also 
generally authorize the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) 
to review lands under their management and prioritize the restoration 
of tribal homelands. Other federal agencies already have general 
authority to transfer lands under their management to the BIA to be 
held in trust for tribes--USDA and the Forest Service should be 
included on this list. This authority would further the 
Administration's goal of restoring tribal homelands and specifically, 
the policy in Section 6 of the Joint Secretarial Order No. 3403 ``to 
restore Tribal homelands to Tribal ownership[.]''
Taking of Lands Within Our Uintah and Ouray Reservation
    Our 4.5-million-acre Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Reservation) is 
a perfect example of the need for the USDA and Forest Service to have 
the authority to restore tribal homelands and transfer lands to BIA in 
trust for tribes. Our present-day Reservation was originally two 
separate reservations. Our Uintah Valley Reservation was established by 
Executive Order on October 3, 1861, and confirmed by Congress in the 
Act of May 5, 1864. Our Uncompahgre Reservation was established 
pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1880, and Executive Order of January 5, 
1882.
    Despite these actions to preserve, protect, and set aside our 
tribal homelands, we currently have more Forest Service managed lands 
within our Reservation than any other tribe in the United States. The 
Ashley National Forest overlaps about 1,000,000 acres within our Uintah 
Valley Reservation. These lands are a part of our Reservation and are 
Indian Country.
    The Ashley National Forest grew out of the Uintah Forest Reserve 
which was created on February 22, 1897. The original Uintah Forest 
Reserve bordered on but did not include lands within our Uintah Valley 
Reservation. However, in 1905 the Uintah Forest Reserve was expanded 
into our Reservation and later became the Ashley National Forest.
    The Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1069, opened the Uintah Valley 
Reservation to settlement by non-Indians and called for additional 
forest reserves. Under the 1905 Act, President Theodore Roosevelt 
issued a presidential proclamation expanding the Uintah Forest Reserve 
by designating some 1,010,000 acres within the Uintah Valley 
Reservation as an addition to the existing Uintah Forest Reserve. 
President Roosevelt issued this proclamation under authority in the 
1905 Act to ``set apart and reserve any reservoir site or other lands 
necessary to conserve and protect the water supply for the Indians.'' 
Later, on July 1, 1908, the Ashley National Forest was created via 
Executive Order No. 884 out of the Uintah Forest Reserve, including the 
1,010,000 acres within the Reservation.
    While one of the primary purposes for the creation of the Ashley 
National Forest was to protect the watershed of the Tribe, this purpose 
has been lost as the USDA and Forest Service encroached on the 
management of lands and resources within our Reservation. Two 1923 
Court Decrees adjudicating water rights for the Tribe included 
discussion of this need for water storage and the purpose of the forest 
reserve. United States v. Cedarview Irrigation Company, No. 4427 (D. 
Utah 1923), and United States v. Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, No. 4418 
(D. Utah 1923). The United States recognized that insufficient natural 
flow exists in the Uinta-Whiterocks and Lake Fork-Yellowstone River 
Basins to properly irrigate Indian allotted lands and so the Ashley 
National Forest was created, in part, to protect these flows.
Recognition of Tribal Jurisdiction Over the Ashley National Forest
    All lands of the Ashley National Forest within the exterior 
boundary of the Tribe's Reservation are Indian Country, and the Tribe 
retains jurisdiction over these lands. In a series of cases known as 
Ute v. Utah, the United States Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit 
Court of Appeals repeatedly held that the Ashley National Forest is 
within the Tribe's Reservation and under the Tribe's jurisdiction.
    In Ute III, the Tenth Circuit addressed ``the status of the 
1,010,000 acres of the Uintah Forest Reserve, which was set aside under 
the authority of the 1905 Act.'' Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 733 
F.2d 1087, 1089-90 (10th Cir. 1985) (Ute III). Examining the 1905 Act 
and its legislative history, the Tenth Circuit explained that there was 
nothing that established:

         `a total surrender of tribal interests' or a `widely-held 
        contemporaneous understanding that the affected reservation 
        would shrink.' The act merely authorized President Theodore 
        Roosevelt to set apart reservation lands as a forest reserve. 
        This he did. Indeed the 1905 Act specifically reserved the 
        Utes' timber interests in the lands by authorizing forest 
        officials to sell as much timber as could be safely sold for 
        fifteen years and to pay the money to the Utes.

