[Senate Hearing 117-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-442
BUY NATIVE AMERICAN: FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE BUSINESS CAPACITY
BUILDING AND SUCCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-426 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada STEVE DAINES, Montana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 16, 2022................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 22
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 26
Statement of Senator Hoeven...................................... 21
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 16
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 24
Witnesses
Garriott, Wizipan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior....................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hennigh, Gary, City Administrator, King Cove, Alaska............. 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Hipp, Janie Simms, General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Holden, Lexie, Associate Director of Policy and Government
Relations, Intertribal Agriculture Council..................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Johns, Wahleah, Director, Office of Indian Energy Policy and
Programs, U.S. Department of Energy............................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Maunakea-Forth, J. Kukui, Founder/Executive Director, MA'O
Organic Farms.................................................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Willie, JT, Executive Director, Navajo Nation Division of
Economic Development........................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Wahleah Johns by:
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 68
Hon. Lisa Murkowski.......................................... 67
Hon. Mike Rounds............................................. 67
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 65
Response to written questions submitted to Janie Simms Hipp by:
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 58
Hon. Lisa Murkowski.......................................... 63
Hon. Mike Rounds............................................. 61
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 57
Hon. John Tester............................................. 63
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to:
Lexie Holden................................................. 64
J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth...................................... 64
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund,
prepared statement............................................. 53
BUY NATIVE AMERICAN: FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE BUSINESS CAPACITY
BUILDING AND SUCCESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:00 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, and welcome. We appreciate
your accommodating our schedule change.
We wanted to be there at the White House as President Biden
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. The bipartisan
work of this Committee, its staff and the whole Administration,
and everybody across Indian Country, Alaska Natives, Native
Hawaiians, it was a moment worth celebrating. So we appreciate
your allowing us to do that.
In his State of the Union Address earlier this month,
President Biden renewed his Administration's commitment to Buy
American and advance our Nation's economic security. Today's
hearing entitled Buy Native American: Federal Support for
Native Business Capacity Building and Success focuses on this
commitment as it applies to Native communities. Specifically,
we will examine how existing and newly developed Federal
programs help to provide Native businesses with equitable
access to capital markets and look at ways this Federal support
can be improved.
Native-owned enterprises power community development,
create jobs, and drive innovation in diverse sectors of the
economy, from agriculture to clean energy to tourism. According
to the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development,
Native economies contribute more than $127 billion to the
United States economy on an annual basis, making them crucial
sustaining forces, not just for their own communities, but for
the whole Country.
Yet lack of access to capital and limited local
infrastructure among other unique burdens restrict Native
business' full access to the marketplace. These barriers
persist despite dedicated Federal programs to serve Native
businesses with funding, technical, and administrative
assistance.
This Committee has an oversight responsibility to study not
just the how but the why this inequity continues. Following
passage of the recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
continuing implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill, we have a lot
to consider.
I would like to extend a warm welcome, especially an aloha,
to Ms. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, and to our other witnesses who are
joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and your
discussion.
I will introduce the first panel, and when Senator
Murkowski comes, we will have her opening statement whenever
that may occur. On the first panel we have Wizipan Garriott,
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs for
the Department of the Interior; Janie Simms Hipp, General
Counsel for the Department of Agriculture; and Wahleah Johns,
Director of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs,
Department of Energy.
I want to remind our witnesses that your full written
testimony will be made part of the official record. So please
keep your statement to no more than five minutes, so that
members have time for questions.
Assistant Secretary Garriott, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF WIZIPAN GARRIOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Garriott. Hello and good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, it
is good to see you again. Iyuha cante nape ciyuzapelo. I greet
you with a good heart. Wizipan emciyapelo, na Sicangu Lakota
hemaca. My name is Wizipan Garriott, and I am a citizen of the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. I serve as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of
Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's
testimony at this important oversight hearing.
The socioeconomic success of Indian Country is close to my
heart. I grew up culturally wealthy with a loving family. But
we were economically poor. My home reservation has for decades
ranked as one of the 10 poorest counties in the Country on a
per capita income basis.
Prior to joining the Administration, I ran my tribe's
economic development corporation where we created jobs, started
numerous businesses and stood up an emerging CDFI and a
community-based non-profit.
The Department has an important trust responsibility to
support tribes and tribal governments in protecting their
people, lands, assets and resources. Indian Country is diverse,
and every tribal community is unique, with varying degrees of
financial and business capacity. Therefore, our work must be
interdisciplinary and multifaceted.
The Department directly supports economic development
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Indian Economic
Development, which provides loans, grants, and technical
assistance to tribes, tribal enterprises, and individually
owned businesses. The OIED Division of Capital Investment,
delivers the Indian Loan Guarantee and Insurance Program. In
operation for nearly 50 years, this program has helped Indian
businesses secure over $2 worth of private loans, while
maintaining one of the lowest loss rates among similar Federal
programs.
The OIED Division of Economic Development administers
competitive grants, including the Native American Business
Development Institute Grant, the National Tribal Broadband
Grant, the Tribal Tourism Grant, the Indian Business Incubators
Program, the Indigenous Tourism Grant, and the Living Language
Grant. These programs deploy much-needed capital by supporting
and building economic capacity throughout Indian Country.
Helping tribes develop their energy resources is also
important. The BIA Office of Trust Services Division of Energy
and Mineral Development provides technical assistance, grants,
capacity building, and marketing assistance to tribal mineral
renewable and natural resource owners to support sustainable
tribal economies and to manage their own resources. Currently,
the Office is partner on 229 projects on 145 reservations
through both technical assistance and awarded grants.
The Buy Indian Act is another important economic
development tool. The Act authorizes the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services to
purchase supplies, services, and certain kinds of construction
equipment from qualified Native American vendors. The
Department has prioritized supporting Indian economic
enterprises. In Fiscal Year 2018, Buy Indian Act purchasing was
$85.4 million. In Fiscal Year 2021, it was nearly $280 million,
which represents 59 percent of all Indian Affairs purchasing
power.
The Department is in the process of updating its Buy Indian
Act regulations and expects to complete these updates by the
end of spring. It is anticipated that over the next several
years, the new regulations will result in up to 65 percent of
Indian Affairs purchases being Buy Indian. This could
potentially result in up to $325 million flowing to Indian
Country businesses on an annual basis.
Our work has also expanded where statutorily authorized to
support Native Hawaiian communities. In 2021, OIED began
assisting Native Hawaiian organizations with the enhancement
and integration of indigenous tourism through the NATIVE Act.
Also today, the Department is proud to announce that we
have approved our first tribal energy development organization
for the Red Lake Tribe. The approval will allow Red Lake to
forego Secretarial review when it enters into a lease or
business agreement with TEDO, and when it enters into rights of
way with the TEDO.
This Administration is firmly committed to working with
tribes to meaningfully support economic development for
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views on
these important matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garriott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wizipan Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Hello and good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski,
and members of the Committee. Iyuha cante nape ciyuzapelo. I greet you
with a good heart. Wizipan emciyapelo, na Sicangu Lakota hemaca. My
name is Wizipan Garriott, and I am a citizen of the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe. I serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you
for the opportunity to present the Department's testimony at this
important oversight hearing titled ``Buy Native American: Federal
Support for Native Business Capacity Building and Success.''
The socioeconomic success of Indian country is an issue that is
especially important to me. I was fortunate enough to grew up
culturally wealthy with a loving family. But we were economically poor.
My earliest memories are of no running water and frost on the walls of
our one room trailer house in the winter. Through hard work my parents
built a comfortable life for our family and helped me pay for college.
But others in my community were not so fortunate. My home reservation
has for decades ranked as one of the 10 poorest counties in the country
on a per capita income basis. Prior to joining this Administration, I
ran my Tribe's economic development corporation where we started
numerous businesses and stood up an emerging community development
financial institution (CDFI) and a highly successful community-based
nonprofit.
The Department has an important trust responsibility to support
tribes and tribal governments in protecting their people, lands,
assets, and resources. This responsibility includes supporting and
promoting economic development in American Indian, Alaska Native, and
Native Hawaiian communities to support prosperity, meaningful
livelihoods, and self-sufficient and sustainable economies. Indian
country is unique and diverse, with different historical, geographic,
and socioeconomic circumstances and varying regulatory, financial, and
business capacities. Therefore, our work must be multifaceted,
interdisciplinary, and collaborative.
The economies of Indian country in many ways mirror the larger
economy. Tribes, tribally owned enterprises, and individual
entrepreneurs are industry leaders in a wide variety of sectors,
including manufacturing, hospitality, tourism, farming, ranching,
processing, technology, IT, entertainment, telecommunications, finance
and investments, and many more. Tribes and tribal entrepreneurs operate
buffalo ranches, market produce and vegetables in mainstream stores,
own energy development enterprises, provide AI services to the
Department of Defense, create award winning art and TV shows, and
contribute to the American economy in virtually every imaginable way.
It is also important to note that Indian country has a long and
storied economic history. Tribal industriousness, ingenuity and use of
technology created thriving communities rich in food, clothing,
weaponry, horses, art, and other goods that were connected by vast
inter-tribal trade networks spanning the entire continent. Tribal
agricultural and natural resource management practices produced
abundance, ensuring community safety nets for the elderly and disabled
while promoting work and dignity across the entire community.
Individuals often spoke multiple languages, including sign language, to
facilitate diplomacy and trade. It is upon this foundation that tribes
have and are building their futures, and it is our job to support
Indian country in revitalizing their economies.
Office of Indian Economic Development
The Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) Office of Indian Economic
Development (OIED) provides technical assistance, training, and funding
to assist tribes and tribal members with starting and sustaining their
businesses, bringing ideas to the marketplace, and taking advantage of
government and private procurement opportunities. Through these
efforts, OIED provides tribal business owners avenues to address the
lack of access to credit and limited economic opportunities that exist
in many American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Recent
legislation has expanded eligibility for some of these services to
Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs). OIED primarily fulfills its work
in three interconnected ways: providing access to capital; grants; and
technical assistance.
Access to Capital
Within OIED the Division of Capital Investment (DCI) delivers the
Indian Loan Guarantee and Insurance Program (ILGP.) This program
supports Federally recognized tribes, bands, nations, pueblos,
rancherias, villages, communities, corporations and their members
secure conventional business financing on terms comparable to the non-
Indian business community, by guaranteeing or insuring up to 90 percent
of outstanding loan principal and interest.
DCI works with lenders and their borrowers to help applicants meet
the ``reasonable prospect of repayment'' standard required for
guarantee or insurance approval. Loans must have a positive economic
impact on a tribe or tribal service area but can otherwise be used for
nearly any business purposes--from real estate, equipment or inventory
purchase, working capital, construction or renovation, revolving lines
of credit, and refinancing.
In operation for nearly 50 years, this program has helped Indian
businesses secure over $2 billion worth of private loans, while
maintaining one of the lowest loss rates among similar federal
programs. In fiscal year (FY) 2020 the ILGP leveraged $7,042,637 of
federal funding to create $126,517,775 of investment in Indian country.
In FY 2021, the ILGP leveraged $10,204,000 of federal funding to create
$80,281,006 of investment in Indian country. It is clear, the more we
invest in the ILGP, the more Indian country will leverage this vital
and important program to help support their communities.
Grant Programs
Within OIED, the Division of Economic Development (DED) administers
competitive grants to support Native entrepreneurs, broadband
deployment, business development feasibility studies, and the
documentation and revitalization of tribal languages. DED Grant
Programs include the:
Native American Business Development Institute Grant--Helps
tribes weigh their risks to determine whether a project is
worth pursuing and empower them to make informed decisions
about their economic futures. Results from studies can often
help tribes persuade lenders and investors to provide financial
backing to help turn their idea into a reality.
National Tribal Broadband Grant--Provides tribes the
opportunity to receive funding to develop or extend broadband
services in their communities.
Tribal Tourism Grant--Increases capacity for tribes to plan,
develop and manage tourism and related infrastructure in
support of economic development. This includes NATIVE Act
supporting grants for tribal tourism feasibility studies and
tribal tourism business plan development.
Indian Business Incubators Program--Provides funds to
establish and run business incubators that serve entrepreneurs
who will provide products or services in American Indian and
Alaska Native communities.
Indigenous Tourism--Provides technical assistance to tribes
in the areas of tourism planning, management, and product
development.
Living Languages Grant Program--Provides funds to tribes to
document and revitalize at risk languages.
Technical Assistance
As awareness of OIED services grows so too does the need to expand
technical assistance. Currently, OIED provides technical assistance
through grant training such as pre-application training, grant writing,
and business planning. Technical assistance is available to all
interested tribes, tribal organizations, and NHOs.
In addition to providing full life-cycle technical support services
to OIED grantees and applicants, both virtual and onsite training
events are opportunities to strengthen the connection between
recipients and the federal staff who oversee these programs.
Office of Trust Services--Division of Energy and Mineral Development
Within the BIA Office of Trust Services, the Division of Energy and
Mineral Development (DEMD) provides technical assistance, grants, and
marketing assistance to tribal mineral, renewable, and natural resource
owners to support sustainable tribal economies through environmentally
sound management of their resources.
DEMD provides technical staff to assist federally recognized Indian
tribes to identify and implement opportunities to maximize their
revenue streams for economic resource development. This includes:
Assessment of resources quality and quantity.
Engineering Assessments--design, modeling, economic,
analyses, equipment needs throughout the project.
Marketing--local, regional, and national sales forecasts,
marketing forecasting, existing and future competitions,
opportunities and challenges.
Financial--short and long-term income streams, financial
documents, potential lenders, government contracts, grants, and
federal funding initiatives.
Loans--BIA Loan Guarantees, other loan guarantee programs,
and assistance with working with local, regional, and national
lending institutions.
DEMD is currently a partner on 229 projects on 145 reservations
through both technical assistance and awarded grants. In FY 2020 $8.1
million in grant funds were awarded.
Buy Indian Act
The Buy Indian Act authorizes the Departments of the Interior and
Health and Human Services to purchase supplies, services and certain
kinds of construction equipment from qualified Native American vendors
(``Indian Economic Enterprises''). The Department, including the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (AS-IA), BIA, and Bureau
of Indian Education, has prioritized supporting Indian Economic
Enterprises through the Buy Indian Act and plans to increase purchases
from FY 2021 of $279.6 million in FY 2022. Indian Affairs is currently
in the process of awarding new construction contracts for three BIE
schools to Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises.
Implementation of the Buy Indian Act has been an evolutionary
process. Originally enacted in 1910, the Department developed
implementing regulations in 2013 with an increased emphasis in Buy
Indian Act usage during FY 2019. As a result, Buy Indian Act purchasing
has increased from $124.4 million in FY 2019 to $279.6 million in FY
2021, which represents 59 percent of all Indian Affairs purchasing
directly supporting Indian enterprises. Updated regulations are being
developed according to consultation with Indian country. It is
anticipated that these updated regulations, over several years, will
result in up to 65 percent of eligible Buy Indian Act purchasing and
will result in a steady increase of eligible Buy Indian Act obligations
being awarded to Indian Economic Enterprises.
Office of Native Hawaiian Relations
Since 2004, the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations (ONHR) has been
principally responsible for carrying out the Secretary's trust
responsibilities under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), State
of Hawaii Admission Act, and the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act. In
addition, ONHR has facilitated interagency efforts to address
inequities that have plagued the Native Hawaiian Community in areas
including economic development, educational achievement, health,
housing, climate adaption, and the impacts of social and political
dislocation.
In 2021, the Department administered the first economic development
program specific to the Native Hawaiian Community. This included two
cooperative agreements of $600,000. ONHR, in collaboration with the
OIED, assisted NHOs with the enhancement and integration of indigenous
tourism through the NATIVE Act.
In addition, economic development grant pre-application training,
grant writing and business plan development, sustainability training,
and coordination of an annual tourism grantee meeting has been extended
to all interested NHOs. The Department is committed to expanding on
these economic development opportunities for the Native Hawaiian
Community.
NATIVE Act Implementation
The Department has utilized Community Economic Development and Road
Maintenance funds from FYs 2019--2022 to implement the NATIVE Act
administered by the BIA's Office of Indian Services (OIS) Division of
Transportation and OIED to support:
A five-year, performance-based cooperative agreement with the
American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA).
Cooperative agreement with George Washington University to
promote tourism to tribal locations in North Dakota and South
Dakota.
Cooperative agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
Virginia Tech to foster inter-tribal tourism in Montana and
Virginia.
Grant with the Taos Community Economic Development
Corporation to promote agricultural-tourism and food-based
visitation.
Grant with a Native vendor to develop visitation centered
around the Navajo Nation's sheep and woolen culture.
Moving forward, OIED will utilize NATIVE Act resources across
Indian country through technical assistance and grant opportunities.
White House Council on Native American Affairs
The White House Council on Native American Affairs (WHCNAA)
Committee on Economic Development, Energy, and Infrastructure
(Committee) over the past year has focused on improving tribal access
to federal resources, including access and utilization of funding from
the American Rescue Plan (ARP) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL). The Committee is co-led by the Departments of Commerce (DOC),
Transportation (DOT), Energy (DOE), and the Small Business
Administration (SBA) with membership including Departments of the
Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Health and Human
Services, Labor (DOL), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more.
The Committee meets at least once a month to coordinate, develop, and
execute inter-agency efforts.
Over the past year, the Committee has supported inter-agency
efforts for infrastructure that enables commerce and business, such as
broadband. The Committee supported the organization of the 2021
National Tribal Broadband Summit, helped coordinate technical
assistance on the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and, most
recently, supported the White House Tribal Broadband Briefing with
Tribal leaders in February.
The Committee has also coordinated technical assistance
opportunities for ARP and BIL funding by developing a central calendar
of inter-agency events on the WHCNAA webpage: https://www.bia.gov/
sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/opa/whcnaa/
Upcoming_ARP_and_BIL_Support_Sessions_for_Tribes.pdf.
The Committee Cabinet-level leadership hosted a Tribal Engagement
Session on January 31, with Secretary Haaland, DOT Secretary Buttigieg,
DOE Secretary Granholm, EPA Administrator Regan, and DOC Deputy
Secretary Graves. The Committee helped organize this virtual event for
Tribal leaders for which over 1,000 people registered. The Cabinet
leadership shared what economic development and infrastructure-related
resources were available and heard recommendations from Tribal leaders.
The Committee also supported the 2021 White House Tribal Nations
Summit in November 2021, which featured two panels focusing on economic
development and infrastructure resources. These panels had Tribal
leaders and SBA Administrator Guzman, DOL Secretary Walsh, DOE
Secretary Granholm, and DOT Secretary Buttigieg.
Joint Secretarial Order 3403
On November 15, 2021, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of
Agriculture Vilsack issued Secretarial Order 3403: Joint Secretarial
Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretarial Order
recognizes that federal lands were previously owned and managed by
Indian Tribes and that these lands and waters contain cultural and
natural resources of significance and value to Indian tribes and their
citizens, including, sacred religious sites, burial sites, wildlife,
and sources of Indigenous foods and medicines. In addition, many of
those federal lands and waters lie within areas where Indian tribes
have the reserved right to hunt, fish, gather, and pray pursuant to
ratified treaties and agreements with the United States.
The Department recognizes and values tribes' traditional ecological
knowledge of the lands the Department administers. Our collaboration
with tribes, through co-stewardship and the incorporation of tribal
ecological knowledge into federal management practices, strengthens the
management of the nation's public lands.
Co-stewardship agreements also strengthen tribal economies through
providing opportunities for more robust tribal tourism and land
management. The Department is looking to implement the Secretarial
Order in several ways including a full range of co-stewardship
agreements, inclusive of but not limited to formal co-management.
Supporting Native Communities
The Biden Administration has prioritized bringing vital resources
to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities
through the BIL.
The BIL provides:
$466 million investment in tribal climate resilience and
infrastructure, including: $216 million to address the effects
of climate change and $250 million for irrigation and power,
safety of dams, water sanitation and other construction;
$2.5 billion to help the Department fulfill settlements of
Indian water rights claims;
$16 billion to address legacy pollution, including $150
million in Tribal grants to plug and remediate orphan oil and
gas wells; and
authorizes $270 million over five years for the BIA road
maintenance program.
The Department held consultations with tribes on BIL funding in
January and we are working to ensure this funding gets out to Indian
country as soon as possible.
Conclusion
This Administration is firmly committed to working with Tribal
governments to meaningfully support economic development for American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department's views on these important
issues.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Simms Hipp, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JANIE SIMMS HIPP, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Simms Hipp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful to
be here with you today. I hope we have lots of time to cover
lots of different topic areas.
You do already have my written testimony. I am not going to
read it to you today. I am sure everyone will be relieved by
that.
I did want to hit on a few points that I think are really
important in terms of what the United States Department of
Agriculture can bring to this discussion today.
Some of you may not know, but we have many, many mission
areas within the Department of Agriculture. We have so many
programs that are of assistance to tribes, to tribal
governments, to Native people. I am here to talk about as many
of those today as you wish.
I did want to bring out a few things that are important, I
think, in our written testimony today for this hearing. One is
food security. Food security, as we know, is a challenge within
many Native communities. USDA has an entire portfolio that
focuses on issues related to food security.
Rural development, our infrastructure programs, are
critical to tribal governments. Our supply chain and capacity
building efforts that we are undertaking right now in this
Administration to really address some of the supply chain
rigidity and weaknesses that we saw during the pandemic, and we
are heavily involved in pushing forward in those areas across
multiple mission areas and multiple agencies in the Department.
But we are also taking a hard, hard look at every single
one of our authorities and our programs. My office, the Office
of General Counsel, is deeply involved within even our General
Counsel lawyers across the Department to literally reexamine
all of our authorities and determine where the barriers are for
tribes, for tribal governments, for Native Corporations, for
tribal entities. That is already underway. We have already
reconfigured ourselves within the Office of General Counsel.
We have a new Indian Law Working Group that is literally
dissecting every single program that we have. Our job is to
find barriers to participation. If we can fix them within the
Department, we will do so. Some of those barriers may need your
help. And we will be sure to reach out and we will remain
available to all of your staff to talk through those issues as
we uncover them.
We are committed within the Department to take on a new set
of eyes to all of our programs, to really think about USDA's
programs from the concept and from the eyes of indigenous
people. That is already underway.
Tribal coordination and consultation, our Office of Tribal
Relations has been reconstituted within the Office of the
Secretary. Those consultations are happening at a rapid pace.
We have a multi-day consultation around all of our programs
that is going to take place over an entire week in the early
part of April.
But I will tell you, we are also reaching out to people in
other departments. Wizipan can tell you, we already have a nice
coordination effort going on between my Office of General
Counsel at USDA and the Solicitor's Office at the Department of
Interior so that we can work together. Because what we have
found at USDA is that particularly around issues such as Native
agriculture, we must do these things in coordination with them.
We cannot fix everything that Native agriculturists need us to
fix alone. We must do it in an interdepartmental coordination
effort.
I want to just briefly touch on traditional ecological
knowledge, indigenous knowledge. We are also taking a look at
all of our authorities to determine where and when those kinds
of knowledge, ways of knowing, can be incorporated into our
programs. I can share a little bit of information about that
with you as we move along.
So just in conclusion, we are looking for barriers, we are
looking to establish new ways of thinking and doing at USDA. We
are looking to strengthen and enforce and really give life to
self-determination, and look at our entire portfolio at USDA
through the indigenous perspective.
I will look forward to all sorts of questions from you and
we will keep moving. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simms Hipp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janie Simms Hipp, General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to
discuss the state of economic development in Indian Country and the
role that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays in
supporting Tribal Nations, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. I come
to you as the first Chickasaw woman to serve as General Counsel of
USDA, a Senate-confirmed position.
The USDA plays a central role in supporting food security, rural
infrastructure, and agricultural and forestry industries across the
nation. USDA has deep roots in rural communities--with hundreds of
local offices across the most rural parts of America and a presence in
more than seventy countries around the world.
Yet, the Department of Agriculture has a long, complicated history
with food, agriculture, and outreach in Indian Country. We acknowledge
that we have not always listened to indigenous perspectives. I am
grateful to be testifying before the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, which will be an invaluable partner in our efforts to rebuild
trusted relationships with Tribal Nations and enhance our support of
Tribal economic development. Furthermore, we acknowledge that federal
treaty and trust responsibilities are shared by the entire federal
government, including the USDA.
Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is embracing the
opportunity to improve this history and truly do better. Regular,
meaningful and robust consultations with Tribal leadership underscore
the degree to which COVID-19 compounded supply chain interruptions and
exposed deep cracks in our food systems--cracks that disproportionately
affect Tribal and rural Americans. USDA heard two specific pieces of
feedback--that new and expanded tools can help support Tribal Nations
in their efforts to increase supply chain resiliency and that they seek
food sovereignty to ensure that local production can have a local
impact.
We have engaged many times with Tribal leadership in consultation
on a variety of topics. Very often, those discussions have pointed to
COVID-19 disruptions that have exposed numerous areas where USDA's
programs and services can have new or expanded impact. Specifically, we
heard and understand that food sovereignty is Tribal sovereignty. To
that end, we have launched an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative
which is meant to aid USDA in rethinking our programs in new ways to
support food sovereignty in Indian Country.
This vision requires originality and innovation in order to drive
real economic development in Tribal communities. The Department is
examining existing programs and new authorities to find ways to support
Native seed saving, wild food foraging, and use of traditional foods to
meet nutritional needs. The Department is also working to support
Native producers to identify markets inside and outside Indian Country,
access USDA food procurement programs, and promote native-produced
foods. Rethinking our food and agricultural programs within this
context will require administrative and statutory changes to support
Native agricultural producers through farm and rural development
programs. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with Congress to
rethink creative ways to keep old promises.
Food Security
Lack of Tribal trust in the federal government is partially rooted
in our failure to ensure that Tribes across the United States have
access to enough food. More than sixty percent of counties with a
majority Native population were projected to experience higher rates of
hunger in 2020. \1\ In a pre-pandemic study of hunger in four Tribes,
the University of California Berkley found that ninety-two percent of
households in the geographic region suffered from food insecurity. \2\
USDA's feeding programs have often fallen short in addressing Tribal
hunger, nor have they leveraged the knowledge of Tribal leaders to
better manage programs and incorporate traditional foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/native-
american
\2\ https://nifa.usda.gov/announcement/video-games-offer-clues-
help-curb-animal-disease-outbreaks-farmer-swine-wearing-white
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important way to address this problem is by connecting Tribal
farmers and ranchers to feeding programs. We are grateful that in the
2018 Farm Bill Congress granted USDA the authority to operate a Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) Self-Determination
Demonstration Project. This project enabled the Food and Nutrition
Service to select projects from Tribes administering FDPIR and permit
the Tribes to directly purchase foods for their FDPIR packages.
USDA implemented the Demonstration Project in November 2021 and
disbursed $3.5 million to eight Tribes. \3\ In total, seven projects
were selected involving eight Tribes, and each pilot project made a
Tribal or native produced purchase. The joint project between the
Oneida Nation and Menominee Indian Tribe features buffalo, beef, and
apples from the Oneida Tribe, wild rice from the Fond du Lac
Reservation, and whitefish and lake trout from the Red Cliff Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa. These projects demonstrate that when the
Department has the tools to support Tribal self-determination under
FDPIR, Tribes can procure food locally, drive economic growth, and
improve nutrition security by way of traditional foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0010.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure
Before working to expand new market access and Native product
promotion, we must ensure that Tribal communities have the
infrastructure they need to succeed. High-speed broadband, safe
drinking water, sanitary wastewater systems and affordable access to
healthcare all underpin the success of any initiatives to support
economic growth in Tribal Nations. USDA is uniquely positioned to
support these infrastructure needs. Rural Development operates more
than forty programs--the vast majority of which are open to Tribal
participation--to support rural America.
The Grants for Rural and Native Alaskan Villages program helps
remote Alaskan villages provide safe, reliable drinking water and waste
disposal systems for households and businesses. The most recent round
of ReConnect funding sets aside nearly a third of the funding for
match-free grants for Tribes and Socially Vulnerable Communities to
expand access to high-speed broadband--connecting hospitals to critical
telehealth services, students to distance learning, and Tribal
businesses to global markets for their products. Thanks to Congress and
President Biden's transformational investments in infrastructure, we
are one step closer to closing the digital divide for Tribal
communities. USDA's rural development programs have not always been
designed with Tribes in mind, which is why the Biden-Harris
Administration is working to address barriers for Tribal communities
and support the critical infrastructure that is required to foster
meaningful economic growth.
Supply Chain & Capacity Building
COVID-19 exposed serious risks in the United States' food supply
chain--it is rigid, consolidated, and unable to adapt to quickly
changing circumstances. These issues run much deeper in Tribal, Native
Alaskan and Native Hawaiian communities. USDA published USDA Agri-Food
Supply Chain Assessment: Program and Policy Options for Strengthening
Resilience, \4\ which documents broadscale supply chain issues
following COVID-19, including across Indian Country, and
recommendations to addressing these problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
USDAAgriFoodSupplyChainReport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, when considering policies to support economic development
in Indian Country, expanding Tribal processing capacity presents new
opportunities for producers to grow, process, and trade food locally,
regionally and internationally. This work has additional meaning in
Tribal communities, where agricultural economies have long been tied to
traditional livestock and seafood management and production.
Recognizing the unique position Tribes can hold in the expanding
protein processing capacity, USDA recently hosted a Tribal consultation
and listening session for Creating a Tribal Action Plan for Fairer
Meat, Processing, and Seafood Processing, where over 200 Tribal Leaders
and specialists across Indian Country shared their insights.
Meat and poultry processing also presents a significant opportunity
for economic development in Indian Country. We are hearing remarkable
interest from Tribes in expanding processing capacity for livestock,
poultry, and seafood. USDA is working to support this interest across
the nation, but also specifically in Tribal communities.
In January, the Department announced $1 billion in grants and other
support from the American Rescue Plan to expand meat and poultry
processing options, strengthen the food supply chain, and create jobs
and economic opportunities in rural areas, including Tribal
communities. USDA Rural Development will make available grants through
the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program to fund startup and
expansion activities in the meat and poultry processing sector. USDA is
also deploying the new Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program to
back private investment in processing and food supply infrastructure
that will strengthen the food supply chain.
Tribal ranchers and processors have seen the value and the
opportunities they work so hard to create move away from the
communities where they live and operate, and this Administration is
committed to making investments to support economic systems where the
wealth created in rural and Tribal areas stays in those areas. USDA's
vision of a food system is one that ensures producers receive a fair
share of the food dollar, particularly in Tribal Nations, Native
Alaskan and Native Hawaiian communities.
Procurement & Native Product Promotion
As USDA works to expand processing capacity in Tribal communities
and Native agricultural producers continue to expand their presence in
food production, we continue to seek out ways to expand new markets for
these producers. We are hearing Tribes express interest in producing
and selling foods to be distributed and marketed domestically and
internationally.
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service works closely with the Food
and Nutrition Service's Food Distribution Division to determine what
products to make available through FDPIR, and participates in regular
Tribal Leaders Consultations with FNS. As part of the effort to
purchase traditional foods, AMS has partnered with FNS and FDPIR
representatives to purchase bison and blue cornmeal beginning in 2015,
wild salmon filets and wild rice beginning in 2016, catfish filets
beginning in 2018, beef beginning in 2018, and walleye filets beginning
in 2021.
At the White House Tribal Nations Summit, USDA announced a new
venture with the Intertribal Agriculture Council to offer technical
assistance, training, and agricultural development opportunities for
Tribal Nations and Tribal producers to grow their domestic marketing
opportunities. Under the Department's Indigenous Food Sovereignty
Initiative, the Office of Tribal Relations is working with the IAC
American Indian Foods \5\ program to certify at least ten new Native
food enterprises as Agricultural Marketing Service vendors, which will
enable them to bid in procurement solicitations to provide food across
USDA feeding programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.indianag.org/americanindianfoods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2015, USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service and the Intertribal
Agriculture Council partnered through the Market Access Program,
awarding $6.1 million in promotion funding for $183 million in products
exported. In 2020, Red Lake Nation Foods exhibited at Gulfood Show in
Dubai at IAC's American Indian Foods pavilion which resulted in first-
time export sales. New markets for Native producers and processors
allow them to bring business back home and keep resources in their
communities.
Tribal Collaboration & Federal Coordination
At USDA, we acknowledge we have not done enough to provide Tribal
producers, businesses, families, and communities access to the tools
that can ensure economic success and self-sufficiency. At the White
House Tribal Nations Summit, Secretary Vilsack announced USDA's
historic commitment to expanding Tribal self-determination. USDA is
taking steps to internally review our statutory authorities across all
agencies and programs to determine where improvements can be made in
the ways we support self-determination.
As we work to level the playing field and support Tribal
sovereignty through our authorities, we also know that we do our best
work when we coordinate with others. USDA recently announced and held
the first meeting of an Equity Commission, which was created and funded
by the American Rescue Plan and is charged with evaluating USDA
programs and services and recommending how we can reduce hurdles to
accessing them. Our Office of Tribal Relations coordinates
consultations with Tribal leaders in a manner intended to make it
easier to meaningfully engage with USDA. We will continue to consult
with Tribal leaders, agriculture producers, businesses and community
members to discuss the important role food and agriculture and USDA can
play in the economic resiliency of their communities and the broader
areas that surround these communities.
We are working to improve coordination on Tribal issues across the
federal government to deliver for Native communities. At the White
House Tribal Nations Summit, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) also
released a Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies
regarding the incorporation of Indigenous Traditional Ecological
Knowledge, \6\ referred to as ``ITEK'', in federal decisionmaking. ITEK
is defined as a body of observations, oral and written knowledge,
practices, and beliefs that promote environmental sustainability and
the responsible stewardship of natural resources through relationships
between humans and environmental systems. USDA has a history of
incorporating ITEK into our work. To expand our commitments, our
extramural research agency (the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture) incorporated ITEK as a special highlight in research grant
opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/111521-
OSTP-CEQ-ITEK-Memo.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of coordination also extends to USDA's partnership
with Congress. Tribal Nations contribute to the economic output of many
states, and each of you knows your constituents well. We rely on your
input and feedback in our effort to build trusted partnerships with
Tribal Nations.
Conclusion
Tribal culture, economic growth, and food security are deeply
rooted in agriculture, and so the Department of Agriculture shares an
outsized responsibility to support our Tribal Nations, Alaska Natives
and Native Hawaiians. USDA takes our responsibility seriously.
Complicated problems require complicated solutions, but USDA is
eager to be a partner in driving economic growth in Native communities.
It is critical that USDA support Tribes in their efforts to restore and
build food and economic sovereignty, and I look forward to working with
this Committee to support this mission.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Johns?
STATEMENT OF WAHLEAH JOHNS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Johns. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman
Murkowski and members of the Committee. My name is Wahleah
Johns. I am a member of the Navajo Nation, or Dineh.
It is my honor and privilege to serve at the Department of
Energy as the Director of the Office of Indian Energy Policy
and Programs. As the Director, I am responsible for upholding
our trust responsibility and advancing the Office of Indian
Energy statutory responsibilities to promote tribal energy
development, efficiency and use, reduce or stabilize energy
costs, enhance and strengthen tribal energy and economic
infrastructure, and electrify Indian homes and lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
the Office of Indian Energy's efforts on tribal energy
development, technical assistance, and access to markets.
By statute, the Office of Indian Energy partners with
federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Village
and Regional Corporations to develop the knowledge, skills, and
resources needed to deploy clean energy solutions. The Office
of Indian Energy uses a three-pronged approach to support 574
federally recognized tribes, over 200 Alaska Native Village
Corporations, and 13 Alaska Regional Corporations to harness
their vast and undeveloped resources through, one, financial
assistance, two, technical assistance, and three, education and
outreach.
Today, I will focus on the financial and technical
assistance and the role that they play relative to accessing
markets. Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has invested
over $114 million in more than 200 tribal energy projects,
resulting in more than 43 megawatts of new generation, more
than 10 megawatt hours of new battery storage, providing
electricity for over 8,600 tribal buildings across the Nation.
These investments have saved over $13.7 million annually, and
are estimated to save over $295 million over the lifetime of
these systems, resulting in $3.46 saved for every DOE dollar
invested.