    In fact, the Tenth Circuit found that ``[t]here is clear evidence 
that Congress did not intend to extinguish the forest lands of the 
Uintah Reservation,'' and therefore held that the ``Uintah Reservation 
was not diminished by the withdrawal of the national forest lands.''
    The Tenth Circuit's decision in Ute V did not disturb this holding. 
Ute V only modified Ute III's holding that the entire Uintah Valley 
Reservation remained Indian Country to provide that ``lands that passed 
from trust to fee status pursuant to non-Indian settlement under the 
1902-1905 allotment legislation'' were no longer Indian Country. 
Because the Forest Reserve Lands (as that term is used in the Ute v. 
Utah cases) were not opened to non-Indian settlement under the 1902-
1905 allotment legislation, all Forest Reserve Lands remain Indian 
Country under Ute III and Ute V.
Farm Bill Should Prioritize the Return of Tribal Homelands
    The history of our Uintah Valley Reservation demonstrates how even 
laws passed by Congress to protect and maintain tribal resources, in 
this case the headwaters of our Reservation, are often used by the 
Federal government to encroach on tribal interests and authorities. 
Decades later the Forest Service has difficulty acknowledging that the 
Ashley National Forest is within our Reservation and subject to tribal 
authority. While the Administration talks about promoting tribal 
decisionmaking and utilizing indigenous knowledge in the management of 
lands, local Forest Service employees managing the Ashley National 
Forest repeatedly fail to include the Tribe in management decisions and 
activities.
    The best way to resolve these issues and ensure tribal 
decisionmaking that has properly managed and sustained these lands for 
all time is to promote the return of tribal homelands. We reserved 
these lands in treaties and agreement with the United States. Providing 
the USDA and Forest Service with the authority to transfer lands to the 
BIA to be held in trust on behalf of tribes and promote restoration of 
tribal homelands will help to put an end to this tortured rollercoaster 
of federal laws and policies.
    The 2023 Farm Bill presents a perfect vehicle to authorize the 
Forest Service to transfer lands to the BIA, as well as providing 
general authority to the USDA to restore tribal homelands. Tribes 
across the country have had land taken by the Federal government for 
centuries, and often must purchase ancestral lands back. Allowing 
tribes to obtain transfers of reservation and ancestral lands would 
correct this historical wrong without requiring tribes to repurchase 
their own lands.
    The Ute Indian Tribe is already working with our local Forest 
Service to obtain the return of our lands no longer being used for the 
Ashley National Forest. However, the Tribe is often the last to know 
and the Forest Service has a practice of first offering disposal lands 
to the State of Utah. Even within our Reservation!
    The 2023 Farm Bill provides an opportunity to correct this history 
as well as current agency actions. The right of first refusal would 
require that any lands not being utilized be restored to tribes, with a 
right of first refusal for lands located within ancestral homelands. 
Congress should also generally authorize the USDA and Forest Service to 
transfer land to BIA in trust for tribes. USDA should have the ability 
to transfer lands administratively. Currently, the USDA and Forest 
Service do not have authority to make this transfer without 
Congressional authorization.
Proposed Legislative Language to Restore Tribal Homelands
    The first proposal would authorize the Forest Service to transfer 
land to BIA and Tribes. The Tribe has been diligently working with the 
USDA and Forest Service to have lands transferred from Forest Service 
to the BIA to be held in trust for the tribe. This legislative proposal 
promotes Tribal Sovereignty by allowing tribes to assert their 
jurisdiction over lands within their ancestral territory, as well as 
furthering the Administration's commitment to restoring tribal 
homelands.

    Insert the following language in Title XII--Miscellaneous, Subtitle 
E--Other Miscellaneous Provisions, after Sec. 12520:

    ``Sec. XXX. Authorization of the U.S. Forest Service to Transfer 
Lands.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER LANDS.--The U.S. Forest Service is 
hereby authorized to transfer lands under its jurisdiction to:

        (1) Indian Tribes as defined in the List Act (25 U.S.C.  5130, 
        108 Stat. 4791); or

        (2) at the request of the Indian Tribe described in subsection 
        (a)(1), the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be held in trust for 
        the benefit of the Indian Tribe.

    (b) LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSFER.--Lands that are eligible to be 
transferred under this Section are:

        (1) lands located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian 
        Reservation; and

        (2) lands located within an Indian Tribe's ancestral 
        territory.''

    The second proposal would require that any lands not being utilized 
be restored to tribes, with a right of first refusal for lands located 
within ancestral homelands. This legislative proposal would facilitate 
the restoring of lands that are not being used back to the tribe or to 
the BIA to be held in trust. The proposal would also allow the tribe to 
participate in transfers of Forest Service lands located within the 
Reservation or ancestral territory to a state or local government. The 
proposal is below:

    Insert the following language in Title XII--Miscellaneous, Subtitle 
E--Other Miscellaneous Provisions, after Sec. 12520:

    ``Sec. XXX. Right of First Refusal of Department of Agriculture 
Lands.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--In addition to any and all other rights specified 
in this section, an Indian Tribe shall have the right of first refusal 
during the 15 days after the Secretary has provided notice of either 
the sale of Department of Agriculture real estate or after a 
determination that the lands described in subsection (1) are not being 
utilized.

        (1) LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSFER.--Lands that are eligible to be 
        transferred under this Section are:

           (i) lands located within the exterior boundaries of an 
        Indian Reservation; and

           (ii) lands located within an Indian Tribe's ancestral 
        territory.

        (2) FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL.--Within 15 days after the 
        Department of Agriculture first elects to sell real estate, or 
        any portion of such real estate, the Secretary shall notify the 
        Indian Tribe(s) by certified mail of their right to request the 
        Department to transfer lands described in subsection (1) to the 
        Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Tribe.

        (3) ELIGIBILITY TO REQUEST TRANSFER.--To be eligible to request 
        a transfer of the property under paragraph (2), the Indian 
        Tribe must, within 60 days after receiving the notice required 
        by paragraph (2), submit the request to transfer such lands and 
        indicate whether the Tribe is seeking transfer to the Bureau of 
        Indian Affairs or the Tribe.

    (b) TRIBAL APPROVAL.--The U.S. Forest Service may transfer lands 
described in this Section to a state or local government only if the 
applicable Indian tribe consents to the transfer of such lands.''