Additionally, for large scale projects, the Tribal Energy
Loan Guarantee Program under DOE's loan programs office is
authorized to provide up to $2 billion total in partial loan
guarantees to support economic opportunities for American
Indian and Alaska Native communities through energy development
projects.
The Office of Indian Energy also provides federally
recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native regional and village
corporations, tribal energy development organization, and other
organized tribal groups and communities with technical
assistance to advance tribal energy projects. This technical
assistance is provided at no cost by the technical experts from
DOE's Office of Indian Energy, DOE's national laboratories, and
other partnering organizations.
Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has responded to
397 technical assistance requests in 32 States. These types of
technical assistance are generally categorized into three
areas: one, technical analysis; two, financial analysis; and
three, strategic energy planning, each catering to the specific
needs of the community.
A host of factors contribute to potential challenges for
Indian tribes and Alaska Native regional and village
Corporations in accessing energy markets, including existing
energy infrastructure, transmission, and funding and financing.
The Office of Indian Energy works to support, develop, and
strengthen the capacity that is needed to enter into energy
markets.
For many of these communities, financing and funding
projects is particularly challenging. But the solution is not
uniform. American Indian and Alaska Native communities each
have varying human and financial capacities for energy
development.
As such, the Office of Indian Energy strives to provide
services to meet the diverse needs of these communities,
regardless of financial situation, geographic location or
demographic circumstances.
In conclusion, many Native people today live without
electricity, energy that is essential to provide Native people
with light for their children to study by, refrigeration to
keep food and medicine cold, heat to warm them, and energy to
help their communities grow. These realities and unmet needs
are not congruent with the vast untapped energy resources that
exist on Native lands.
Annually and cumulatively, there is a growing unmet need
for project grant funding and technical expertise to address
the wide range of challenges to energy development in these
communities. There is a stark increase in education needs and
outreach participation and the need for building internal
capacity.
On behalf of the Office of Indian Energy, I thank you again
for this opportunity to testify before you today, and
appreciate the ongoing bipartisan support for the development
of energy resources in Native communities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wahleah Johns, Director, Office of Indian Energy
Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy
Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski and
Members of the Committee. My name is Wahleah Johns, a member of the
Navajo Nation or Dine. It is my honor and privilege to serve at the
Department of Energy (DOE or the Department), as the Director of the
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office of Indian Energy).
As Director, I am responsible for upholding our trust responsibilities
and advancing the Office of Indian Energy's statutory responsibilities
to promote tribal energy development, efficiency, and use, reduce or
stabilize energy costs, enhance and strengthen tribal energy and
economic infrastructure, and electrify Indian lands and homes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding tribal
energy development, technical assistance, and access to markets. I am
pleased to be able highlight the work that the Office of Indian Energy
carries out related to these issues and how the Administration's goals
will strengthen these initiatives.
The Office of Indian Energy's Mission
By statute, the Office of Indian Energy partners with federally
recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Village and Regional
Corporations to develop the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to
deploy clean energy solutions. The Office of Indian Energy uses a
three-pronged approach to support 574 federally recognized tribes, over
200 Alaska Native Village Corporations, and 13 Alaska Native Regional
Corporations, harness their vast and undeveloped resources through: (1)
financial assistance; (2), technical assistance; and, (3) education and
capacity building. Today, I will focus on financial assistance,
technical assistance, and the role they play relative to accessing
markets.
Financial Assistance
Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has invested over $114
million in more than 200 tribal energy projects. While these projects
include energy planning, feasibility studies, and project development,
the Office of Indian Energy emphasizes tribal energy deployment
projects, projects that install hardware, and which make an immediate
and tangible impact in Native communities.
Specifically, those deployment project investments have resulted in
more than 43 MW of new generation, and more than 10 MWh of new battery
storage, providing electricity to over 8,600 tribal buildings across
the Nation. These investments have saved over $13.7 million annually
and are estimated to save over $295 million over the life of these
systems, resulting in $3.46 saved for every DOE dollar invested.
Additionally, for larger scale projects, the Tribal Energy Loan
Guarantee Program (TELGP) under DOE's Loan Programs Office is
authorized to provide up to $2 billion total in partial loan guarantees
to support economic opportunities for American Indian and Alaska Native
communities through energy development projects.
Technical Assistance
The Office of Indian Energy also provides federally recognized
Indian tribes and Alaska Native Regional and Villages Corporations,
tribal energy development organizations, and other organized tribal
groups and communities, with technical assistance to advance tribal
energy projects. This technical assistance is provided at no cost by
the technical experts from DOE's Office of Indian Energy, DOE's
national laboratories, and other partnering organizations.
The goal of this technical assistance is to address a specific
challenge or fulfill a need that is essential to a specific project's
successful implementation. The intended result is a tangible product or
specific deliverable designed to help move a project forward.
Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has responded to 397
technical assistance requests in 32 States. The types of technical
assistance are generally categorized into three areas: 1) technical
analysis; 2) financial analysis; and, 3) strategic energy planning,
with each catering to the specific needs of the community.
Access to markets
A host of factors contribute to potential challenges for Indian
tribes and Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations in accessing
energy markets, including existing energy infrastructure, transmission,
and funding and financing. The Office of Indian Energy works to
support, develop, and strengthen the capacity that is needed to enter
into energy markets. Working with these communities to support their
energy visions, it is clear that many challenges exist particularly
related to financing and funding projects.
Addressing these challenges is not uniform among communities.
American Indian and Alaska Native communities each have varying human
and financial capacities for energy development. As such, the Office of
Indian Energy strives to provide services to meet the diverse needs of
these communities, regardless of financial situation, geographic
location or demographic circumstances. For example, strategic energy
planning assistance is often a way communities engage with our office.
Knowing the financial, technical, and legal ramifications can be
critical for a community that is considering energy development. Other
communities may be considering large scale energy development and have
more specific requests from our network of experts.
Further, the newly signed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) will better
position DOE to address the climate and environmental needs of the
American people. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes a historic
investment in infrastructure -more than $62 billion for DOE to deliver
a more equitable clean energy future -which will help correct the
unacceptable fact that many in Indian Country still don't have access
to reliable, affordable electricity. For example, funds were made
available specifically to Indian tribes for energy efficiency and
conservation and preventing outages and enhancing resilience of the
electric grid, Lastly, this historic investment in supply chains and
clean energy demonstration projects will create jobs and economic
opportunity for all Americans, including American Indian and Alaska
Native communities.
The Administration and DOE's push to promote zero carbon projects
to combat the climate crisis will create new investment, new jobs and
stronger communities, and we're making sure that American Indian and
Alaska Native communities are in the forefront of this effort.
This is why the Office of Indian Energy is investing in clean
energy projects Native communities, projects that create jobs and boost
energy independence and resilience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, many Native people today still live without
electricity, or are dependent on fossil fuels for their energy needs--
energy that is essential to provide Native people with light for their
children to study by, refrigeration to keep food and medicine cold,
heat to keep them warm, and energy to help their communities grow.
These realities and unmet needs are not congruent with the vast
untapped energy resources that exist on Native lands. Tellingly,
American Indian and Alaska Native communities' interest and action in
developing these resources have increased in recent decades. Like many
communities in the United States, Native communities are working
towards strengthening their economies and increasing their well-being
and energy development is a foundational element to achieving these
goals.
We know the demand is there. DOE's Office of Indian Energy's
investments continue to be utilized by American Indian and Alaska
Native communities. Annually and cumulatively, there is growing unmet
need for project grant funding and technical expertise to address the
wide range of challenges to energy development in these communities.
There is also a stark increase in education needs and outreach
participation and the need for building internal capacity.
The Office of Indian Energy's initiatives are guided by statute and
informed by tribal input, that is so essential to building and
maintaining Nation-to-Nation relationships. Feedback is received
through consultation, listening sessions, workshops, research, from
this Committee, and recommendations from the Indian Country Energy and
Infrastructure Working Group (ICEIWG). This feedback is vital to
ensuring that the direction of the DOE Office of Indian Energy
addresses the present day needs and realities of American Indian and
Alaska Native communities. Therefore, the Office of Indian Energy must
be receptive, adaptive, and forward thinking to best prepare to meet
the evolving needs of these communities.
We want to create more opportunity for dialogue about how Indian
tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native communities can lead the
way to a clean, secure, and reliable energy future. We are striving to
ensure that matters associated with broadband, transportation, water
and energy in American Indian and Alaska Native communities are also
highlighted and addressed.
On behalf of DOE's Office of Indian Energy, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I appreciate the ongoing
bipartisan support for the development of energy resources in Native
communities.
I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you to all of the witnesses. I will now
turn to the Vice Chair for an opening statement, followed by
her questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being a few minutes late.
Before I begin my opening and then go into the questions, I
just want to acknowledge that today has been a pretty good day
in terms of advancing good legislation for Native people
everywhere, particularly our vulnerable women and children.
With the ceremony that was at the White House today that you
and I were able to be at with our staffs, I think it is a
recognition of the good work from this Committee that this
tribal title was a significant part of VAWA.
I want to give public credit to your team, led by Jennifer,
and to our team, led by Amber and Lucy, working on the VAWA
side. It was significant, and again, worthy of celebration.
Thank you for that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. I said
something similar, not as eloquently, earlier. But I will just
note that in that room, the thing that caused the whole crowd
to erupt and goose bumps up and down my spine and neck was when
President Biden talked about the provisions that we all
collectively authored. And I mean that in the most collective
sense. This was a real accomplishment for Native people across
the Country. You could feel it in that room. So thank you for
your leadership as well.
Senator Murkowski. No, a good team partnership. Thank you.
So this is a good hearing, also. This is more opportunity
to focus on some of the progress that has been made, looking at
the state of Native economies, what we can do to support buying
Native American. I think we have seen some good economic growth
in the last few decades. I am very proud, particularly in
Alaska, of the progress that some of our tribal entrepreneurs
and Alaska Native Corporation leaders have made in growing not
only Alaska's economy but the American economy.
In Alaska, nine of the top ten companies are ANCs, Alaska
Native Corporations. They have succeeded economically while
still upholding Native values, which is absolutely key.
But I think we know that this economic prosperity is not
even across Indian Country. There are still many barriers, and
the opportunity for us to discuss those barriers and figure out
how we move beyond them is why we are here. But the barriers
are everything from lack of access to capital, supporting
infrastructure, and markets. In order to see continued economic
improvements in Native communities, the role that we have here
is to step up and work with Native businesses to break down the
barriers.
So I think this hearing is particularly timely, given that
the omnibus was just signed yesterday, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure bill was just recently signed by the President.
We had our Energy Act of 2020 that is now law. All of these are
significant pieces in supporting sustainable tribal economic
development and growing Native businesses.
So we are looking forward to many of the advantages that we
are going to be seeing from the Infrastructure Bill, whether it
is the broadband, the water and wastewater, there is just so
much there.
But I think as we are learning, passing the law is the
first step, it is the implementation and making sure that
American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian businesses and
communities are treated as partners as we move forward is going
to be important. So I am glad that we have the Administration
witnesses with us today. I hope that you will have an
opportunity to hear from those who are part of the second
panel, again, for their input.
Just before I turn to my questions, let me make a little
bit of a comment about energy. According to the Energy
Information Agency, rural residents and villages in Alaska pay
exponentially higher rates for electricity, with some rates
reaching over $1 a kilowatt hour, or about 800 percent higher
than the national average.
I will share with you, there is a great deal of concern
right now in many, many, many of the villages around the State
of Alaska. Their fuel supplies come twice a year. They come by
barge. They come with a spring barge, and they come with a fall
barge. So the prices are set when that fuel is purchased at
that point in the season.
Right now, the villages haven't been impacted by the
increasing price of fuel. It has with the cost of goods and
airplane travel, but it hasn't translated to what they are
paying when they go to get fuel for their snow machine, four-
wheeler, and soon to be boats. But when that spring barge
comes, they are locking in fuel at the prices that we are
seeing today, which we all know are just gut-wrenching.
So the prices that I am speaking to, the rates that people
are paying per kilowatt hour, you add on that the now higher
price of fuel, and even if things should settle down, they are
still locked into that fuel until the next barge comes. So that
is the reality of so many of the communities in rural Alaska.
We do have some great news stories, though, and we are
going to be able to hear from Gary Hennigh on the second panel
out of King Cove. King Cove actually has had good news today,
because we got some good news out of the Ninth Circuit today,
which is great. Gary is going to talk to us about the
community's hydroelectric projects that have enabled this
primarily Aleut community to bring their energy costs down, to
largely get off diesel. We are all looking for ways to reduce
our emissions, deal with climate change. Well, you have to get
off diesel power generation first.
So it is innovations and initiatives like the projects that
we are seeing in King Cove that recognize the importance of
valuing a local community's input in the planning and the
administration of their natural resources. I think King Cove
serves as a great example to our Federal witnesses of the
important role that local input plays in decisions regarding
involving natural resource management and enabling the
communities to implement their own energy visions.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Johns, let me stick with you for
just a moment here, since I am talking about energy. We have
mentioned that we were able to amend the Energy Policy Act Loan
Guarantee Program as part of the omnibus to eliminate this
barrier to its use, allow applicants to receive direct funding
from the Federal Financing Bank and Treasury. This should
hopefully open up capital, lower interest rates for energy
projects. People are looking forward to that.
But where there is a concern is, all right, you have this
big bureaucracy back here in Washington, D.C. You say you have
removed these barriers. Can you tell me how or if your office
works with DOE's loan programs to ensure that tribal producers
that are interested in developing energy on their lands don't
get lost in this kind of back and forth departmental shuffle?
Ms. Johns. Thank you for your question, Senator Murkowski.
It is a great question, because with LPO, our Loan Programs
Office at Department of Energy, we work closely on coordinating
efforts with tribes and doing outreach. Our office has a lot of
connections with tribes.
I am excited about this new language in the bill that will
allow direct loans for tribes to apply for. We have identified
the barriers, we held a listening session last May, both LPO
and our office, around some of the challenges that Indian
tribes are facing, but also ANCs. This could unlock a lot of
potential.
Senator Murkowski. Are you working with the DOE Loan
Program as well?
Ms. Johns. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, good.
Let me turn to you, Ms. Simms Hipp. I appreciate your
comments about the food security initiatives. A couple of
questions for you. The 2018 Farm Bill extends 638 contracting
authority under ISDEA to USDA through a couple of demonstration
projects. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium was
selected as one of the participants for this pilot, which we
think is great.
The first thing that they did was to replace farm-raised
catfish. We don't grow catfish. We don't raise catfish in
Alaska. The catfish was flown to Alaska from across the Country
and placed as part of these food baskets, food packages, if you
will. So the first thing, that is crazy. We have some of the
best fish here. So what they did is they replaced it with
Alaskan halibut that is harvested and processed by Sun'aq
Tribal Enterprise. Fabulous. Makes total sense.
What doesn't make total sense is we are told that ANTHC is
only authorized to supplant items within the food packages. So
what they have said to us is if they have more authority to
include in these food packages things that make sense from
within the region, they can select more goods, Alaskan goods
from tribal vendors.
So is this accurate, that they don't have the flexibility
to really make these food packages not only more local, support
the local vendors? But also, for heaven's sake, if we are
worried about emissions, why are we flying catfish from
somewhere in the south to people who have some of the finest
wild sources of protein in the world?
Can you tell me, if we do have some flexibility, and if we
don't, what more we can do to get it?
Ms. Simms Hipp. I am very happy that you brought that
program up. It is one of, I believe one of the most important
things that this Committee was able to influence in the last
Farm Bill. The 638 authority that was pushed into the Food and
Nutrition Service, with regard to the food distribution program
that you mentioned, has been able to actually put funding
toward all of the projects that applied for the funding at the
tribal level. All eight were funded.
What we are seeing now is exactly what you pointed out. We
are seeing the places where we can be informed by exactly the
foods that are around the tribes that are actually using that
program and how it can inform the changes that we can make
internally that would adjust for them.
Senator Murkowski. So do you think you have the
flexibility?
Ms. Simms Hipp. I believe that we have some flexibility.
But I believe it to be a very complicated flexibility.
Senator Murkowski. Would you just commit to work with us on
this?
Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. We want to make it work. But it doesn't
make sense if what we are trying to do is build up tribal
empowerment here, help local economies deal with food security,
and oh, by the way, reduce our emissions. It seems to me that
we just need to be communicating a little bit better. I would
like to think that you would be willing to work with us on
that.
Ms. Simms Hipp. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I know we have limited
time. I have more questions, but let's turn back over to you,
please.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Just before I get started, to put a fine point on it, you
are going to fix this, aren't you?
Ms. Simms Hipp. I am going to do my best.
The Chairman. All right, that is good enough for me.
Mr. Garriott, Native businesses across several industries
cite BIA's agricultural leasing issues, limits on duration and
highest bidder requirements, as impediments. I understand you
are working on updating regulations. What are you doing? What
is the status here? I have about seven questions I want to do
in five minutes, just for context.
Mr. Garriott. I will be quick. First, we understand and
have heard many times that there are a number of impediments,
barriers, in the ag leasing area. We have not started the
process to begin amending those regulations. It is something
that we want to do, though.
It is important to understand that we are also looking,
under the current regs, we are also looking at current
barriers. For example, on ag leasing, we or a tribe can go up
to 10 years with our ag leasing. However, written into the law,
it requires us to do a reassessment or a reevaluation of the
value of that land at the five-year mark. There are some
internal barriers to that with around appraisals and land
valuation. That is something we are committed to looking at and
to addressing in the short term while we take a longer term,
and when I am talking longer term, I am talking within the next
year, at looking at our Indian ag leases.
One of the really exciting developments that is really
important and a tool for tribes is the HEARTH Act, which allows
and recognizes tribes to develop and set their own leasing
regulations, including ag leasing. So the more tribes that are
able to take control over their own regulatory powers the more
they will be able to streamline ag leases and many other kinds
of leases.
The Chairman. That is great. So it sounds like some of this
may be through a rulemaking, some of it, maybe you have some
internal flexibility, and then I presume some of it may be
statutory. But let's work it all out and come up with a plan
going forward to get you the flexibility you need. Then for the
Department also to show flexibility.