Conclusion
    The Ute Indian Tribe has been sustainably managing its lands and 
resources for all time. Tribes everywhere have centuries of experience 
in land management and sustaining natural resources. In addition to 
being stewards of the land, tribes have experience in economic 
development on their lands while protecting the environment and 
resources. Like every other land management agency, the USDA and Forest 
Service need the authority to transfer lands to the BIA in trust for 
tribes. This authority is needed to promote restoration of tribal 
homelands and to help put an end to ongoing attacks on tribal lands, 
resources, and authorities. The Tribe respectfully requests that the 
Committee champion these authorities as a top priority for the 2023 
Farm Bill Reauthorization.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Nathan Baring, Program Director, Kawerak's 
                      Reindeer Herders Association
    Chair Schatz and Vice Chair Murkowski,
    The Reindeer Herders Association (RHA) of Kawerak, Inc., the tribal 
non-profit corporation serving 20 Inupiaq, Yup'ik and St. Lawrence 
Island Yupik tribes across the Bering Strait region of Northwest 
Alaska, is grateful for the opportunity to submit written testimony 
supporting Vice Chair Murkowski's work on the 2023 Farm Bill 
Reauthorization.
    The RHA represents the interests of 18 Alaska Native reindeer 
herders, who collectively manage over 20,000 reindeer on the Seward 
Peninsula, as they have continued to do for many generations. Reindeer 
herding, with the food and knowledge sharing it promotes, is an 
integral part of the cultural fabric of many of our communities, in 
addition to providing a key source of food security for 31 tribes in 
the Bering Strait and Northwest Arctic regions. RHA herders speak 
fondly of growing up with parents and grandparents out on herd grazing 
ranges and seek to pass this cultural knowledge on to their 
descendants.
    However, reindeer herding has been hampered for decades by 
significant restrictions on the herders' ability to provide reindeer 
meat products, and, thereby, their ability to sustain their operations. 
Field slaughter for reindeer is currently regulated under the Alaska 
Food Code, which provides that reindeer may only be sold in carcass 
sections and may only be processed in below-freezing temperatures 
during the winter. While herders have found limited success under these 
requirements, providing a sustainable pathway to achieving USDA 
inspections would be a significant win in sustaining reindeer 
operations with higher-value products, and would be a significant win 
for food security in the region.
    To this end, the RHA voices strong support for the `Improving 
ARCTIC Act,' as introduced by Vice Chair Murkowski and its provisions 
that expand tribal compacting authority under USDA programs, while 
broadly promoting food security for tribes. The RHA will always 
advocate increased flexibility and decisionmaking authority in USDA 
programs, with appropriate recognition for the government-to-government 
relationships that exist therein.
    More specifically, the RHA supports the amendments regarding the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C 601) and the Agricultural 
Marketing Act of 1946 under the proposed language of the Improving 
ARCTIC Act, Title VIII, Section 801. These provisions that expand 
tribal compacting authority to carry out USDA meat inspections in our 
region will be a potential game-changer for our reindeer herders in 
their ability to create value-added products for sale in the region and 
beyond. Beyond the language of this proposed legislation, the RHA would 
advocate for permanent funding support for the program and reasonable 
flexibility in the provisions requiring tribal food codes, as to allow 
for appropriate decisionmaking differences from tribe to tribe.
    The RHA appreciates the efforts of the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs in the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization and looks forward to 
continuing efforts to advance tribal food security.
    Thank you for your time.
                                 ______
                                 
        Prepared Statement of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and distinguished members 
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share this statement 
for the record from MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger for the hearing 
on Native Priorities in the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization. We applaud 
the genuine bipartisanship that Committee members demonstrated at the 
hearing and hope the same bipartisan support and collaboration will 
extend throughout the Farm Bill reauthorization process.
    Inspired by Jewish values and ideals, MAZON: A Jewish Response to 
Hunger is a national organization fighting to end hunger among people 
of all faiths and backgrounds in the United States and Israel since 
1985. MAZON is not just a Jewish response to hunger, it is the Jewish 
response to hunger. In Jewish tradition--and across all faith 
traditions--there is a fundamental value of taking care of the most 
vulnerable among us. In Leviticus, we are commanded to leave the 
corners of our fields and the gleanings of our harvest and vineyards 
for the poor and the stranger. This commandment is a clear expression 
of our responsibility to each other. It reminds us that we are not to 
judge those who are poor, nor should we assume to know the 
circumstances of their lives. The federal government fulfills this 
moral obligation and collective commitment to care for those among us 
who struggle with hunger by providing a robust, equitable, and 
accessible nutrition safety net.
    MAZON advocates for policy and program solutions that confront 
hunger's root causes, and we are committed to shining a spotlight on 
populations that are often overlooked and under-resourced. This 
includes hunger among military families, veterans, single mothers, 
LGBTQ older adults, college students, the people of Puerto Rico, and 
Indigenous peoples.
    Throughout our nearly 40 year history, MAZON has recognized the 
longstanding and unacceptably high rates of food insecurity among 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Since time 
immemorial, Indigenous peoples in what is now the U.S. sustained 
themselves and thrived on foods they cultivated, harvested or fished. 
Only since European settler colonialism \1\ have Indigenous peoples 
experienced hunger due to displacement from their homelands and loss of 
their food systems and culture. Broken treaties and failed federal 
policies have left many tribes with some of the highest rates of food 
and nutrition insecurity \2\ and diet-related diseases \3\ such as 
obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. As a result of these 
health disparities, Native Americans suffered the highest rates of 
mortality due to COVID-19 \4\ of any racial group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ McKinley CE, Jernigan VBB. ``I don't remember any of us . . . 
having diabetes or cancer'': How historical oppression undermines 
indigenous foodways, health, and wellness. Food Foodways. 
2023;31(1):43-65. doi: 10.1080/07409710.2023.2172795. Epub 2023 Feb 2. 
PMID: 36843960; PMCID: PMC9956020.
    \2\ Jernigan VBB, Huyser KR, Valdes J, Simonds VW. Food Insecurity 
among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A National Profile using the 
Current Population Survey-Food Security Supplement. J Hunger Environ 
Nutr. 2017;12(1):1-10. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2016.1227750. Epub 2016 
Oct 25. PMID: 28491205; PMCID: PMC5422031.
    \3\ Warne D, Wescott S. Social Determinants of American Indian 
Nutritional Health. Curr Dev Nutr. 2019 May 23;3(Suppl 2):12-18. doi: 
10.1093/cdn/nzz054. PMID: 31453425; PMCID: PMC6700461.
    \4\ Williams, Riis L. . ``Native American Deaths from COVID-19 
Highest Among Racial Groups.'' Princeton School of Public and 
International Affairs, 02 Dec 2021, https://spia.princeton.edu/news/
native-american-deaths-covid-19-highest-among-racial-groups. Accessed 
08 August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to these dire health inequities, MAZON supports the 
Indigenous-led movement to reclaim Native foodways, strengthen federal 
nutrition programs, and express Tribal sovereignty by advancing 
policies to increase food security and food sovereignty across Indian 
Country. Supporting Native-led partnerships and coalitions has allowed 
MAZON to leverage our advocacy and resources in mutual efforts to end 
hunger in Indian Country. National partners including the Indigenous 
Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of Arkansas, the 
research partner to the Native Farm Bill Coalition, and the Native Food 
and Nutrition Resource Alliance, the advocacy group for the National 
Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations 
(FDPIR), have made substantial progress in the last several years in 
advancing food security and food sovereignty in Indian Country. MAZON's 
more recent partnerships with state-Tribal organizations in Alaska, 
Hawaii, and South Dakota have great potential to significantly reduce 
hunger and expand food sovereignty among Native populations in these 
states.
    As the founding ally partner of the Native Farm Bill Coalition, 
MAZON supported the Coalition in achieving an unprecedented 63 Tribal 
provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill. MAZON proudly supports the Native 
Farm Bill Coalition's priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill \5\ which build 
on the successes from the 2018 Farm Bill and propose greater parity, 
self-determination, self-governance, and sovereignty for Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.indigenousfoodandag.com/project/2023-farm-bill-
executive-summaries/. Accessed 8 August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Below is a summary of key priorities in the Nutrition Title (IV) 
that will ensure that Indian Country has a consistent, comprehensive, 
and Tribally-led approach to tailor federal food assistance programs to 
the specific needs of Tribal communities and citizens:

   Apply 638 authority for all Farm Bill food and nutrition 
        programs including self-determination and self-governance for 
        the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Food 
        Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the 
        Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Commodity 
        Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) among others. This will ensure 
        maximum flexibility and best service to Tribal citizens across 
        the Farm Bill nutrition support portfolio. It also opens up a 
        host of opportunities for food producers to access new 
        institutional markets as Tribes are able to source food 
        directly from producers, instead of going through USDA markets.

   Expand and make permanent the 2018 Farm Bill's FDPIR 638 
        Self-Determination Project: Based on the success of the FDPIR 
        638 Project for sourcing local and/or traditional foods, 
        Congress must expand and make permanent this procurement 
        opportunity with designated mandatory funding so more Tribal 
        Nations are able to participate in and take advantage of this 
        pathway to improved Tribal food access and economic 
        development.

   Allow dual use of SNAP and FDPIR: Remove the statutory 
        prohibition of dual use of SNAP and FDPIR to improve food 
        access and opportunities for Tribal citizens to feed their 
        families and to bring parity similar to allowed dual use of 
        SNAP and TEFAP.

   Include more traditional and Tribally-produced foods in 
        FDPIR on a regional basis to ensure more culturally appropriate 
        food access across Indian Country and achieve significant cost 
        savings to the federal government.

   Continue the new Nutrition Education funding in recent 
        appropriations bills, especially on a non-competitive basis, to 
        improve the health of FDPIR participants across Indian Country.

    The proposed legislation announced by Senator Cortez Masto at the 
hearing, the Tribal Access to Nutrition Assistance Act, \6\ to allow 
for dual enrollment in the SNAP and FDPIR programs, is welcome and 
reflects one of the key Native Farm Bill Coalition priorities. MAZON 
also supports Senator Murkowski's Improving ARCTIC Act \7\ and the host 
of provisions that address food security for Alaska Natives. In 
addition, we look forward to proposed legislation from Senator Luj n to 
address issues related to Tribal food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cortez-
masto-and-murray-introduce-legislation-todemand-equal-food-access-for-
tribal-communities. Accessed 08 August 2023.
    \7\ https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
07.12.23%20Arctic%20Ag%20one%20pager%20-%20KM-nm.pdf. Accessed 08 
August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, we want to acknowledge the distinct issues and 
opportunities this Farm Bill presents for Native Hawaiians. Since the 
illegal overthrow, annexation and occupation of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, 
Native Hawaiians have long faced unique challenges to protecting their 
homelands, culture and foodways. Due to their unique history culturally 
and legally, Native Hawaiians are often left out of public policy 
conversations when it comes to food sovereignty, self determination and 
Indigenous rights. Therefore, it is important to lift up the priority 
areas for Native Hawaiian inclusion in the 2023 Farm Bill outlined in 
the ``Summary Report on Native Hawaiian Community Stakeholder Input for 
the U.S. 2023 Farm Bill. \8\'' This report by the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs aligns with the advocacy efforts of the Native Farm Bill 
Coalition and identifies, among other priorities, several policies that 
recognize and support Native Hawaiian Traditional Ecological Knowledge 
(TEK) needed to further revitalize and expand traditional ?oiwi 
(indigenous) food systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1UjrzyquNxNXwT8zRh5xSv89u9Jm5l7D5/view. Accessed 08 August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We know that hunger in the United States, the wealthiest country in 
the world, is far too pervasive. And sadly, this crisis is preventable 
but for the lack of political will. We must all realize the true sense 
of collective responsibility that is due to Tribal Nations and other 
historically marginalized communities.
    MAZON urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to make 
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry that will support and empower Tribal Nations and Indigenous 
communities to feed themselves and their neighbors. With the capacity 
to exercise Tribal sovereignty over all federal nutrition programs and 
to repair and revitalize Indigenous food systems, Tribal Nations and 
other marginalized communities will be able to meet their unique needs 
and provide for their health and wellbeing for generations to come.
    MAZON stands ready with expertise, passion, and resolve to work 
together to achieve a Farm Bill that endeavors to end hunger in Indian 
Country and across the nation.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Cecilia Firethunder, President, Little Wound 
         School Board; Oglala Lakota Nation Education Coalition
    Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, and members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs thank you for the opportunity to submit 
testimony on issues of importance regarding Native Priorities for the 
2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization. My name is Cecilia Firethunder, and I 
am the President of the Little Wound School Board and the Oglala Lakota 
Nation Education Coalition.
    Little Wound School is one of six tribally controlled grant schools 
on the Oglala Sioux Tribes Pine Ridge Indian Reservation; thus, we 
express a unique voice within the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 
system of schools. First, we support all the programs included in the 
testimony for the Native Priorities Farm Bill for 2023. Still, one 
specific item continues to be avoided in discussions of the 2023 Farm 
Bill, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) School Lunch 
Programs.
    Many people don't understand why BIE-funded schools care so much 
about the USDA School Lunch Programs, but it is simple: BIE does not 
fund Indian students' nutrition at BIE-funded schools. BIE schools are 
often left to fend for themselves in receiving nutrition assistance for 
Indian children. We need help, and the 2023 Farm Bill is the 
opportunity to help feed our children.
100-297 Tribally Controlled Grant Schools
    BIE-funded schools are the primary provider of education for on-
reservation Indian students. Yet, schools operating within the BIE 
system are woefully underfunded, outdated, and dangerous for students 
and staff. According to the Department of Education, in Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2023, the federal government funded Indian students at roughly 
half, $6,283 of the actual funding expended to educate non-Indian 
students at $12,500.
    Since more than 90 percent of tribally controlled school funding 
comes from Congress to meet the federal government's treaty and trust 
obligations for Indian education, only Congress can solve our funding 
problem. When discussing Indian education, one key element often 
overlooked is child nutrition. BIE-funded schools receive nearly 45 
percent of the total cost of their child nutrition funding from the 
USDA School Lunch Programs.
    Unfortunately, Tribal schools were notified by USDA that starting 
July 1, 2023, they would only be reimbursed .36 cents per dollar. 
Further restricting access to child nutrition is already insufficient. 
State assistance is even worse. In the State of South Dakota, Tribal 
schools are reimbursed less than .10 cents per dollar from the State. 
BIE schools have been forced to cannibalize our education, teacher, 
transportation, and safety funds to fill the gap to feed our children 
adequately.
USDA School Breakfast, Lunch and Summer Programs
    As you know, Native American/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian 
(Tribes) populations are particularly vulnerable to food scarcity. We 
have double the rate of nutrition-related health conditions compared to 
white Americans, and the gap has been growing. \1\ Unfortunately, this 
is also true in our education systems, and our children are paying the 
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Kaufman, P., Dicken, C., & Williams, R. (2014). Measuring 
access to healthful, affordable food in American Indian and Alaska 
Native Tribal areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 
Service. EIB-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2010, federal funding for meal service has only covered 45 
percent of the total cost. The USDA School Lunch Programs are vital to 
K-12 student health and are currently among the highest tribal school-
associated costs. They are all entirely state-administered, leaving out 
many financial and cultural concerns. One approach to address this 
underfunding is to allow Tribal schools to directly administer USDA 
National School Lunch Programs.
    In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress instructed USDA to issue a Report 
on the ``Feasibility of Tribal Administration of Federal Nutrition 
Assistance Programs.'' The Report showed that all tribes USDA visited, 
and over 90 percent of tribes surveyed, expressed an interest in 
directly administering USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Feasibility of Tribal Administration of Federal Nutrition 
Assistance Programs: Final Report, IMPAQ International, LLC. February 
2016 at page 70.