Mr. Garriott. Yes.
The Chairman. Ms. Simms Hipp, on 638, how scalable is the
program? Can we make this work on a broader basis?
Ms. Simms Hipp. I think the limitations on scalability at
this point are limitations on budget.
The Chairman. It is money.
Ms. Simms Hipp. It is money.
The Chairman. It is scalable with money?
Ms. Simms Hipp. It is scalable.
The Chairman. It is not without it. Fair enough.
Ms. Johns, just for the record, how many people in Indian
Country lack electricity?
Ms. Johns. Right now, we are doing a study that is on
energy access and reliability. It is a Congressional report
that will be made available by this summer. It is estimated
20,000 to 30,000 Native American homes do not have access to
electricity today.
The Chairman. Thank you. That is an abomination. That is
something that we collectively have to fix over time.
Mr. Garriott, tribes note that energy development projects
are often delayed because they need secretarial approval for
rights of way. Do you have enough autonomy, do you have enough
statutory authority to fix that? Or do we need a new law?
Mr. Garriott. One of the things we have heard from tribes
and from others is that expanded recognition of tribal
authority within the HEART Act would go a long way. Right now
that includes leases, but does not include rights-of-way.
The Chairman. And it is extraordinarily difficult to do an
energy project without right-of-way.
Mr. Garriott. Yes. Very. One of the things I would
highlight, though, is again, today we did announce the first
tribal energy development organization categorization, which
allows an entity that is majority owned by a tribe to work
directly with a tribe. And then the tribe has the authority to
expedite leases and rights-of-way.
So it is an additional authority that we are utilizing
right now within our current law. But again, getting back to
the first part of the question, expanded authority would be
helpful to many tribes.
The Chairman. A final question before Senator Hoeven. DOE
has a policy establishing a purchasing preference for tribal
energy. Ms. Johns, is that policy being implemented?
Ms. Johns. Not that I know of, it is not.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garriott, last Congress, I sponsored legislation, the
Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act. The idea was to get
better coordination between Interior, Commerce, and Treasury.
Can you give me an update on implementation of that
legislation?
Mr. Garriott. Absolutely, and thank you for the question.
With regard to the provisions generally, it had a lot to do
with Commerce, and I am unable to speak directly to the
activities of Commerce. However, with regard to the
requirements, activities under Department of Interior, I
believe that we are fulfilling those.
One, the Act requires us to coordinate with the Department
of Health and Human Services around, it doesn't explicitly call
it the Buy Indian Act acquisitions, but basically it directs us
to look at ways to purchase goods and services and to work with
tribal businesses. We do that, we have regular communication
around implementation of the Buy Indian Act. It is also
something that, also within the Enhancement Act, it asks us to
do consultation in a number of areas. We are hoping, planning
to release our updated Buy Indian Act regs by the end of the
spring. In order to develop those, we engaged in consultation
on the development of those.
Also, there are certain provisions around financing. The
Indian Loan Guarantee Program administered by the Office of
Indian Economic Development also has engaged in consultations
in the last several years on how to improve its programs and
services to help drive more capital to Indian Country. As a
result of that, we have begun to take certain steps to help
improve our program.
Finally, there is a lot of interagency coordination that
happens, not only amongst our agencies represented here, but
across the entire Federal Government, which includes Commerce
and HHS and SBA and others, around interagency coordination
with regard to Native American policy.
The White House Council on Native Americans is chaired by
the Secretary and co-chaired by the Director of White House
DPC, and is kind of split up into a number of different kind of
subgroups, one of which is economic development and
infrastructure. Through that committee, we meet on a monthly
basis to coordinate and share information about how we can
improve awareness of our various programs and resources,
address issues of access, are there barriers that we need to be
looking at, either internally or across the Federal Government,
and then finally starting to take a look at utilization, who is
using this, how can we improve it, and those kinds of
questions.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Ms. Simms Hipp, in the Farm Bill, we included a tribal
self-determination procurement demonstration project. Can you
update me on the status of that, about getting traditional
foods involved?
Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes, sir. We have implemented that
provision in the food distribution program. I think the Vice
Chairwoman mentioned that as well in her question.
Senator Hoeven. She did. Surprisingly, she mentioned Alaska
fish. That doesn't happen very often.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Or maybe it does.
Ms. Simms Hipp. Well, all eight applicants for the program
were all funded. And they all have it underway.
Senator Hoeven. It really is a good idea.
Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. We just need to keep promoting it, Alaska
salmon and halibut, and all the great fish there. That is a
great example. We can go around the Country.
Ms. Simms Hipp. Exactly.
Senator Hoeven. Anything and everything you do, that is
just a really good concept, I think. I am very supportive of
it.
Then Ms. Johns, we also passed another bill. I sponsored
the Indian Tribal Energy Development Self-Determination Act, to
try to give tribes a boost in terms of developing energy
resources they want to on their reservation. Do you want to
give me an update on that?
Ms. Johns. Yes. Our statute has been supporting, at the
request of tribes, technical assistance, financial assistance.
We offer financial assistance opportunities. So really
supporting their energy needs. This is part of our trust
responsibility to tribes and Alaska Native Villages
Corporations.
So we do have a strong commitment to supporting tribes to
be self-reliant in their energy generation, to be able to look
at the opportunity to sell power and electricity. So anywhere
from strategic energy planning to technical assistance and
support. We have a good team that is working really hard to
make sure that we support tribes to get to a place of self-
reliance and self-determination. Also really it is a big part
of our mission, supporting tribes.
Senator Hoeven. Good. Thank you. Thanks to all three of
you.
The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the Ranking Member. I so appreciate this panel discussion
today.
Ms. Johns, let me start with you and follow up on some of
the questioning that I have heard. I was proud to fight for
changes in the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill that we
just passed that provided the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program with access to use direct loans through the Federal
Financing Bank, which we all hope will expand access to the
program, which has historically not achieved its mission.
One of the things I have heard from our tribes is about the
onerous application process. Are there any changes in the
pipeline to address and streamline possibly the application
process for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program? Just
curious if you are hearing the same concerns.
Ms. Johns. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question.
Since May of last year, we held a listening session, a
roundtable discussion with tribal leaders around our funding
opportunity that we have at the Office of Indian Energy, and
also the loan program's office, Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program, to get input on what are the challenges and barriers.
We have been working, since May we have been working on
helping to streamline the process, the application, but also
the outreach and engagement is really key, and making sure that
we support tribe to submit successful applications. Now that we
have this new bill that has been passed yesterday, giving
direct loans, being able to give direct loans to tribal
projects is a game changer. I appreciate all of you that
supported this effort. This is really going to be helpful for a
lot of tribal projects that are out there that want to continue
to grow.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that. I look
forward to the good work that you are going to do on behalf of
our tribes.
Let me ask you this. In the Indian Energy Grant Program, we
saw a $36 million increase this fiscal year, from Fiscal Year
2021 to Fiscal Year 2022. Does the Department have plans for
this new funding? I am curious, with the additional increase
here, thoughts on how you are going to address the needs of the
Indian Energy Grant Program.
Ms. Johns. Thank you again, to the Committee, and leaders
that have supported the Office of Indian Energy. With this
increase, our vision is to support tribes that are in this
transition moment. Taking advantage of this clean energy
economy will provide jobs and many benefits. Also addressing
energy access is a priority for us.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there is so much
opportunity for tribes to be able to carry out their energy
vision. We are in good coordination with all the offices and
programs within the Department of Energy, but also my
colleagues here in the other agencies, how does energy fit in
with water, how does energy fit in with housing, agriculture,
then also the rights-of-way. So there is a lot of coordination,
interagency coordination, that is happening through the White
House Council on Native American Affairs.
We are really excited about this opportunity to demonstrate
also the unmet need that tribes have today when it comes to
being able to finance these projects and fund these really
amazing projects that contribute to the climate resiliency that
is needed in these really remote rural areas as well. I am
looking forward to working with you. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I couldn't agree more
about the need for the coordination amongst the various
agencies. It is one of the reasons that I pushed for the Rural
Interagency Council in the 2018 Farm Bill. We saw cooperation
across the many Federal governmental agencies. I see it in my
State, because we have to interact at a Federal level with all
the various agencies.
So let me ask you, Ms. Simms Hipp, are you seeing more of
this communication, I hope, happening across Federal agencies
in order to really maximize the investments that we are making
now, and making sure that our tribes and our rural communities
are receiving the assistance that they need as well?
Ms. Simms Hipp. I believe we are. I always believe we can
do more. My colleagues here at the table hear me go on about
that quite a lot.
Let me give you an example. The agricultural piece that Mr.
Garriott talked about in terms of the agricultural leasing that
could unlock a new way of thinking about how we support Native
agriculture. We have already been in touch with his office
because it is going to be very, very important for the various
agencies at USDA that support agriculture production to be at
the table when you are thinking about agricultural leasing.
Because the crossover and the bridge between our program
authorities, our loan authorities, our technical assistance
authorities that sit up underneath, Native agriculturists, it
is really critical that we are along for the ride from day one,
and that we actually do it on concert.
So the ideas and the opportunities around interdepartmental
coordination, I quite frankly have never been more excited
about where we are now. Because I think we know that we must do
a better job of listening to tribes, listening to Native
producers, but also doing the deep coordination we need to do
across these bridges. But we will see areas where you all will
need to lean in to help us, in my opinion.
Let me give you an example. Several years ago--Mr. Garriott
mentioned appraisals. What we found several Farm Bills ago is
that we actually needed a legislative fix because we had two
different appraisal systems that were required, one at the
Department of Interior, one at the Department of Agriculture.
We were able to, with your help, get that fixed.
So I do think that we are really at an important moment to
put legs up underneath tribal governments, Indian people, all
over the Country to really grab hold of this moment and build
some incredible economies for their communities. But it is
going to take us all being in it together and finding those
places that are deep in the weeds and trying to do our best to
fix them internally or be in conversation with you all to help
make that happen.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Smith?
STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Schatz. Thank you so much
for this Committee hearing. It is quite interesting.
Chair Schatz, I need to go preside over the United States
Senate in about 10 minutes. So I am going to maybe ask one
question, but I am glad to be able to be a part of this.
I am going to ask a question around food sovereignty. Ms.
Simms Hipp, I will direct this to you. There is significant
interest amongst Minnesota around the issue of food
sovereignty. That interest has motivated me to work on
legislation with Senator Rounds which would allow tribes to
administer the SNAP program through self-governance contracts.
So it is interesting to me how that value around this food
sovereignty, how it meshes with the other value that we are
talking about today, which is around Buy Native American, and
how those two things can work together. Ms. Simms Hipp, I am
going to ask you to talk about that a little bit. Tribes that
are able to lift up their indigenous food sources benefit their
members' health, their tribal economies, so many things.
Could you just talk about, tell us a little bit about how
the Federal Government can bolster Buy Native American
initiatives to the benefit of tribal food sovereignty and how
those two things work together?
Ms. Simms Hipp. Thank you, Senator. I will be very happy to
do that.
One of the things you have already done, which was to
actually put in place 638 authority on a demonstration level
around the food distribution program. But that is to me just
the beginning. Because there are so many other opportunities
that we have seen within USDA where we could more tightly work
with Native producers, tribal governments, to really accomplish
their goals of bringing more of their products to market.
Some of those markets could actually be at USDA, because a
lot of agencies, departments around the Federal Government
purchase food. We purchase a lot of food, but so does the
Defense Department. So do a lot of other departments. Really
unpacking those opportunities is very important.
But I will tell you that USDA does not have Native
preference in procurement. We do not have that authority. So
unless you identify that within your own efforts, to make
changes in our ability to kind of meet the moment, then we can
take it internally as far as we can. But then there will be
that final bridge that we will need some help to cross.
So there are many, many opportunities that tribes across
the U.S., lower 48, Alaska, Native Hawaiians, have in this
space of food sovereignty. But really meeting the moment of
meeting the nutritional needs of their people but also really
encouraging the continued presence of our traditional foods
within our communities, which is terribly important. But also
the agricultural-economic opportunities for diversifying Native
economies across the Country in food.
We already know that $3.5 billion annually is accounted for
in Native food production. But USDA has a long history of
actually understanding that that is probably an undercount. We
can do more to actually unpack that and really support it more
fully. We are looking at every single nook and cranny at USDA
to bring that technical assistance to bear so that tribes can
actually accomplish these really important missions of food
sovereignty.
Senator Smith. I would love to help you look in every nook
and cranny and help to also make sure that the USDA has all the
authorities that it needs. I think this is an area where there
is so much opportunity. Food is culture. Food is health. Food
is economic development. To bring those things together feels
to me, and I have learned from Minnesota tribes is incredibly
empowering in so many ways. So this is an area that is ripe, I
think, for opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, thank you, Vice Chairman
Murkowski as well, for holding this hearing on growing Native
businesses. I do want to thank Lexie Holden from Billings,
Montana for joining us virtually today on the second panel.
As we look around the Country, we certainly see the price
of energy going up. Gas prices, heating bills increasing,
straining the budgets of so many Montana families. We are in
the midst of what is now becoming an energy catastrophe. It is
time that we unleash made in American energy. That includes
expanding Native American energy.
Across our State in Montana, we have many tribes producing
energy. The CSKT, they are producing hydropower. The Crow,
producing coal. Fort Peck, producing oil. All these tribes
deserve the right to choose which energy portfolio works best
for their people.
This is about creating a thriving community with very good,
high paying jobs for tribes in Montana. Having met this past
weekend, when I was back home in Montana, with one tribal
president and another tribal chairman, over and over I hear the
complaint, they don't want to see Washington bureaucracies and
bureaucrats stifling tribal self-determination and sovereignty.
Director Johns, do you agree that tribes should decide what
form of energy they produce, use, and invest in?
Ms. Johns. Thank you for that question. Yes, we support
tribes to pursue whatever their energy needs and vision is.
That has been the mission of our office and the self-
determination and whatever they want to choose, we have been
supportive with technical assistance and financial assistance,
education and outreach.
Senator Daines. Thank you. It seems with what is going on
both in our Country and around the world that we should be
looking to be additive in our thinking on energy portfolios,
not necessary replacing one for the other. There are other ways
to let the markets decide the choices, and let tribe decide
what they want to produce.
What communications has DOE and BIA had to ensure that the
government streamlines what is a very bureaucratic process to
ensure that tribes can use infrastructure dollars in a timely
manner?
Ms. Johns. That is a great question. We coordinate a lot
with the Department of Interior, the Division of Energy,
Minerals Division and also the service center there, and
through the White House Council on Native American Affairs, we
also have an MOU with them as well. Energy is one of the
subcommittees. We have a biweekly meeting and we have discussed
how we can better collaborate and coordinate to support tribes
and meeting them where they are.
Usually for our office, we offer technical assistance at no
cost. So a tribe can make the request, and we will get them
information that they need around a project or something to
research. If it is out of our scope, we will either send it to
another agency or we have lab partners that we can direct some
of those requests to do a study.
So yes, we are here to help tribes in pursuing their energy
vision, which is really important in understanding that tribes
and Alaska Native Villages and Corporations, we have a trust
responsibility to them in supporting what they would like to
do. I just want to say that that is definitely something we
honor.
Senator Daines. Thank you. Thanks for the thoughtful
answer.
I want to shift gears and talk about infrastructure,
because we have seen in Indian Country many hurdles that have
been placed on it by some of these burdensome Federal policies.
If you want to see a prime example of why we need a more
streamlined Federal Government, why we need a leaner Federal
Government, a more efficient Federal Government, a more
compassionate Federal Government, just look at our tribes.
The Federal Government has created a regulatory system so
complicated that most lenders are not willing to extend credit
to Native businesses. When they do it, it is at substantially
higher repayment terms.
Issues of recordkeeping, unique requirements for Indian
Country, make it challenging to purchase land, to lease
buildings for creating new businesses, is yet another
extraordinary hurdle that has to be overcome that has chilling
effects with potential investors. I believe the Federal
Government needs to get out of the way so tribes can seek
investors and partners more quickly and efficiently to improve
their infrastructure and create economic growth, which results
in good jobs.
An additional major hurdle is access to basic
infrastructure. Tribes need more roads, more power lines,
better access to markets.
Director Johns, it would be great to have whatever energy
tribes want to produce per the earlier line of questions, but
if they can't get it to the grid for use, it really doesn't
matter. It won't have the impact we want to see.
What is DOE doing to help facilitate upgrades and expansion
of power lines in and around Indian Country?
Ms. Johns. Thank you for that question. Actually,
personally I come from, I live next to a coal-mining operation.
We live about nine miles from the nearest transmission line. So
I understand the challenges of living without access to the
grid. Thousands of families live this way.
It goes back to history, why is that like that. Is it cost?
Is it the policy that we need? I think being in this role, and
the opportunity in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
strengthen our grid and our transmission and also look at
extension to areas in Indian Country that don't have access to
power lines, and also looking at microgrids. There are
communities that are so remote and rural that in the ability to
help finance something like a microgrid, a community can
produce power for themselves. But also look at the market
piece, can they sell power to what market.
I liked the question about the tribal power preference.
That is something that I definitely want our office to look at
more and work with other agencies to make it work for Indian
Country. Because there are a lot of conversations in this
Country around the way that the transmission is going to be
potentially designed in different regions of the west and
Midwest and the southeast. I do think that there needs to be a
space for tribal leaders and tribes to be in those
conversations. I feel like that is our role, holding up our
trust responsibility to provide the tools and resources to
tribes so that they can participate, make an informed decision
on how they want their communities to continue economically but
also just thrive like they used to in many ways, and continue
to.
The community I come from, I feel our people are super-
resilient, despite not having access to power, access to water,
access to roads. We get by. There is this really powerful
lesson I have learned around infrastructure and the need for it
to get to Indian Country.
So I really appreciate all of you for passing the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law because it is going to have an
impact. I have seen that already. Thank you.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Director.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski with a final question.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have one last question for Ms. Simms Hipp. This takes it
back to the 638 contracting and what we were able to include in
that Farm Bill.
There is also authority to conduct forestry management
activities within this Tribal Forest Protection Act. I think
there is a lot of interest in this by tribes who are looking to
use this new authority. But we have heard that the limited
authorities that are authorized under the Act itself, under the
Tribal Forest Protection Act and the narrow definition of
tribal lands could prevent this demonstration project from
being fully utilized.