    In 2022 the Biden Administration signaled support for the direct 
administration of nutrition programs by tribes. On April 14, 2022, the 
USDA released its Equity Action Plan, which expresses a commitment by 
USDA to increase Tribal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities, including 
removing barriers to tribal access to USDA programs and services, 
promoting tribal self-determination and greater tribal decisionmaking, 
as well as incorporating indigenous values in USDA programs.
    Authorizing BIE-funded schools to directly administer the USDA 
Nutrition Assistance Programs; would strengthen tribal sovereignty, 
provide direct and meaningful services to students at tribal schools, 
increase the nutrition quality of the food provided, and increase 
culturally appropriate programming and services. Imagine the Oglala 
Sioux schools being able to provide their children traditional buffalo, 
Navajo schools serving mutton, Swinomish schools serving salmon, 
Alaskan Native schools serving caribou, and Native Hawaiian schools 
serving laulau, foods common to each culture.
    Tribes have proven for decades that they can successfully 
administer federal programs such as law enforcement, education, and 
healthcare. Authorizing direct administration of USDA school lunch 
programs would allow the tribes and tribal schools--those best 
acquainted with their students--the flexibility they need to fulfill 
the nutrition needs of their students.
    Providing Indian students with quality education must include child 
nutrition. Wopila.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hoskin Jr., Principal Chief, Cherokee 
                                 Nation
    Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:
    I write today on behalf of the more than 450,000 citizens of 
Cherokee Nation, many of whom work in the agricultural sector. Thank 
you for this opportunity to submit thoughts and comments the upcoming 
reauthorization of the Farm Bill.
    Cherokee Nation and citizens of Cherokee Nation are innovators in 
the agriculture space and regularly partner with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to fight hunger, advance food sovereignty efforts, and lift 
up Native producers. Historically, these producers are underrepresented 
in the agriculture industry and often lack adequate resources to grow 
their operations. We see the upcoming Farm Bill as a way to help Tribes 
and Native producers grow their agriculture efforts and promote Native 
sovereignty.
    We look forward to working with you to:

   Stabilize and grow the FDPIR program. Congress should make 
        permanent the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation 
        (FDPIR) Self-Determination Demonstration Project, expand 
        opportunities for Tribal Nations to participate, add Self-
        Governance compacting as an option for FDPIR, and expand the 
        authority for the entirety of FDPIR, not just the sourcing 
        opportunity. Expanding authority beyond Self Determination for 
        the sourcing provision will provide Cherokee Nation and other 
        tribes with an even greater opportunity to implement FDPIR 
        efficiently and effectively. Cherokee Nation and other Tribal 
        Nations should have the option to decide the food provided 
        through its food distribution program without federal review 
        and approval. This authority would allow Tribal governments to 
        quickly respond to the unpredictability of growing seasons and 
        current economic conditions. It would also provide Tribal 
        Nations the opportunity to ensure that all ingredients required 
        to prepare traditional foods are available through its food 
        distribution program.

   Expand Self-Determination and Self-Governance authorities to 
        SNAP, allowing tribes to administrate this program. Cherokee 
        Nation and other Tribal Nations are best positioned to shape 
        and administer SNAP to meet local needs. Currently, there is a 
        statutory bar on individuals who qualify for both FDPIR and 
        SNAP but, are unable to swap from one program to the other from 
        month to month. This creates an administrative headache for 
        certification of anyone who chooses to move between programs. 
        It also is not representative of any other food program 
        combination. Individuals who qualify for both TEFAP and SNAP 
        may use both, or WIC and SNAP, and on and on. Removing this 
        statutory prohibition would improve food access and 
        opportunities for Tribal citizens to feed their families.

   Include the PRIME Act in the Senate's Farm Bill. Cherokee 
        Nation is proud to support the PRIME Meat Processing in Indian 
        Country Act (S. 1780), which would amend the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act to allow the 
        Secretary of Agriculture to enter into self-determination 
        contracts with Tribal organizations to carry out the authority 
        of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This bill promotes 
        sovereignty and would provide opportunities for growth and 
        streamlined processes at our 1839 Cherokee Meat Company. Food 
        sovereignty is all about knowing where your food comes from, 
        exercising some control of production, and doing it on a 
        sustainable basis. Cherokee Nation is a leader in Tribal self-
        governance and, as we've done with the Food Distribution 
        Program on Indian Reservations, we look forward to working with 
        our federal partners at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
        demonstrate the significant benefits of self governance 
        contracting for Tribes and Tribal citizens.

   Change to the Livestock Forage Program (LFP) to allow tribes 
        the flexibility to use their own drought monitor and shorten 
        the wait time from 8 weeks to 2 weeks. Northeastern Oklahoma 
        has experienced record heat waves and brutal weather conditions 
        that livestock and pasture lands cannot sustain for weeks at a 
        time. Cherokee Nation is uniquely situated to evaluate and 
        determine the needs of Cherokee producers. As a tribal 
        government, we are aware of the evolving and pressing needs of 
        our citizens. The U.S. Drought Monitor alone is an insufficient 
        measure of the needs of Cherokee producers.

    We appreciate the opportunity to share in put to help make the 2023 
Farm Bill better and stronger for all farmers and ranchers across the 
Nation, and we look forward to collaborating further on these efforts 
in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe
    Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice-Chair Murkowski,
    On behalf of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, thank you for allowing us 
to submit these comments to the Committee to outline the Snoqualmie 
Indian Tribe's priorities in the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization. The 
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe in the Puget 
Sound region of Washington State with a reservation near Snoqualmie, 
Washington. The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe has inherent sovereign rights 
and certain reserved rights as a signatory to the Treaty of Point 
Elliott of 1855. Our priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill include:
1. Tribal Parity with USDA Good Neighbor Authority
    The Good Neighbor Authority allows the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) to authorize states, counties, and federally 
recognized Indian tribes to conduct certain projects on federal lands 
in pursuit of specified land management goals. Specific to forests, the 
Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service to enter into 
agreements to provide critical management work to keep forests healthy 
and productive.
    Snoqualmie currently owns and manages 12,000 acres of forest land 
located in King County, Washington. The Tribe acquired the forest, 
known as the Snoqualmie Ancestral Forest, in 2021. The forest is 
located within the ancestral homelands of the Tribe and near the 
reservation that was promised to the Tribe by the United States, but 
was never delivered. The Tribe is currently engaged in conservation 
harvests and restoration projects within the Ancestral Forest.
    Snoqualmie appreciates the support the Forest Service is able to 
provide through the Good Neighbor Authority. That said, because of a 
drafting oversight in the original legislative language authorizing the 
Good Neighbor Authority, Tribes and counties cannot retain and utilize 
revenue generated from Good Neighbor Authority projects.
    As such, Snoqualmie requests that the 2023 Farm Bill include 
language allowing Tribes and counties to retain and utilize revenue 
generated from Good Neighbor Authority projects.
2. Expansion of Anchor Forests
    An Anchor Forest, as addressed in multiple Forest Service studies, 
is a ``multi-ownership land base of any size able to support 
sustainable long-term wood and biomass production levels backed by 
local infrastructure and technical expertise and endorsed politically 
and publicly to achieve improved forest health and reduced fire risk 
conditions through management objectives of multiple interests.'' The 
Anchor Forest ``concept is founded on the premise that these tracts of 
forestland[,] under long-term stewardship [and] inclusive of 
commitments for commodity production, can economically incentivize 
cross-boundary collaborative management.''
    Anchor Forests facilitate forest management by multiple entities 
and can support broad sustainable forestry management. Anchor Forests 
also have the potential to facilitate carbon reduction, especially as 
it relates to carbon credit production and markets.
    Snoqualmie requests that the 2023 Farm Bill support the study and 
further expansion and implementation of Anchor Forest concepts and 
practices.
3. Permanent Reauthorization of the USDA Food Distribution Program on 
        Indian Reservations
    The USDA's Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
provides essential foods to income-eligible households living on Indian 
reservations and to Native American households residing in designated 
areas near reservations. The Program also distributes both food and 
administrative funds to participating Indian Tribal Organizations and 
qualifying state agencies.
    The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe supports amendments to the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations that promote Tribal 
autonomy and food security. Therefore, Snoqualmie requests that the 
2023 Farm Bill make the Public Law 638 pilot program for the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations permanent.
4. Public Law 638 Expansion
    Public Law 638, also known as the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act, was established to support Tribal autonomy 
and self-governance. Public Law 638 created a contracting framework 
with federally recognized Indian tribes to assure maximum, effective, 
and meaningful Tribal participation in the administration of 
contractible programs within the U.S. Department of the Interior that 
serve Tribal communities and members.
    Snoqualmie supports the broad adoption and expansion of government 
initiatives that utilize Public Law 638 contracts. Specifically, the 
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe asks that the 2023 Farm Bill:

   Expand Public Law 638 forestry opportunities to allow for 
        increased Tribal control over conservation practices and 
        related economic development opportunities.

   Establish a USDA Office of Tribal Self-Governance to drive 
        the development of new Public Law 638 contracts and the 
        expansion of existing Public Law 638 contracts.

   Expand Public Law 638 to be further incorporated into the 
        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

   Facilitate the use of Public Law 638 contracts as it relates 
        to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

   Establish a Public Law 638 demonstration project that would 
        allow tribes to procure local and traditional foods for the 
        Senior Food Box Program.