I don't know if you are looking at these as barriers, and
if you have any updates for me as to what you are doing to make
sure this is something that, again, there is interest there,
but let's make sure we have taken away the things that would
limit the ability for participation.
Ms. Simms Hipp. My office has actually already received the
question. So we are already working on it with them, the Office
of General Counsel, to really dissect what those limitations
are that we have heard as well. We have heard it from tribal
leaders, but we have also heard it within the Forest Service
itself.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Ms. Simms Hipp. So we are working on that, and I would love
to get with you and your staff and give you and the Committee
an update on that. It is on my desk.
Senator Murkowski. Let's do that, and I am going to ask all
three of you as our Federal witnesses if you can respond to us
in writing. Last year, in February, the President issued this
executive order on America's supply chain. This is Executive
Order 14017. This directs the Administration to support a
resilient, diverse, secure supply chain. As part of that order,
it requires consultation and outreach to stakeholders.
So I would like to know what each of you and your
respective agencies have done with regard to consultation with
tribal governments or the relevant stakeholders, and just what
level of outreach has gone on. That is something I would be
happy to take in other communications.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Thank you to our Federal witnesses. Thanks for the work you
do. Let this be the beginning of some additional conversations.
We will follow up by letter, and also with staff on the phone
and by email. So thank you very much to our first panelists.
It gives me pleasure to introduce our second panel. First,
we have Lexie Holden, the Associate Director of the Intertribal
Agriculture Council in Billings, Montana. We also have JT
Willie, the Director of the Division of Economic Development
for the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona. We also have J.
Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder and Executive Director of MA'O
Organic Farms, Wai'anae, Oahu, Hawaii. And Senator Murkowski,
would you like to introduce your witness?
Senator Murkowski. I certainly will. Mr. Gary Hennigh is
the City Administrator for the City of King Cove, it actually
says on the thing Anchorage, Alaska, but he is really King
Cove, as the City Administrator, and has been there for many
years. I will just end by saying he is a super great guy.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I want to remind our witnesses that your full testimony
will be made part of the official hearing record. Please keep
your statements to no more than five minutes so that members
have time for questions.
We will start with Ms. Holden.
STATEMENT OF LEXIE HOLDEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INTERTRIBAL
AGRICULTURE COUNCIL
Ms. Holden. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and
Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you
for inviting me to speak with you all today.
My name is Lexie Holden and I serve as the Associate
Director of Policy and Government Relations for the Intertribal
Agriculture Council. I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma. Today my testimony is going to focus on two tools to
help tribal economies and communities prosper.
One of our priorities consistently has been the intentional
inclusion of more Native-produced foods in Federal food
assistance programs like the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, or FDPIR. FDPIR and other USDA food
assistance programs represent both a critical part of the food
safety security net for Indian Country and a dedicated
institutional market opportunity for Native producers who are
vastly underrepresented in these opportunities currently.
This underrepresentation is driven by a variety of factors,
including the complicated nature of vendor certification
processes at the Federal level. Advocates and tribal leadership
have encouraged USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service for years
to be more intentional about reaching out to potential Native
vendors by using the IAC's Technical Assistance Network as a
resource to connect with producers directly.
We have finally started to see movement on that in the last
couple of years, but only after the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic gave AMS additional impetus to rethink local food
sourcing. We think that it shouldn't have taken a global health
crisis for USDA to take tribal leaders and tribal producers
seriously when they call for more Native-produced, culturally
appropriate foods, especially in FDPIR which serves primarily
tribal citizens.
There are, however, other opportunities to include Native-
produced foods in these programs which do not require Native
food businesses to navigate the Federal vendor processes. In
the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress applied 638 tribal self-
determination contracting authority to FDPIR food purchasing in
a demonstration project pilot that acknowledges tribal
sovereignty and enables tribes themselves to directly buy food
for FDPIR sites, rather than having the Federal Government make
those decision about what our people should be eating.
Today, because of your support and the work of tribal
leaders and the National Association of Food Distribution
Programs on our reservations, there are $3.5 million flowing
into Indian Country to support the production of traditional,
culturally appropriate, and fresh fruits and vegetables by
Native producers, as well as Alaskan fish, all of which are
going to tribal citizens in need through FDPIR.
Food sourcing through these 638 contracts is a powerful
opportunity for tribal nations to do what we have always done,
which is feed our own people. Opportunities in this space could
include sourcing locally produced traditional and culturally
appropriate foods for BIE schools, either through 638
contracting or perhaps expanded Farm to School opportunities as
well. It is programs like these which keep food dollars
circulating within our communities, creating jobs for our
citizens, and making sure that those in need have access to the
kinds of healthy foods that have supported us since time
immemorial.
The second tool I would like to uplift is agricultural
resource management plans under AIARMA, the American Indian
Agriculture Resource Management Act. The Act was passed in
1993, but it has never been fully funded, which is
unacceptable, considering the fact that this Act provides an
opportunity for tribes to fully embody sovereignty over their
lands by ensuring that tribal, not BIA, goals are utilized for
tribal management of agricultural lands.
The ARMP process is expensive. Tribes have to pay dedicated
staff to build the plans and oversee the project, which
involves substantial community feedback from tribal citizens
and tribal leadership, not to mention the additional costs to
actually oversee, implement and then enforce the plan. For
example, the ARMP management team at Blackfeet Nation in
Montana estimated that their ARMP process cost them at least
$100,000 for the tribal loan. When tribes attempt to find
financial or capacity building support from BIA offices for
this process, they are often told that the offices can't help.
Even tribal nations that are able to find external, non-
Federal funding support to embark on the ARMP development
process are usually stymied by agency inaction within BIA as
part of the understaffing and underfunding concerns. There
isn't a uniform rubric or step by step process to inform tribes
as to all the required components of the ARMP process.
BIA can also take over six months to provide tribes with
requested data that they have to have in order to complete
those plans. So at a certain point, given that tribes only have
three years to complete the plans once they start, that agency
inaction starts to look like actionable discrimination.
Adding to this frustration, BIA has required tribes
engaging in ARMP processes to provide a full NEPA assessment in
order to prove their compliance. This is a pretty burdensome
process for tribes, especially given the lack of funding and
staff support from BIA. Essentially, the bottom line is that
BIA needs more staff and more available dedicated programmatic
funding to be able to implement these agricultural resource
management plans. Tribes need AIARMA to be fully funded in
order to take advantages of the promise of this legislation.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my testimony. I
believe that these two tools, 638 Tribal Self-Governance
contracts and ARMPs could become invaluable in strengthening
tribal economies by facilitating market access for Native
producers and bolstering tribal self-determination. They just
require your support.
Thank you.
[The prepared testimony of Ms. Holden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lexie Holden, Associate Director of Policy and
Government Relations, Intertribal Agriculture Council
Introduction
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for inviting me to speak with
you all today. My name is Lexie Holden and I serve as the Associate
Director of Policy & Government Relations for the Intertribal
Agriculture Council. I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Today my testimony will focus on two tools which, if given the support
they require, will continue to help Tribal economies and communities
prosper.
Tool 1: 638 Tribal Self-Determination Contracting at USDA
One of the priorities of the Native Farm Bill Coalition (NFBC), of
which the IAC is a founding member, has consistently been the
intentional inclusion of more Native-produced foods in federal food
assistance programs, like the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations (FDPIR). FDPIR and other USDA food assistance programs
represent both a critical part of the food security safety net for
Indian Country and a dedicated institutional market opportunity for
Native producers, who are vastly underrepresented in these
opportunities currently.
This underrepresentation is driven by a variety of factors,
including the complicated nature of vendor certification processes at
the federal level. The NFBC and Tribal leadership have encouraged
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) for years to be more
intentional about reaching out to potential Native vendors by utilizing
the IAC's Technical Assistance Network as a resource to connect with
producers directly.
We have finally started to see movement on that in the last few
years--but only after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic gave AMS
additional impetus to rethink local food sourcing. It should not have
taken a global health crisis for USDA to take Tribal leaders and
producers seriously when they call for more Native-produced, culturally
appropriate foods, especially in FDPIR which serves primarily Tribal
citizens.
There are, however, other opportunities to include Native-produced
foods in these programs that do not require Native food businesses to
navigate the federal vendor processes. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress
applied ``638'' Tribal self-determination contracting authority to
FDPIR food purchasing in a demonstration project pilot that
acknowledges Tribal sovereignty and enables Tribes themselves to
directly buy food for FDPIR sites, rather than having the federal
government make those decisions about what our people should be eating.
This was a historic moment for Indian Country, as this authority had
never before been applied to USDA.
Today, because of Congressional support and the work of Tribal
leaders and the National Association of FDPIR, there are $3.5 million
dollars flowing into Indian Country to support the production of
traditional, culturally appropriate, and fresh fruits and vegetables by
Native producers, all of which are going to Tribal citizens in need
through FDPIR.
Food sourcing through these 638 contracts is a powerful opportunity
for Tribal Nations to do what we have always done: feed our own people.
Opportunities in this space could include sourcing locally produced
traditional and culturally appropriate foods for BIE schools, either
through 638 contracting or expanded Farm to School opportunities.
Programs like these keep food dollars circulating within our
communities, create jobs for our citizens, and make sure that those in
need have access to the kinds of healthy foods that have supported us
from time immemorial.
Tool 2: Agricultural Resource Management Plans
The second tool I would like to uplift is AIARMA, the American
Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act. It was passed in 1993, but
has never been fully funded. This is unacceptable, considering the
opportunity the Act provides for Tribes to fully embody sovereignty
over their lands by ensuring that Tribal, not Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) goals, are utilized for Tribal management of agricultural lands.
Current BIA policies that direct ``best interests'' decisionmaking
regarding Tribal land leases frequently result in lease award
determinations heavily weighted in favor of the highest bidder, which
is frequently a non-Native off-reservation lessee. When non-Native off-
reservation bidders are awarded, the vast majority of revenues
resulting from production activity on those Tribally held leased lands,
do not recirculate on reservation and the leased lands are subjected to
production practices that are largely extractive, that is investments
and enrollment in conservation activities or programs and compliance
with grazing or land management best practices often fall short.
But this frequently occurring scenario can be addressed through an
Agriculture Resource Management Plan or ARMP, which is a comprehensive
plan that addresses not only use recommendations and preferences for
physical agriculture attributes but incorporates Tribal preference into
land management activity. A Tribal bidder preference for Tribal trust
lands can be incorporated into an ARMP and encourage better land
management practices with Tribal support as well as facilitate the
recirculation of revenues on reservation, benefitting Tribal economies
as a whole, encouraging generational and community wealth, and create
or expand private revenue cycles independent of Tribal government
allocations.
Yet the creation of an ARMP is an expensive process to undertake.
Tribes must pay dedicated staff to develop the plans and oversee the
project, which involves substantial community feedback from all Tribal
citizens and buy-in from Tribal leadership. For example, the ARMP
management team at Blackfeet Nation in Montana estimated that their
ARMP process cost them at least $100,000 for their Tribe alone. But
when Tribes attempt to find financial or capacity support from BIA
offices for this process, they are too frequently told that offices are
understaffed and underfunded and cannot help.
Even Tribal Nations that are able to find external--non-federal--
funding support to embark on the ARMP development process are often
completely stymied by agency inaction within BIA as part of
understaffing concerns. BIA sometimes takes over 6 months to provide
Tribes with requested data that they must have to complete their plans.
At a certain point, given that Tribes only have three years to complete
the ARMP process within the framework provided by the statute, that
agency inaction begins to resemble actionable discrimination.
Adding to this frustration, BIA has required Tribes engaging in
ARMP processes to provide a full National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) assessment in order to prove their compliance. This an
incredibly burdensome process, especially given the lack of funding and
staff support from BIA. The bottom line is, BIA needs more staff and
Tribes need AIARMA to be fully funded in order to truly take advantage
of the promise of this legislation.
A Path Forward
I believe that these two tools, 638 Tribal Self-Governance
contracts and Agricultural Resource Management Plans, could become
invaluable to the strengthening of Tribal economies by facilitating
market access for Native producers and by bolstering Tribal self-
determination. They just require your support.
Native Americans have engaged in agriculture to feed their
communities since time immemorial. Yet, our traditional ecological
knowledge of North America's rich and complex food systems was
suppressed in favor of creating a food system more familiar to
settlers. Our deep connection to and respect for the land, water, and
fauna was often disregarded in favor of a style of agricultural
production which favored scale and profits. While early treaties
between Tribes and the United States forced Native Americans to become
farmers, many of our producers now choose to feed their communities in
more traditional, sustainable, and regenerative ways. This choice is an
exercise of our right to self-determination.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, nearly 80,000 Tribal
producers were operating on over 59 million acres of land, selling $3.5
billion worth of agricultural products. However, many Native Americans
are unable to access the food produced within their own Tribal
communities. This is in part due to modern-day barriers, preventing our
access to land, credit, and markets have caused Native-produced food to
leave the community, taking the associated ``food dollars'' with it.
Interdepartmental Coordination
One solution to some of the barriers Native American producers face
is to increase interdepartmental coordination. There are several
relationships which need to be improved: (1) the relationship between
USDA and BIA, (2) the relationship between USDA, the Department of
Commerce, and the State Department, and (3) the relationship between
USDA and the GSA.
The first relationship between USDA and BIA must be improved
because many restrictions governing leases on Tribal lands have an
impact on which USDA programs our producers can access. Additionally,
the current leasing structure is such that it favors the interests of
the BIA rather than those of Tribal governments. Currently, leasing
contracts on Tribal reservations are given to the highest bidder who,
more often than not, is not Native American. This lack of connection to
the community, as well as the relatively short lease lengths (10 years)
encourage lessees to take as much as they can from the land in order to
maximize profits, rather than operate in a manner which considers how
future generations will be able to access that land and the surrounding
waters. This leads to a degradation of the best plots of land within
Tribal communities, while Tribal producers are forced to make do with
plots which are of lower quality, placing them at an operational
disadvantage from the start. While this might suit some Tribes, Tribal
governments should have the ability to determine for themselves what
leasing looks like on their lands.
To connect the importance of the aforementioned ARMPs with this
conversation around the BIA/USDA relationship, if a Tribe were able to
change their leasing structure it might initially result in a decrease
in cash revenue, it would likely ultimately benefit the Tribe's
economy. When an Agricultural Resource Management Plan favors or
prefers bidders who are Tribal citizens, rather than the highest
bidder, better support for Tribal sovereignty is only one outcome. The
other outcomes include better resource management and increased on-
reservation revenue circulation. Better resource management increases
agriculture resource health in the long-term, while simultaneously
increasing the quality and size of the yield. When agricultural revenue
is able to circulate within the reservation economy, it creates more
viable opportunities for business, morejobs, and more opportunities for
scaling up operations through investments. It is in this way that ARMPs
support Tribal economies.
The third relationship which needs to be improved upon is that
between the USDA and GSA. The current Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR), created by the GSA, do not support bringing more Native American
producers into federal procurement contracts. At present, Part 26-1 of
FAR provides an Indian Incentive Program. While we advocate for such
incentives, the way in which the Program is structured does not
actually benefit Native American producers. The Program encourages
prime contractors to work with Native American subcontractors or
vendors. However, the incentive funds go to the prime contractor who is
likely non-Native, not the Native American vendor who likely faces
barriers to access federal procurement contracts. This structure
ultimately does not help our producers. The incentives should go to the
Native American vendor as well.
Buy Indian/Buy Native American Preference
Currently, the Buy Indian Act (25 USC 47) directs the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use
Indian labor and purchase Indian industry products except where
impracticable and unreasonable. Such a preference for Native American
employees and vendors should be extended to the USDA, especially
whenever USDA is purchasing any product, including food, for the
purposes of feeding Native Ameicans within their communities. As the
rate of food insecurity is highest for Native American households
compared to all other racial/ethnic demographics, it makes sense to
source food to feed Tribal communities from Tribal producers.
Additionally, for many Tribal nations, their economy is based on
agriculture production. In this way, our communities are able to access
local or regionally grown, often traditional, foods, and Tribal
producers are able to access federal procurement contracts which they
historically have been excluded from. If the desire to support Tribal
economies is sincere, then a concerted effort should be made to fill
federal food procurement contracts with products made and produced by
Native Americans. The inclusion of the USDA in the Buy Indian Act would
help accomplish this.
Access to Credit
Much of Indian Country is considered a credit desert. There are not
enough financial institutions willing to lend capital to Native
Americans, particularly for the purposes of agriculture. One of the
greatest allies in this effort that has made significant progress is
the Native Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI). Native
CDFIs deserve the support to continue their current work, along with
the resources and tools to begin tackling agriculture lending. In
addition to supporting Native CDFIs, there should be reforms within the
larger financial institution space.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, the Native Farm Bill Coalition requested an
in-depth GAO report on access to agriculture credit across Indian
Country. This was requested with the Community Reinvestment Act in
mind. This Act encouraged financial institutions to serve low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods, including areas on or near Indian
reservations. We know that access to credit remains a barrier for
Native American producers, and this report would provide the data
necessary to make targeted and broad reforms. However, we instead
received a study on the Farm Credit System and its role in helping
Native American producers access credit. This was far too narrow in
scope, and the results have still not been shared.
The USDA plays a key role in closing the credit access gap for
Tribal communities. Tribal Nations, Native/Intertribal organizations,
and individual Native American producers use the USDA to access funds
because it remains difficult to access them elsewhere. However, the
USDA is not a perfect lender or grantor. We suggest that the USDA
create Tribal set-asides in any programs which impact Tribal
communities, increase the amount that USDA as an agency is willing to
invest in projects (to at least 50 percent of the project cost), and
transition away from loan programs to grant programs.
Access to Markets
Native American producers do not only face barriers when attempting
to access credit, but when trying to access domestic and international
markets as well. Within the domestic market, food safety regulations
can preclude Native American producers from participating in interstate
commerce. Many Tribal Nations exercise their sovereignty by growing,
harvesting, fishing, and hunting for their own food, and by developing
their own Tribal food codes. Yet for those Tribes who have not
developed their own Tribal food codes, federal food safety regulations
do not always comport with traditional means of gathering food. Access
to certified kitchens and processing facilities are also a challenge,
preventing Tribes without access to these tools from transporting and
selling their products across state lines.
Infrastructure and equipment needs are a primary concern for
producers seeking domestic and international market access. According
to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, 24,744 American Indian/Alaska
Native-operated farms specialized in beef cattle. Yet at that time,
there were no beef processing facilities owned and operated by a Native
American Tribe before the Quapaw's facility opened in 2018. Although
more Tribes now own and operate their own meat, poultry, and seafood
facilities, access to processing facilities remains limited across
Indian Country, inhibiting producers.
International market access can be hampered by many factors
including competition from larger conglomerates or businesses that have
the overhead to compete in the rapidly changing global markets. Our
Tribal producers market their items as ``premium'' products,
represented by their higher prices due to the higher costs of
agricultural production in Indian Country. In Indian Country,
everything is more expensive, from infrastructure like roads and
broadband to farm equipment, fuel, and feed. Many consumers or buyers
do not understand the barrier with Tribal producers must overcome in
order to sell their products, and will choose the cheaper options
instead. Other factors include capacity, political concerns, logistic
disruptions, and rising energy and material/packaging prices.
Providing ongoing outreach to introduce USDA programs and services
to Tribal governments, communities, and individuals to improve
understanding of regulatory and technical support. Additionally,
program funds received through Foreign Ag Services, like the Market
Access Program and Agricultural Trade Promotion, are critical to the
continuation of global market access opportunities for emerging or
small to medium size Indian companies. These funds should both continue
to flow to Native American producers, and the amount available to our
producers should increase in order to help Native Americans capture a
larger share of the agriculture market.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Next, we have JT Willie, the Director of the Division of
Economic Development for the Navajo Nation.
STATEMENT OF JT WILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION
DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Willie. Good afternoon, honorable members of the
Committee, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski. My name is JT
Willie, and I will be speaking on behalf of the Navajo Nation
and the Navajo businesses located throughout the great Navajo
Nation.
I am the Executive Director for the Navajo Nation Division
of Economic Development, which is located here in Window Rock,
Arizona, on the great Navajo Nation. Our division is primarily
focused to advance the economic opportunities here on the
Navajo Nation through various initiatives. Our program is
designed to work with all of our partners, whether it is
through tribal nations, with the State or with the Federal
Government. As the world modernizes, so too must the Navajo
Nation, of course, with the reestablishment of policies,
adjustments so that that are impactful to our Navajo Nation.
As we continued to seek continued opportunities to boost
economic growth for future generations, however, like economies
throughout the world, the Navajo Nation faced challenges during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Great socioeconomic challenges and
scarce access to basic infrastructure resources, which many of
my colleagues spoke to as I listened at the beginning of this
hearing today, is very true here on the Navajo Nation.
Therefore, the historic and current reality for many tribal
members is a reality for us. Therefore, we strive to continue
to sustain our livelihoods, especially those from the business
community.
It is the most basic things that many Americans have access
to outside of the reservation, such as clean running water,
electricity, gas, broadband, groceries, and basic services,
these were all very limited to us during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As we see that the Nation is moving forward, the Navajo Nation
still is in that state where much access to these necessities
has been very limited.
So our businesses have been facing various obstacles. The
environment for business on tribal lands can be very limited
due to Federal policies and laws. Many of these regulations
were drafted and agreed upon in a dramatically different
context and space.
Additionally, centuries-long discrimination and
mistreatment have resulted in the high socioeconomic
disparities that we face here, including those that decrease
the sociopolitical abilities, educational and health
inequities, language and linguistic barriers, limited financial
literacy, inadequate and reduced financial opportunities, which
makes it also impossible for our economy to be competitive with
outside, what we call border town locations around the Navajo
Nation. And of course, the barriers to the basic infrastructure
and minimal space for advancement.
Navajo-owned businesses are often unable to obtain Federal
assistance due to issues with credit, struggles to provide
documentation, and of course, the longevity of some of these
applications. With the limitation of infrastructure such as the
basic need for broadband, many of these businesses located in
rural areas throughout the Navajo Nation don't have direct
access to those portals that are located online.
Fortunately, with the CARES funds, we were given an
opportunity to assist our tribal members, those within the
business community, with financial resources. So we are very
thankful to members of Congress for helping us in allocating
those funds to the Navajo Nation, which our division had
spearheaded to allocate what we called the Navajo CARES Act
Artisan and Small Business Economic Relief Grants. These grants
were offered not only to Navajo entrepreneurs but to artisans.
The artisans are the grassroots of the Navajo Nation. Through
various allotments of $5,000 to $60,000, we were able to
provide assistance to our Navajo entrepreneurs, which helped
over 4,302 business owners.
Prior to the pandemic, we had a data base of about 195
businesses. But through this process, we were able to identify
6,346 more individuals who are Navajo-owned businesses
throughout the Navajo Nation, even those located off the
reservation.
Therefore, as we move forward with the American Rescue Plan
Act, we look to reopen the program and to start moving forward.
Our division has also been given the green light by the U.S.
Treasury to initiate the State Small Credit Business
Initiative. Through that, we are working with our partners
which are Change Labs, Dineh Chamber, and the Navajo CDFI to
expedite that program.
However, some of the issues that our legislative body can
address include those that many of us spoke to earlier, which
is those hesitancies from the bank financial institutions,
greater financial resources for our government. Also to revisit
policies that limit the land tribal bank ownership here.
With that being said, I have submitted my written comments
as well. I thank you for this time, members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willie follows:]
Prepared Statement of JT Willie, Executive Director, Navajo Nation
Division of Economic Development
Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chairman Murowski, and Members of the
Committee. On behalf of the Navajo Nation and our Navajo Business
Community, I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you regarding
support for Native Business Capacity Building and Success and the Buy
Native American initiative. My name is JT Willie and I am the Executive
Director for the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development (DED)
located in in St. Michaels, Arizona within the great Navajo Nation.
The DED is one of fourteen divisions within the Executive Branch of
the Navajo Nation Government. The DED is the primary entity of the
Navajo Nation to advance the economic development initiatives of the
Navajo Nation. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NNDED and Fourth World Design Group. (April 2018). Navajo
Nation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2018. P. 3.
Retrieved from https://www.coconino.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27915/
Navajo-Nation-Comprehensive-Economic-Development-Strategy?bidId=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The division's objective is to promote, support and encourage
economic development in the commercial, small business, tourism,
industrial and other sectors of the Navajo Nation economy to improve
the overall quality of life for the Navajo people.
The division consists of the following Departments:
Administration
Business Regulatory Department
Project Development Department
Tourism Department
Real Estate Department
Support Services Department
Small Business Development Department/Regional Business
Development Offices
In 2021 the Navajo Nation became the largest federally recognized
tribe in the United States with a total population of approximately
399,494 members. \2\ The Navajo Nation has a land base of approximately
17 million acres of land, which covers over 27,000 square miles within
the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. The Navajo Nation consists
of 5 agencies and 110-chapter communities. The Navajo Nation was
established as a sovereign nation in the Treaty of 1868 between the
Navajo Nation and the United States. The Navajo Nation is governed by a
three-branch government system, similar to the U.S. Federal Government
structure. This consists of the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch,
and Judicial Branch. There are 110 chapter communities within 5
agencies throughout the Navajo Nation each with unique characteristics,
qualities, and challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Indian Country Today. (May 2021). Cherokee no longer largest
tribe. Retrieved from: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/cherokee-no-
longer-largest-tribe-navajo-wins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navajo Nation is facing extraordinary challenges, including
health and social disparity, poverty, as well as language and cultural
pressures. Yet, as the Navajo Nation evolves the Navajo people continue
to balance culture, tradition, language and modernism. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NNDED and Fourth World Design Group.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navajo Nation is continuing to seek and consider opportunities
to boost the economic growth for future generations. The Tribe
continues to move forward on projects that are profitable, viable,
increase employment, improve infrastructure for development, target
untapped resources, provide assistance and support for small
businesses, improve existing enterprises, and capitalize on new
economic prospects using innovation and ingenuity.
The Navajo Nation, like the rest of the globe faced historical
challenge that has forever impacted our path forward. March 2020 the
World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic.
Globally, economies stammered to a crawl and many businesses struggled
to meet their basic needs. The Navajo Nation was hit particularly hard
having faced challenges never experienced before.
Unimaginable socioeconomic challenges and scarce access to basic
infrastructure resources was and remains the reality for many tribal
members. This is especially true for the business community that
strives to sustain their way of life. Things that that most Americans
take for granted like access to clean running water, electric, gas,
broadband, groceries, and basic services were limited prior to the
arrival of COVID-19.
Businesses also face additional barriers. The environment for
businesses on tribal lands can be severely limiting due to federal
policies and laws. Many of these regulations were drafted and agreed
upon in a dramatically different context and space. Additionally,
centuries long discrimination and mistreatment have resulted in
heighted socioeconomic disparities, decreased sociopolitical abilities,
educational and health inequalities, language/linguistical barriers,
limited financial literacy, inadequate and reduced financial
opportunities, insurmountable economic competition outside tribal
borders, barriers toward basic logistical infrastructure, and minimal
space for advancement. Navajo-owned businesses are often unable to
attain federal assistance due to issues with credit, struggles to
provide documentation, and oppressive applications. \4\ The added
burdens of the pandemic further exacerbated issues, therefore putting
more weight onto a nation that was already struggling to modernize and
adapt to a globalized world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Krisst, Rima. ``Struggling. Almost in ruins': Limited access to
COVID-19 relief, PPE leaves Businesses,'' Navajo Times, October 23,
2020, https://navajotimes.com/biz/almost-in-ruins-limited-access-to-
covid-19-relief-ppe-leaves-businesses-struggling/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CARES Act was passed by Congress on March 25, 2020 and signed
into law on March 27, 2020. The Navajo Nation received its allocation
of $714M on June 26, 2020 with Navajo Nation Council Resolution No.
CMY-44-20, known as the Navajo Nation CARES Fund Act in place funding
was available provided a link to resources at an unprecedented scope
and scale. \5\ The Navajo Nation Council allocated $60M for economic
development purposes and was assigned to the Navajo Nation Division of
Economic Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker. (2020, June
29). Navajo Nation Receives $714 million in federal CARES Act funding.
[Press Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.navajonationcouncil.org/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Navajo_Nation_receives_total_714189631_dollars_in_federal_CARES_Act_fund
ing_PR.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This provided an opportunity to assist tribal members, most
especially the business community with financial resources. The DED
established the Navajo CARES Act Artisan and Small Business Economic
Relief Grant to provide financial support to Navajo entrepreneurs and
business owners. Artists that include, but not limited to; performers,
silversmiths, rug weavers, jewelry makers, potters, leatherworkers,
crafters, dancers, cultural performers, comedians, storytellers, and
more were able to apply and receive up to $5,000 in artisan grant
funds. Small business, equally diverse, that included entities such as;
sheepherders, traveling vendors, roadside food stand venders, rodeo
professionals, farriers, consultants, restaurants, bed and breakfasts,
tour companies, and more were able to apply and receive up to $60,000
in small business grant funds. These funds were to be used for payroll,
business loan interest payments, rent and utilities, new or expanded
technology, mitigate COVID-19, and marketing costs.
Due to the time constraints written into the federal legislation,
the grant program was only open for 72 calendar days. The program
launched on Labor Day, September 7, 2020 and closed November 20, 2020.
Treasury guidelines required that funds needed to be expended by
December 21, 2020. This created additional timing challenges along with
constraints to acquire resources for outreach and communication, safety
measures, recruit personnel, lack of office space, and internal tribal
barriers. Additionally, the division worked to simplify the processes
as best possible. However, it still provided some challenges for
applicants. The two-step process included business registration and a
grant application. The division was able to disburse approximately $28
million in direct grant funding to support to 4,302 business owners.
The remaining $32 million was returned to general Navajo CARES Act
funds for distribution to the Navajo Hardship Assistance program.
Prior to March 2020 the Navajo Nation Business Regulatory
Department (BRD) had a source list of 195 businesses that were Navajo
majority owned at 51 percent or greater and registered with the tribe.
Professional services made up a majority of the businesses with 57
percent and the rest following; general contractors--38 percent,
special trades/subcontractors -16 percent, and suppliers 7 percent. At
the conclusion of the program all data was gathered for review and
analysis then published in a report to Navajo Nation Council titled;
``NNDED CARES Act: Artisan and Small Business Grant Report.'' \6\
Following these internal reports and analysis, the division reported
6,346 entities to be included with the 195 businesses previously
registered within BRD's source list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The artisan grant awarded the majority share of the amount
disbursed, totaling $15.7 million and small businesses received $12.8
million. Of the total, 74.6 percent went to artisans and 25.4 percent
to small business grants.
Other key findings and observations:
The majority of applications were businesses located/operated
outside of the Navajo Nation. Immediate access of
infrastructure, especially broadband, allowed for an easier
application process.
More applicants from chapters with greater access to
infrastructure, in particular chapters where Navajo Tribal
Utility Authority offices are located or other government
entity offering free use of WIFI located in Window Rock, Tuba
City, Chinle, Crownpoint and Shiprock.
Remote and rural communities had fewer applicants. This could
be due to government travel restrictions, limited to no
financial means for travel, lack of Internet service and
technology, artists not considering themselves as business
owners/entrepreneurs, concern of financial ramifications,
concern of government oversight.
15 percent of total applications were denied or returned to
applicant due to insufficient documentation and/or information.
There are a total of 6,346 newly identified businesses in
some capacity that are owned by an enrolled member of the
Navajo Nation.
Despite the many challenges, hardships, and tribulations the
pandemic created, it also offered opportunities. The Navajo Nation has
always been unique in culture, language, and now in the function of
economics. However, a very crucial component of economics is research
and data. There is a critical need for proper data representation for
all Native American communities. Often data statistics as seen in many
census reports is inconclusive or lacks enough substantial
representation to be significant. The division has been fortunate in
receiving data through the grant program.
The Navajo Nation received nearly $2 billion in federal funding
through the American Rescue Plan Act. The $32 million that was returned
for the Navajo Hardship Assistance Program in 2020 will be returned to
the division for distribution to Navajo artists and small businesses
that were not able to receive grant funds from the original Navajo
CARES Act grant program. It is our mission to see that the full $32
million be awarded and disbursed to help further support our Navajo
business community and ultimately help the Navajo Economy find its
footing.
The division was given the green light to submit an application for
funds from the U.S. Treasury's State Small Business Credit Initiative
(SSBCI). This program provides federal funding to Tribes to distribute
in a variety of programs that support the credit and capital needs of
Navajo-owned small businesses and entrepreneurs.
With the assistance of the Navajo Nation Department of Justice
Economic Development Unit, the division has initiated drafting the
SSBCI application due to U.S. Treasury, May 11, 2022. The first phase
will be planning and development of Navajo SSBCI programs. To assist,
three Navajo business partners have been invited to collaborate; Change
Labs of Tuba City, Dineh Chamber of Commerce and Navajo CDFI both of
Window Rock. Their expertise, knowledge, and relationships within the
business community were the basis of the decision to invite the trio to
spearhead our development and implementation of the SSBCI programs.
They also collectively have demonstrated experience in small business
loans, startup capital, and knowledge of investment opportunities to
support Navajo business owners and entrepreneurs.
However, the ability for Navajo businesses, especially on tribal
lands, is made a challenge. There are several issues that generate
hurdles and impossible to navigate pathways to attain capital and
credit.
Some barriers include, but are not limited to:
Banks/financial institutions hesitancy due to rigid policies
as a result of federal tribal laws.
Borrower's credit history.
Lack of collateral.
--Land status, home ownership.
Lack of experience with the financial world.
Lender and investors not understanding tribal government
issues.
Historic distrust of banks and tribes.
Discrimination.
Programs like SSBCI will allow the Navajo Nation to fill in the gap
that financial institutions cannot fill. Restrictive policies and
practices have inhibited the economic growth that is seen just outside
our borders. The economy of the Navajo Nation depends on the
willingness of the U.S. Federal Government to allow greater flexibility
or see that innovative ideas turn into substantial and impactful
policies that foster greater autonomy for our economic decisions. It is
widely understood that Small Businesses are the foundation of the
economy. We ask for greater flexibility to support our Navajo Small
Businesses and ultimately contribute to the greater American economy.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
It gives me pleasure to introduce and say hello to you, if
not in person, J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder and Executive
Director of MA'O Organic Farms in Wai'anae, on the island of
Oahu in Hawaii. Aloha, and welcome. Nice to see you again, even
if not in person.
STATEMENT OF J. KUKUI MAUNAKEA-FORTH, FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, MA'O ORGANIC FARMS
Ms. Maunakea-Forth. [Greeting in Native tongue.] I am so
bolstered by the comments that were made earlier to affirm and
give life to the many, many strategies and policies and
workarounds that are being put in place to uplift our people,
particularly the legislation and the policies around protecting
and safeguarding our women and girls. Mahalo.
My name is Kukui [phrase in Native tongue] Maunakea-Forth.
I am from Wai'Anae, and I am really, really pleased to be a
witness today.
Our testimony, what I realized in listening to the other
speakers, is that many of the comments today were about tribal
and the sovereignty expressed through tribal governments. But
as many know, that is not the case for Native Hawaiians. So my
testimony today, I believe, will sort of reflect maybe some
very similar challenges. But of course, some of those
challenges are complicated by not just the political status of
Kanaka Maoli, but also I think even impacted by just our
geographic proximity to resources that the Federal agencies
have tried to mitigate in providing those programs to us.
So MA'O Organic Farms is a social enterprise. Our parent
organization is a non-profit organization. We are a very, very
small piece of the entire Hawaiian and island-based or land-
based organizations here, network of organizations here. Our
work is considerable, particularly after the pandemic. Because
our region has many of the socioeconomic disparities found in
Native communities. We know that we are disproportionately
impacted compared to other areas in our State.
Poverty is intergenerational. The work that we do is to
really bridge educational aspirations, access to post-secondary
opportunities for our young people through the means of
reconnecting them with the land and addressing our food
insecurity and food sovereignty. Over the 20 years utilizing
and leveraging many of the Federal earmarks from the Native
Hawaiian programs, we have been able to grow from five acres to
286 acres. We have been able to serve over 500 students with
post-secondary aspirations. We have graduated many, over 150,
with their associate degrees, and 47 with BA degrees.