5. Utilization of Traditional, Ecological, Knowledge Technical 
        Standards
    Traditional, ecological, knowledge (TEK) has allowed Tribes to 
steward and protect their cultural resources and sacred sites for time 
immemorial. For example, Tribal nations have always understood the 
importance of controlled fires to cleanse forests, the medicinal value 
of numerous plants, and the significance of utilizing resources 
sustainably.
    TEK is vital to the preservation of indigenous resources and 
Snoqualmie asks that the 2023 Farm Bill develop technical standards and 
practices to promote the use of TEK in federal initiatives. Again, 
thank you for this opportunity to share the Snoqualmie Tribe's 
priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization. We look forward to 
working with you on these important issues.

        Sincerely,
   Robert M. de los Angeles, Tribal Chairman; Shauna Shipp-
                      Martinez, Secretary of Tribal Affairs
                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry
    My name is Lionel Haskie and I serve as Director of Operations--
Public Law 638 and Government Relations for the Navajo Agricultural 
Products Industry. On behalf of the Navajo Agricultural Products 
Industry, which we refer to as NAPI, thank you for allowing us to 
submit testimony for the July 26, 2023, hearing entitled ``Native 
priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization.'' NAPI is an 
agricultural enterprise wholly owned by the Navajo Nation that manages 
over 70,000 acres of farmland in northwest New Mexico. Our crops 
include potatoes, wheat, beans, alfalfa, chili, organic watermelon, 
organic squash, sumac, and corn. We employ 300 people annually and an 
additional 350-375 seasonal workers during harvest. The Farm Bill is 
critically important to our farm system, and as one of the largest 
Native American producers in the country we respectfully request the 
Committee and Congress implement the following priorities as part of 
the 2023 Farm Bill:
1. Expanding Public Law 638 eligibility to the Food Safety and 
        Inspection Service under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
        U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
        (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.)
    NAPI supports expanding Public Law 638 eligibility to the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). Public Law 638, also known as the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, was established to support 
Tribal autonomy and self-governance. Public Law 638 created a 
contracting framework with federally recognized Indian tribes to assure 
maximum, effective, and meaningful Tribal participation in the 
administration of contractible programs within the U.S. Department of 
the Interior that serve Tribal communities and members.
    Currently, NAPI experiences severe delays in food inspection and 
shipping due to a lack of availability of inspectors. This expansion of 
Public Law 638 will provide NAPI and other Tribes the ability to 
administer meaningful programs themselves, resulting in more timely and 
tailored inspections and shipping all while supporting Tribal self-
governance.
2. The creation of a Public Law 638 Office at the U.S. Department of 
        Agriculture to support Tribes expanding existing programs to 
        utilize 638 contracts
    As discussed, Public Law 638 contracts support essential programs 
while providing necessary autonomy to Tribes. As such, NAPI supports 
the creation of a Public Law 638 Office at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to support Tribes expanding existing programs to utilize 
638 contracts. In addition, the office would assist Tribes and Tribal 
entities in expediating negotiations of self-determination contracts 
and self-governance compacts. An office with experts in Public Law 638 
contracting is sorely needed at USDA and will help ensure Tribes set up 
their programs in a timely and efficient way.
3. Establishing a new provision to amend the Food Distribution Program 
        on Indian Reservations and other nutrition programs that would 
        allow Tribal producers to provide traditional foods through the 
        U.S. 
        Department of Agriculture on a regional basis
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations provides essential foods to income-eligible 
households living on Indian reservations and to Native American 
households residing in designated areas near reservations. The Program 
also distributes both food and administrative funds to participating 
Indian Tribal Organizations and qualifying state agencies.
    Federal programs of this type are essential to providing food 
security to Native communities and families across the U.S. The Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations also supports Tribal 
agriculture and Native farmers in providing vital and healthy foods 
throughout Indian Country.
    As such, NAPI supports establishing a new provision to amend the 
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations and other nutrition 
programs that would allow Tribal producers to provide traditional foods 
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture on a regional basis, as 
opposed to a national basis. By utilizing a regionally focused model, 
Tribes will be able to work directly with other Tribes to supply goods 
through their food and nutrition programs and ensure timely food 
delivery.
4. Incorporate key language from the Native American Seeds Protection 
        Act of 2019 and the Seeds and Breeds of the Future Act to 
        require 
        Tribal consultation and engagement with Tribal institutions 
        regarding the protection of seeds and other related activities
    NAPI is a proponent of protecting Native American seeds as well as 
traditional food products and farming practices. NAPI also promotes the 
development of regionally adapted and publicly available seed varieties 
and animal breeds, particularly as it relates to fostering agriculture 
in various and unique regions. As such, NAPI was a strong supporter of 
the proposed Native American Seeds Protection Act of 2019 as well as 
the current Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act.
    Given the importance of these two pieces of legislation, 
specifically as it relates to Tribal agriculture, we request that the 
Committee incorporate key language from the Native American Seeds 
Protection Act of 2019 and the Seeds and Breeds of the Future Act that 
would require Tribal consultation and engagement with Tribal 
institutions regarding the protection of seeds, traditional food 
products and farming practices, and other related activities.
    If implemented in the 2023 farm bill, the above priorities will 
allow NAPI to more efficiently produce food for and distribute products 
to our customers. Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of the Initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water 
                         for Tribal Communities
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the record on 
Native priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization.
    We work on the initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water for 
Tribal Communities (UACW). \1\ The UACW is comprised of Tribal members, 
water experts, and non-profit organizations working together to enhance 
Tribal capacity and secure access to clean, safe drinking water for all 
Native communities in the United States. As part of that initiative, we 
have looked closely at the various federal programs, including those at 
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), that address the 
provision of clean water and associated infrastructure in Indian 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, https:/
/tribalcleanwater.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Access to clean water is a human right. Clean water is foundational 
for human health, growing economies, and a basic level of support for 