So we know that this program works. Those are the
programmatic benefits. But we also in that time, those same
young people have been able to grow good food, organic food,
fruits and vegetables for the community, generating over $8
million cumulatively in our produce sales. All of those flow
directly back into our local economy.
But we want to also note that the many challenges that were
expressed today by other Federal witnesses and my colleagues
just now are certainly the same things that we face. Some of
the things that we want to ensure that is heard at this
particular moment is just the definition of rural, the term
rural, and being able to address that in a meaningful way,
Considering Oahu is made up of four counties and the city of
Honolulu, which is the most populated island, Wai'anae is
located on the west or leeward coast of that island, which
renders us sometimes ineligible for many of the programs that
would benefit Hawaii but not our programs here in Wai'anae.
So although we have great partnerships with many of the
local agencies that are represented here, including USDA and
HUD, EPA and others, oftentimes again, the accessibility and
then also the pipeline of programs is something that may be a
hit or miss for a small CBO like us. The need really is to have
increased coordination and collaboration with our local
agencies represented here, and to retool some of the policies,
make adjustments mainly, to some of the things that are in
place now that are not allowing us access to those programs.
I want to leave you with the idea that the written
testimony is there, but we always want folks to visit us, to
understand and to talk story about how we can work together.
Many of the panelists and many of the folks here, we have had
some meetings, but we invite more talk story and more planning,
more coordination from everyone. We thank you for this time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Maunakea-Forth follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder/Executive
Director, MA'O Organic Farms
Dear Committee Members:
This week, 44 high school juniors and seniors from the Wai'anae
region are spending Spring Break on our farm. From 7am--1pm, they are
immersing themselves in the basics of growing row crops, helping to
fulfill produce orders bound for markets and tables all over Oahu, and
working with our education staff to learn about Ola--holistic health
and well being in a Hawaiian cultural context--while also planning for
their transition to college and working alongside 60+ other college and
recent college-graduate farmers. For most, the paid Spring Break
internship is not only a chance to make a little extra money, it is the
first entry into life at MA'O (MA'O is an acronym for Mala 'Ai 'Opio,
the youth food garden, or the garden that feeds youth, where every
year, college-aged youth from our community defy the odds and
expectations of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders from the Wai'anae
region to run one of Hawai'i's largest certified organic farms while
also engaged in full-time college degree programs at Leeward Community
College and the University of Hawai'i at West O'ahu.
MA'O is embedded in and primarily serves the community of Wai'anae,
which is one of the poorest and most food insecure regions of Hawai'i.
Much of the community struggles with the impacts of intergenerational
poverty, including preventable diseases, homelessness, and hunger. The
region's socio-economic disparities disproportionately impact native
Hawaiians, who make up 58 percent of the community, compared with 21
percent of the state's population.
The region's poverty is entrenched in the relationship between low
educational attainment and low income. With 16 percent of the region's
adult population lacking a high school diploma, and 88 percent lacking
a Bachelor's degree, well-paying jobs are out of reach for the
majority. Wai'anae's per capita income is $17,800, compared to the
state's $29,500. Coupled with an unemployment rate triple that of the
state's, these low wages relegate a quarter of the community to living
under the 100 percent federal poverty level.
The inverse of Wai'anae's deficits is the tremendous opportunity
MA'O provides: to empower and educate Wai'anae youth to lead the
community to a healthy and prosperous future through the creation of a
culturally rooted sustainable food system. In our 22-year history, we
have:
Grown from 5-acres of leased land to owning 286-acres,
acquired through 4 separate purchases over the last 12 years.
Served over 500 college interns and over 600 high school
interns through paid workforce training internships and college
tuition waivers
Graduated over 150 youth with Associates degrees, 47 with
Baccalaureate degrees, and 1 Master's degree.
Produced over 2 million pounds cumulatively of organic fruits
and vegetables for our community.
Generated over $8 Million cumulatively in produce sales,
which are dollars re-invested in our youth workforce training
and education programs.
Throughout our organization's history, federal programs have helped
catalyze key stages of our growth.
On four separate occasions, funding from the US DHHS ACF
Administration for Native Americans (ANA) allowed MA'O to hire
or retain education staff and develop a culturally and
communally relevant workforce training program;
A grant from the US DOE Native Hawaiian Education Program
supported MA'O and our partners at Wai'anae High School and
Wai'anae Intermediate School to strengthen our farm-to-school
programming;
A past loan from the USDA contributed to the purchase of an
8-acre parcel bordering our existing farm, growing our
operations that allowed more internships and job opportunities
to be created;
A current grant from USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service which allowed us to promote a farm manager into a
program coordinator position who will expand our summer
college-level internship program across to five (5) other O'ahu
farms engaged in traditional Native Hawaiian, climate-smart
food production practices; and,
A current grant from the US Department of Commerce Economic
Development Agency provides key funding for a new food safety-
certified post-harvest wash/pack and training facility
(breaking ground in a few weeks) that will allow MA'O to expand
its operations and internship/workforce opportunities.
Without a doubt, MA'O could not have achieved our impact to-date
without the support of these programs. With each, we have become better
at articulating our needs and our outcomes. These key investments into
predominantly native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities are key
to addressing many of the entrenched socio-economic challenges faced by
our communities. The funds are directed towards systems-level
interventions that simultaneously generate individual/youth,
organizational and community-level outcomes. Not only have we been able
to grow the enterprise operations and strengthen the professional
capacity of our staff and youth, and in many cases, we have leveraged
these resources to unlock other private, public and nonprofit
resources. By its nature, federal grants and resources have also given
MA'O a platform from which we are able to connect with practitioners
across the country and across the Pacific who are doing similar work in
agriculture, food systems, youth leadership and community development.
As we look at the next 5, 10 and 20 years, we see an urgent need to
work from the baseline we have established in our first 20-some years,
to dramatically scale up youth leadership, expand an agroecologically-
based food system and develop community-level knowledge capacity and
strategies that are pono (just), sustainable and resilient. As our
communities brace for the cascading impacts of the pandemic--
significant learning loss, loss of employment, cost of living increases
and of course overwhelming physical and mental health issues, we must
stay ahead of the curve and enhance our social programming. As an
agricultural enterprise, we have also been meaningfully engaged in
developing our response to climate change. Our farms' ability to pivot
and implement these climate adaptations efficiently will be critical in
meeting the community's looming food insecurity. In the next five years
alone, MA'O plans to:
Engage 500 more high school and after-school youth in
culturally informed, edu-preneurial, work based learning
experiences;
Graduate 300 more Wai'anae youth with Certificates,
Associates Degrees and/or Bachelor's/Master's degrees;
Create an additional 20 more sustaining jobs at MA'O, provide
placement to alumni in culturally and communally aligned
positions in community;
Bring an additional 100-acres of fallow land into cultivation
with organic row crops, fruit orchards, agroforestry for
timber/fiber, as well as native and indigenous plants for
cultural and ceremonial purposes;
Deliver 6 million more pounds of certified organic, fresh
fruits and vegetables to our community.
The most prominent hurdles MA'O faces to scaling up are shared by
many other Native Hawaiian farmers and 'aina-based (land-based)
organizations (and likely faced by similarly positioned native governed
organizations across the US) include:
Food-Safety Certification and Compliance--the process is time
intensive, lots of paperwork to meet national standards.
Wrap-Around Services and Resources- there is a lack of
accessible health, mental well-being, academic and family
support available post-Pandemic.
Automation & Technology--there is a lack of technology and
process to achieve scale.
Energy and Water Efficiency--there is a lack of access to
products/services, the infrastructure is cost prohibitive.
Affordable Housing--there is a need for a stable workforce,
particularly for staff and families in rural and native
communities
These are hurdles which require coordination, funding and
partnership to overcome. MA'O and other Native Hawaiian-led
organizations working in our food system are prepared to take on these
challenges in partnership with federal agencies such as USDA, ANA and
EDA. However, our commnunity's need and our capacity to create positive
outcomes is often not matched in the federal programs we see being
offered.
For example, despite the fact that there are many individuals in
our Hilo, Hawaii-based USDA office that are consistently responsive and
supportive, just in the last 18-months, MA'O encountered the following
experiences with USDA programs:
USDA Rural Development (RD) Multi-Family Housing
--Many strong agricultural communities throughout the State of
Hawai'i do not qualify based on RD's population thresholds
because Hawai'i is generally more densely populated than much
of the rest of the country. The 2020 census reports that the
average US population density is 93.8 persons per square mile.
Whereas in the State of Hawai'i, that figure is 226.6 persons
per square mile.
--MA'O and other Native-led agricultural organizations are also
often disqualified from USDA and RD programs on the basis of
income. Across Honolulu county per capita income averages
$36,816 vs. $34,103 nationwide. While this may seem like our
residents are faring well, the reality is that these dollars do
not go far in our high-cost-of-living State. And, disparities
within communities are masked by data which does not
immediately account for the poverty that many Native Hawaiian
and Pacific Islander families bear while living in the same
neighborhoods as more affluent families.
--Moreover, as a ``lender of last resort,'' RD's housing
related programs set an extremely high barrier to meet. As our
local banks and CDFIs have improved and expanded their
understanding of the needs of Native Hawaiian led, 'aina-based
organizations like MA'O, it is more possible to obtain
financing. However the interest rates at which that financing
is offered often makes projects infeasible, thus putting many
deserving rural, indegenous-serving projects in a position of
not being able to prove they cannot obtain financing in order
to access RD's programs, yet not being able to afford the
financing they can obtain.
USDA High Energy Cost and Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP)
--MA'O actively seeks support to add a PV array to our new
processing facility to offset the energy needs of the large
walk-in chiller and automated wash machinery within We not only
seek renewable energy not only for its alignment with MA'O's
'aina-based and sustainability values (our local utility
depends largely on coal-fired plants), but because such a
system will make our farm operations more resilient in facing
power outages caused by extreme weather and an aging utility
infrastructure. However, thresholds for utilities costs tied to
USDA energy programs eligibility leave these opportunities
barely out of reach. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
lists household electricity costs per kWh in Honolulu county as
the highest among all locations reporting data. In fact, at
$.327/kWh, Honolulu's cost is more than double the national
average of $.142/kWh.
We know there is precedent for redefining eligibility for USDA
programs, and believe that this is necessary to create greater impact
for a wide array of Native Hawaiian-led organizations in our state's
food system.
Reinstate the 2005 waiver Section 278-1-A-B-6 that allows any
community out of urban HNL to qualify for RD programs, while
also expanding it to all islands in the State (not just
Honolulu County, island of Oahu) see attached for copy of 2005
waiver. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referred to has been retained in the Committee
files.
Allow Hawai'i USDA program applicants to use Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) subdivision boundaries to help
define location eligibility to better target programs to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
communities with high concentrations of Native Hawaiians.
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
program to all USDA programs and specifically recognize
proximity to DHHL lands as eligibility for SUTA
In terms of our broader experience with other programs such as ANA
or EDA, the same general points of friction pose a challenge to MA'O to
make the best use of the program resources and are likely barriers to
many other Native Hawaiian-led organizations even attempting to access
these programs at all:
Reporting burden. For small Community Based Organizations
(CBO) like MA'O, there is often a misalignment of the RFP
expectations for reporting with the reality of time and
resources available for reporting. In the past, we have worked
to incorporate the program narrative reporting into our
workflow, however, financial reporting is still burdensome.
Since the pandemic, many of the reports have transitioned into
online reporting, however, the access to the portals, the
outreach/access to technical assistance, and the obsolete/
duplicative processes are still areas they are working on.
Scarce/scant resources to meet the RFP proposal criteria. To
be competitive, 'aina based organizations need access to
technical assistance during the proposal writing process. ANA
has an excellent model of TA/TTA Centers that are based
throughout the US that other agencies could note. Virtual
meetings have helped with access to TA but not necessarily with
the quality of services to build/develop a competitive
proposal.
Staff turnover, understaffing. When we are lucky enough to
receive program funding, staff turnover and understaffing at
the federal agency often leaves us with inconsistent guidance
on program administration or reporting. We often have to
contend with long wait times for guidance and approvals,
hampering our ability to deliver outcomes effectively and
efficiently, and to meet the deadlines of the grants or loans
themselves.
MA'O and our Native Hawaiian colleagues working in food systems
across the State recognize there is always more we can do to improve
our ability to qualify for these federal programs and to work
collaboratively with federal agencies. We will continue to evolve and
progress in our ability to be good stewards of these public resources,
and--we humbly ask for your continued involvement, guidance,
assistance, support and partnership in order to serve our native
communities with excellence.
On behalf of MA'O youth and staff, and many other 'aina based,
Native Hawaiian Organizations, mahalo for your care and consideration
of our testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Next, we have Gary Hennigh, the City Administrator of the
City of King Cove, Alaska.
STATEMENT OF GARY HENNIGH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, KING COVE,
ALASKA
Mr. Hennigh. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair
Murkowski, and members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
My name is Gary Hennigh, and I have been the City
Administrator for King Cove, Alaska, for the last 32 years.
King Cove is located 625 miles southwest of Anchorage, at the
western end of the Alaska Peninsula, right before the start of
the Aleutian Islands.
King Cove was founded in 1911 when a Seattle-based fish
company decided to locate a cod cannery on the shores of what
is now King Cove on the tip of the Gulf of Alaska. Aleut people
have been living in this are for more than 4,000 years.
In 1949, King Cove was one of the first and smallest local
municipal governments to incorporate in the territory of
Alaska, 10 years before Alaska statehood. This decision was an
early indication of the awareness by King Cove Aleuts that
being part of a larger statewide governance network was very
important.
The majority of residents today are Aleuts with
approximately 550 members of the Agdaagux Tribe and 50 members
of the Belkofski Tribe. The King Cove Corporation created by
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act further solidified the
community's desire to be economically and culturally linked to
the rest of the State and the Pacific Northwest.
Today, King Cove is one of Alaska's premier fishing
communities, having two large harbors and one of the State's
largest seafood processing plants. Residents maintain both an
active commercial fisheries and subsistence lifestyle, and are
very experienced living in harmony with the area's physical
environment, which is a combination of rugged volcanic
mountains, some of them active, earthquakes, melting glaciers,
and relentless winds that will top 100 miles and hour many
times throughout the year. However, on top of all this is a
spectacular beauty that nature has bestowed on this very remote
region of Alaska.
Living in King Cove requires good human survival skills,
resilience, and an understanding of the relationship between
the natural and human environments. One such example in King
Cove is that over the last three decades, the community has
emerged as one of Alaska's premier rural renewable energy
communities, where 85 percent of our annual electricity is
created by our two run-of-the-river hydroelectric facilities.
These two hydro facilities displace more than 300,000 gallons
of fuel on an annual basis.
These renewable energy accomplishments are a direct result
of the long-established partnership between the two tribes in
King Cove, the Village Corporation and the local government.
Starting in the late 1980s, then-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens
encouraged the community to actively explore and develop our
first hydro facility based on feasibility work completed by the
Army Corps of Engineers. Further adding to this encouragement
and financial support was then-Alaskan Governor and former U.S.
Secretary of Interior, Walter J. Hickel. And of course, our
very own Senator Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young have
been great supporters and champions of our renewable energy
accomplishments for over two decades now.
Back in 1993, a $250,000 grant to the Agdaagux Tribe from
the Department of Energy Tribal Energy Office was the initial
financial catalyst to amass the necessary $5.7 million to
construct our first hydro. King Cove was vey anxious to provide
a 50-year no-cost lease for using 250 acres of their ANSCA land
to site the facility, including the impound structures, two
miles of access roads, powerhouse and a five-mile transmission
line.
This partnership is further accentuated by the reality that
most King Cove residents are tribal members, shareholders of
the for-profit corporation, and active members of the city's
municipal government. The community has long since established
the awareness and necessity of working together to achieve
community sustainability.
The next step in the evolution of renewable energy in King
Cove is to begin selling our significant amount of surplus
hydro power to the community's seafood processor. This
additional revenue will allow the city to further reduce the
city's current kilowatt hour electric costs, further reduce
energy production costs for the seafood processor, and remove
additional carbon emissions from our environment.
In summary, our working partnership with the two tribes and
the King Cove Corporation have been an excellent model for King
Cove in achieving renewable energy independence. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hennigh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Hennigh, City Administrator, King Cove,
Alaska
Dear Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on ``Buy
Native American: Federal Support for Native Business Capacity''
hearing. My name is Gary Hennigh and I have been the City Administrator
for King Cove, Alaska for the last 32 years. I would like to share a
very successful story of renewable energy development in a rural Alaska
community involving its local government, a Native Tribe, and a for-
profit Village corporation.
King Cove is the 32nd largest community in Alaska with a population
of 950 residents. The community is located 625 miles southwest of
Anchorage at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula--right before the
start of the Aleutian Islands. King Cove was founded in 1911 when a
Seattle-based fish company decided to locate a cannery there on the
northern shores of the Gulf of Alaska and adjacent the Bering Sea.
Aleuts had already been living in this area for the past 4,000 years.
In 1949, King Cove was one of the first, and smallest, local
municipal governments to incorporate in the Territory of Alaska--ten
years before Alaska Statehood. This decision was an early indication of
the awareness of King Cove Aleuts that being part of a larger statewide
governance network would be very important.
The majority of residents today are Aleuts with approximately 550
members of the Agdaagux Tribe and 50 members of the Belkofski Tribal
Council. The King Cove Corporation (KCC), created by the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) in 1971, further solidified the
community's desire to be economically linked and active throughout the
region and State.
Today, King Cove is one of Alaska's premier fishing communities
having two large boat harbors and one of the State's largest seafood
processing plants. Residents maintain both an active commercial
fisheries and subsistence lifestyle. They are experienced living in
harmony with the location's natural and physical environment, which is
a combination of rugged, volcanic mountains (some active), earthquakes,
melting glaciers and relentless winds that will top 100 mph many times
throughout the year. However, on top of all this is a spectacular
beauty that nature has bestowed on this very remote region of Alaska!