communities. However, 48 percent of households on Native American 
reservations do not have access to reliable water sources, clean 
drinking water, or adequate sanitation. \2\ The lack of access to clean 
and safe drinking water in Tribal communities reflects historical and 
persisting racial inequities that have resulted in health and 
socioeconomic disparities. The federal government, through various 
treaties made with Tribes, promised to establish reservations as 
permanent homelands for Tribal communities. Unfortunately, the federal 
government has largely failed to fulfill its duty to provide clean 
water for Tribes. A permanent, livable, and prosperous homeland cannot 
exist without this minimum requirement of life-access to an adequate 
and healthful supply of drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Water Delayed is Water Denied: How Congress has Blocked Access 
to Water for Native Families, Democratic Staff, House Committee on 
Natural Resources, Oct. 2016, https://democrats-
naturalresources.house.gov/waterdelayed-is-water-denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Native American households are more likely to lack adequate water 
services than any other racial group. Existing water infrastructure on 
reservations continues to deteriorate and inadequate water quality 
remains pervasive across Indian country. According to the U.S. Water 
Alliance, Native households are 19 times more likely than white 
households to lack indoor plumbing. \3\ Without a safe, reliable, 
affordable, and easily accessible water supply, Tribal households are 
unable to meet basic personal hygiene, food preparation, domestic 
cleaning, and other needs required for good health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ DigDeep-US Water Alliance, Closing the Water Access Gap in the 
United States, 2019, https://uswateralliance.org/sites/
uswateralliance.org/files/publications/
Closing%20the%20Water%20Access%20Gap%20in%20the%20United%20States_DIGITA
L.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The USDA provides a number of programs that can address access to 
clean drinking water for Tribes. While these programs have improved 
conditions for some Native American communities, several barriers exist 
which prevent Tribes from fully realizing the benefits of these 
programs.
    According to USDA data (received through a FOIA request), from 
2010-2020, Tribes had lower application numbers than expected and 
received less funding per application than other applicant groups. 
Tribes represented only 3.4 percent of applications across all of 
USDA's drinking water and wastewater programs, and they received only 2 
percent of funding. Current USDA allocation structures for grant 
funding fail to apportion funding to properly support Tribal needs or 
respond to Tribal applications. Nearly 90 percent of Tribal 
applications are for grants rather than loans, and Tribes apply for 
grant funding in far greater numbers than other applicant groups (87 
percent of Tribal applications are for grants, not loans, as compared 
to 36 percent overall). Despite this demonstrable expression of Tribal 
grant funding needs over loans, 70 percent of USDA Water and Sanitation 
Program funding is for the water and waste disposal loan program, 
whereas only 22 percent of funding is allotted for grants. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Identifying Barriers in USDA Programs and Services; Advancing 
Racial Justice and Equity and Support for Underserved Communities at 
USDA, comments on the USDA request for information, Initiative on 
Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, Aug. 14, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the USDA is required by its agency regulations to 
complete the underwriting process in evaluating a Tribal application 
that a traditional lender would use, even if the Tribal applicant is 
not able to finance a loan and is only interested in a grant. During 
this process, the USDA reviews the Tribe's assets and debts and the 
pre-development work to apply for funding can be extensive. It is not 
uncommon for the USDA to work with a Tribe for up to two years before 
an application is submitted to ensure that all the necessary pre-work 
is completed. \5\ Many, if not most, Tribes simply do not have the 
human or technical resources available to slog through this application 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribes in the Colorado 
River Basin, Water & Tribes Initiative, April 2021, https://
tribalcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WTI-Full-Report-
4.20.pdf, at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the matching contribution requirements and maximum 
grant levels imposed by USDA can make even USDA grants unusable by 
Tribes. \6\ Finally, and oddly, more favorable treatment and preference 
is given to ``colonias'' along the U.S./Mexico border than to Native 
American Tribes under this program. Thus, the vast majority of USDA 
grant and loan funding, as it is currently structured, is neither 
appealing nor accessible to Tribal communities and their water and 
wastewater needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See USDA Rural Development, Individual Water and Wastewater 
Grants, https://www.rd.usda.gov/programsservices/single-family-housing-
programs/individual-water-wastewater-grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding for safe drinking water systems for Tribal communities 
received a significant boost from the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. While groundbreaking and long 
overdue, the funding now available for construction and repair of 
domestic water systems in Indian country is not a complete solution. 
Technical assistance is badly needed to allow Tribes to plan and design 
the systems necessary to access clean drinking water and bring those 
plans to the ``shovel ready'' stage where they can take advantage of 
available construction funding. In addition, Tribes need support to 
develop the managerial, financial, and regulatory capacity required for 
a fully functional and self-sustaining utility. Finally, because Tribes 
cannot rely on the same types and volumes of revenue streams to support 
operation and maintenance (O&M) of water systems, O&M assistance helps 
to ensure that the benefits of the historic investment in 
infrastructure are fully realized. The Tribal Access to Clean Water Act 
of 2023 \7\ would help address these gaps and advance the federal 
government's treaty and trust obligations to provide clean and 
accessible water for Native communities. We support swift adoption of 
the USDA provisions in the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act by the Farm 
Bill, which would:

    \7\ S. 2385, https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/--cache/files/a/
6/a6fb5c6f-eac9-4d4e-9541-d1ba7c1f8ab8/
64B158C296583B7B80A3A39962959A78.tribal-acccess-to-clean-water-act-
bill-text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Authorize the USDA, Rural Development, to make grants and 
        loans for technical and financial assistance and for training, 
        as well as for construction.

   Authorize increased funding for USDA's Rural Development 
        Community Facilities Grant and Loan Program of $100 million per 
        year for five years and provide $30 million per year 
        specifically for technical assistance.

   Remove matching contribution requirements and ensure that 
        Native communities are treated equitably and appropriately when 
        considered for grants and loans.

    These provisions would strengthen the USDA Rural Development 
program and increase the ability of Tribes to secure grant money to 
build drinking water and waste disposal facilities and achieve the 
basic quality of life taken for granted by most Americans.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

        Sincerely,
                            Heather Tanana, Initiative Lead

                                  [all]