Living and prospering in this area requires good human survival
skills, great resilience and having an understanding of the
relationships between the physical and human environments. One such
example is that King Cove, over the last three decades, has emerged as
one of Alaska's premier rural renewable energy communities where 85
percent of our annual electricity is created by two very successful,
run-of-the-river hydroelectric facilities.
These renewable energy accomplishments are a direct result of the
long-established partnership between the two tribes in King Cove, the
KCC, and the local government. Starting back in the late 1980's, then-
U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, encouraged the community to actively explore
and develop our first hydro facility, Delta Creek. The potential for
developing this hydro facility was initially based on feasibility work
completed by the Army Corp of Engineers in the mid-1980's. Further
adding to this initial encouragement and financial support was then-
Alaska Governor and former U.S. Secretary of Interior, Walter J.
Hickel. And of course, our very own United States Senator, Lisa
Murkowski, and Congressman Don Young have been strong advocates for our
two hydro projects and have personally visited King Cove to observe
them in operation.
Back in 1993, a $250,000 grant to the Agdaagux Tribe from the
Department of Energy's Tribal Energy Office was the initial financial
catalyst to amass the $5.7 million needed to construct our first hydro
site using Delta Creek. The Tribe promptly transferred this grant to
the city. The city also procured a 25-year loan for $2 million from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Rural Development to help fund the
project. And, KCC was quick to provide a 50-year, no-cost lease for
approximately 100 acres of their ANSCA land to locate the facility,
including two impound structures (i.e. small dams less than 10' high),
two miles of access roads, powerhouse, and a 5-mile transmission line.
This partnership is further accentuated by the fact that most King
Cove residents are tribal members, shareholders of KCC, and active
participants in the city's municipal government activates. The
residents' long-time willingness to work together to achieve community
sustainability and progress is quite remarkable.
The next step in the evolution of renewable energy in King Cove is
to begin selling our ``surplus'' hydro power to the community's large
seafood processor. This additional revenue will allow the city to
reduce its current kWh electric costs while reducing energy costs for
the seafood processor and remove additional carbon emissions in our
local environment. Our ultimate goal is to simply have the lowest
electric kWh cost anywhere in Alaska! We believe this is achievable.
Finally, the City may resume its earlier efforts to consider adding
wind generation to our energy portfolio. We previously learned from a
few years of collecting wind data, that King Cove has ``class 6 winds''
knowing that anything over class 3 winds are commercially viable. We
also know that we have the potential for another hydro facility in the
Delta Creek Valley. Our pursuit of these possibilities will continue in
partnership with our Tribes and KCC. The possibility of another grant
from DOE's Tribal Energy Office to begin exploring these options will
be pursued.
In summary, the city's partnerships with the Agdaagux and Belkofski
Tribes and KCC have been an excellent model in our quest, and results,
for renewable energy independence. Attachment A provides additional
background information regarding our renewable success in King Cove.
Thank you.
Attachment A
The following testimony was provided by King Cove City Mayor,
Warren Wilson, to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on January 11, 2022. This testimony furthers details the
history of success that the City of King Cove, and its partners the
Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove and King Cove Corporation (created by the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) have experienced with renewable
energy production and our reliance on it for the past 28 years in our
remote and rugged environment at the western end of the Alaska
Peninsula, which is 625 air miles southwest of Anchorage. A few minor
edits have been made subsequent to filing this testimony with the
Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
opportunities and challenges for maintaining existing hydropower
capacity, expanding hydropower at non-powered dams, and increasing
pumped storage hydropower. The role of hydropower in our nation's
energy mix is more important than ever, particularly in rural Alaska.
I am very pleased to report that the City of King Cove is truly a
leader in remote/rural Alaska hydropower! King Cove's municipal
electric utility generates about 85 percent of its annual electricity
demand of approximately 4.5MWh from two, small run-of-the-river hydro
facilities. We have worked long and hard to achieve this success and
are very proud of our accomplishments.
Our first hydro facility, Delta Creek, came online in December
1994. From that time through mid 2017, Delta Creek was producing at
least 50 percent of the community's electricity demand. As we learned
more about this facility and observed its excellent performance, we
started to investigate the feasibility of developing another adjacent
source of water to compliment this facility. We further learned that
another hydro project would have bring a significant cost advantage by
being able to share/benefit some of the Delta Creek investment in
transmission lines and expanding the hydro powerhouse where our
generator and turbine are located.
Then, our second hydro facility, Waterfall Creek, came online in
June 2017. This hydro is about 60-70 percent the size/capability of
Delta Creek. They operate together in great harmony. Together, these
two hydro facilities are displacing over 300,000 gallons of diesel fuel
on an annual basis, as well as eliminating a substantial amount of
carbon emissions in our community. This is a big deal in helping to
provide substantial cost savings to our municipal utility and our
community. We are saving our residential customers about a $1,000
annually in electric costs.
We also have approximately 1.5 MWh of ``surplus hydro'' that we are
now expecting to soon start selling to the local fish processing plant
in King Cove. Currently, this large processing facility, New Peter Pan
Seafoods, has their own independent diesel system. They are very
interested in purchasing this surplus hydro and reducing their reliance
on diesel-generated energy. This next chapter in the evolution of
renewable energy reliance at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula is
exciting.
Next, I would like to briefly summarize the key cost and financial
operating parameters of these two hydro facilities.
Delta Creek--cost $5.7 million (1993/94). This project was
funded through a variety of sources including a U.S. Dept of
Energy/Indian Tribal grant ($250,000); local government grants
($750,000); State of Alaska grants ($2.8 million); and USDA/RD
($1.9 million). The 25-year loan from USDA/RD was paid in full
in 2019.
Waterfall Creek--cost $6.5 million (2015/2017). This project
was also funded through a variety of sources including the
State of Alaska Renewable Energy Funds grants ($2.8 million),
local government grants & cash of $500,000, and $3.1 long-term
debt from the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank and Alaska Energy
Authority's Power Project Fund.
The King Cove electric rate is $0.30/kWh. While this rate is about
2\1/2\ times more than the average kWh rate throughout the Lower 48, it
is the ``cheapest'' non-subsidized rate of electricity in rural Alaska.
And, the good news for King Cove is that we expect to soon be in a
position to further lower this rate by possibly as much as \1/3\ due to
the cost savings now accruing from our initial investments in renewable
energy.
I would also like to note that in 1995 our Delta Creek project
received the Grand Award from the American Consulting Engineers for
``excellence in engineering and design'' and then in 2017 Delta Creek
was selected as one of the 13 small hydro projects worldwide to be
profiled in the ``Good Practice Report'' prepared by the International
Energy Agency. Finally in September 2017at the Arctic Energy Summit in
Helsinki, Finland, King Cove was selected for the ``Best Practice
Award'' for community renewable energy independence. These
acknowledgements reinforce that our past decisions (and risk) to invest
in renewable energy were the right decisions to make.
In summary, the City of King Cove proudly suggests that our
experience and success with these two, small run-of-the-river hydro
facilities can be used as a positive model to follow for other small,
rural communities throughout the United States. I encourage you,
Chairman Manchin and the other ENR Committee members, to encourage
these types of small hydro projects as excellent examples of renewable
energy that can be accomplished in balance with the physical and human
environments.
The Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
Before I get into my questions, I want to let the witnesses
who are all across the Country know that our Federal witnesses
don't have to be here anymore, but are all sitting in the
audience taking notes. I think that speaks to their commitment.
I appreciate your and your spouses who you have probably texted
to say, I will be late for dinner. The sacrifice you are making
and the commitment to learning from Native people across the
Country is exemplary. It shows a real commitment to these
issues. I just wanted to appreciate that.
Ms. Maunakea-Forth. we both know that Hawaii's unique
characteristics are not always understood by especially Federal
agencies and lawmakers, which can lead to serious disparities
in access. A couple of examples I have heard about that I would
like you to speak to, grant funding depending on the definition
of rural, which you have made reference to, Federal loan
eligibility hinging on the ability to qualify for private
financing, and then the eligibility criteria may not account
for the high cost of really everything in the State of Hawaii.
I am wondering if you could help us to illuminate these unique
challenges for Hawaii.
Ms. Maunakea-Forth. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
I guess we do need to discuss retooling the definition of
rural. Because I think there is so much nuance in that.
Again, we have a great team out here that is willing to
work with us to make those eligibility criteria and maximize
and optimize that for the organizations that are really at the
grassroots, helping to uplift the entire community. By
uplifting our Native Hawaiian community, which is the most
vulnerable, it uplifts the entire community.
For us, just being a Native-rooted organization, sometimes
we are seen as competitive. But really, I think what you were
speaking about, this collective effort could be a role that our
Federal agencies play in bringing some of the information and
the people and the resources that can help us to be more
organized around the priorities and really try to make the
systemic changes not just in the process but also the workflow.
I did want to mention that out here we have the Department
of Hawaiian Homelands. That is one of the agencies that we
believe can help us to unlock some of the policies in a local
context, at a local level. We are also looking at it widely and
expanding the SUTA. I think that is something that there is a
local group that is coming together to help us to retool.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I will just observe
that, I don't see it in any of the three Federal witnesses, but
there is an intuition that Native Hawaiians don't qualify for
certain programs. It is true that Native Hawaiians don't
qualify for certain programs because they are not a federally
recognized tribe.
But it is fewer than you think, because we have a trust
responsibility, the Federal Government has a trust
responsibility with Native Hawaiians. I want that to flow
through every agency and every person who administers a program
that has heretofore not serviced the Native Hawaiian community
needs to be asked whether they are citing to some statute or
just simply a habit and an assumption.
What I see in the three of you are people who are committed
to sorting out that which can only be fixed by Congress and
that which is just a bad habit and an assumption about who is
eligible and who is not. I really appreciate that.
Ms. Holden, we have heard about the challenges that Native
businesses face when trying to obtain credit from private
lenders who are unfamiliar with tribal tax nuances, Native
crops and reservation structures. How do we help? How do we
bridge the gap between Native businesses and private finance?
Ms. Holden. Thank you so much, Senator, for that question.
As you all know, much of Indian Country is considered a credit
desert. There aren't enough financial institutions willing to
lend capital to Native Americans. Particularly in the space of
ag lending, sometimes as you said it can be for a lack of
knowledge on the part of the lending institution about how to
collateralize trust land, which can be collateralized, but it
is a common misnomer that it cannot be. Or perhaps folks are
unfamiliar with the types of agriculture that our producers are
engaging in, because it might not be the traditional cows and
corn that lending institutions are more used to and more
comfortable with.
In this regard, it is a lot about trying to educate lending
institutions, both private and Federal, about what it looks
like to do agriculture in Indian Country, and what kind of
credit access our producers need. It also looks like
strengthening Native community development financial
institutions, or CDFIs. There are a lot of CDFIs across Indian
Country who are doing some phenomenal work, particularly in the
age lending space.
Also, something that the Native Farm Bill Coalition, of
which the IAC is a founding member, asked for in the 2018 Farm
Bill was actually a GAO report on access to agriculture credit
across Indian Country, not just through FSA or through USDA,
but the private institutions as well. We didn't get that. We
got a look at access to ag lending credit through the farm
credit system, which will useful does not capture the
disparities in access to credit in the same way that the
original report we asked for would have. So I think having this
data in hand would also be extremely important for any reforms
that we would like to see going forward.
USDA plays an enormous role in closing the credit gap for
tribal communities. We would love to see continuing reforms at
USDA to ensure that tribal producers are able to walk into
tehri local FSA offices and be serviced in the way that any
other individual would be.
These are just a couple of the ways that I really
appreciate your bringing up this access to credit question.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Holden. Can you send us a
letter giving us a little bit of guidance on what needs to
happen next? I can understand this problem conceptually. I am
not exactly sure what we need to do next, and I think you do
know. So please give us some instructions here, and we will
take it under advisement.
Ms. Holden. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Mr. Willie, we worked hard during CARES and
ARPA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to secure robust
funding for physical infrastructure. But here is my question.
Beyond funding, what should Congress and the Administration do
to support on-reservation business development?
Mr. Willie. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair, and members of
the Committee.
As far as the question for the Navajo Nation's concern,
much of the funds that were designated for use were geared
toward those specific things such as infrastructure. Now the
many things that we face with our businesses, I just gone done
with a few consultations this morning, reflects the fact that
much of our businesses here on Navajo have entered into a
business lease with us. However, the ownership of those leases
and that land is not in the possession of the entrepreneur.
Therefore, when advancements are made on their behalf, it
becomes ownership of the Navajo Tribe.
Of course, we can make those changes here within the leases
to set back and pay back the lease in some way to them, but
that is over a long-term time for these leases. We are looking
to 25-, 50-year, 100-year leases in some cases.
Therefore, eliminating some of those deficiencies that I
also highlighted in my submitted testimony to you, and also to
reflect that some of these polices have been hindering us as
far as the ownership of some of these land statuses. Navajo
Nation, of course, as we know is unique as far as different
land statuses of both the States that we occupy, New Mexico and
Arizona, in all contexts.
That concludes my response, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
turn to Mr. Hennigh. I appreciated, Gary, what you have
outlined in terms of how these run-of-the-river hydro projects
have made a community more sustainable, but also allow for some
growth opportunity. If you are the processor there, and your
power costs are so high you can't afford the cold storage, you
don't have much opportunity to do much in terms of business
development.
So you have not only had the one hydro project, but you
have both Delta and the waterfall hydro project. So you have
kind of lived through the gauntlet of how you access support
through the agencies, through DOE, through their loan
guarantee.
Can you give any insight to the Committee in terms of the
things that were helpful and good to build out these renewable
energy projects, or the known barriers there? Can you speak a
little bit to the experience there?
Mr. Hennigh. Sure, thank you, Senator Murkowski, for that
question. I think the working relationship that the local
government, again being dominated by Aleuts, along with the two
tribes and the King Cove Corporation, together felt like we can
find the solutions to fund these projects. If we are successful
in developing them, that who knows what the future might hold.
What that is trying to say is now with the new owners of
the seafood processing plant in King Cove, they want to
purchase the surplus power that we have now. But they also
know, like the city, that we have the potential for a third
hydro facility along with knowing that we have class six winds.
For those of you who are familiar with wind generation,
anything over a class three wind is commercially viable.
So the new owners of the seafood processing company, the
two tribe, the King Cove Corporation and the city are now all
looking at taking yet another step to add more renewable
energy. Not so much that we need it for the residential part of
the community, but for the industrial part of the community. So
our economic survival with greater processing at the seafood
plant that can be done by renewable energy can be another win-
win for the community, for the fishermen, for the processors,
and for all the people who get to eat the wonderful products
that come from this very remote region of Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. So, clear benefit with regard to
building out the economy. But in terms of impediments that you
had insofar as accessing the necessary capital to move forward,
can you speak a little bit to that?
Mr. Hennigh. Sure. Our ability to access capital for the
two hydro projects was fairly reasonable in terms of the
process we had to go through. Certainly with your support,
Senator Murkowski, and Congressman Young's, we were able to
work with the Department of Agriculture, the rural development
folks back in the early 1990s. Early on, we thought that
process was going to be very difficult. But it turned out to be
a fairly smooth process.
So that has given us the incentive to believe that as long
as we have a good business plan and that we can show the
results that we can now show, that our ability to find the next
level of capital funding for more renewable energy development
should not be insurmountable that we can't make it happen. We
are very positive that our experience gives us the potential
and the lenders the comfort of knowing that we know what we are
doing when it comes to harnessing Mother Nature.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. You have demonstrated that.
Thank you.
I wanted to ask a quick question, probably to Ms. Maunakea-
Forth, and possibly to Ms. Holden as well. This is about the
microgrants for food security program. It is something that I
had worked really hard to get into the last Farm Bill. We have
seen great success in the State of Alaska. These are small,
small loans, that is why we call them microgrants. So it is not
for big ag by any extent.
What we are trying to do in Alaska is reintroduce farming,
growing your own food, this whole concept of food security. The
daunting thought of a big project, big agriculture, is too much
for so many. But you have to get started somewhere. So whether
it is seeds or whether it is the high tunnels to allow for a
longer growing season, whether it is fencing to keep the moose
out so they don't eat your crops, these have been hugely,
hugely important.
Can either one of you share with me whether these
microgrants are something that you feel are helpful? I know
that they are already oversubscribed with the funding that we
have appropriated.
Ms. Maunakea-Forth. I would love to say that we were a
beneficiary, but I am just glad that that program is
oversubscribed. Yay! Our MA'O has always been invested in young
people. So today, we have over 90 people reconnecting to their
lands, learning agri-ecological practices, understanding the
[phrase in Native tongue], the deeper reason of their why,
their purpose, through language, through [phrase in Native
tongue], through hula. To be able to create that future
ancestor that understands the foods that come from their work
and their intention to feed, that is really the gift.
So whatever we can to do to [phrase in Native tongue] other
organizations, and we do work with several tribes, and also
several of the programs that have initiated and studied by many
of you here on the call today, that is where I think we need to
continue to work, helping to elevate our youth to be a part of
this. Mahalo.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If there are no more questions for our
witnesses, members may also submit follow-up questions for the
record. The hearing record will be open for two weeks. I want
to thank all of their witnesses for their time and their
testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty
Protection Fund
The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
(SCIA) with the following testimony for the record of the March 16,
2022 oversight hearing, ``Buy Native American: Federal Support for
Native Business Capacity Building and Success.'' During the 2022 State
of the Union Address, President Biden renewed his Administration's
commitment to the `Buy American' initiative, which was established by
the January 2021 Executive Order 14005, ``Ensuring the Future is Made
in All of America by All of America's Workers'' (EO 14005). EO 14005
was issued to ensure that the federal government would invest taxpayer
funds to support American businesses, workers, and manufacturers.
However, the `Buy American' initiative has not necessarily recognized
and supported the contributions and production of goods and services by
Tribal Nations and our businesses. The federal government must support
our self-determined and sovereign rights to pursue initiatives for
economic development that rebuild Tribal Nation economies.
For the `Buy American' initiative to be successful, federal
departments and agencies must remove regulatory barriers that hinder
our ability to create economic opportunity for our businesses and
entrepreneurs. This can be accomplished by broadening 638 self-
determination compacting and contracting opportunities for Tribal
Nations and utilizing `Buy American' to purchase goods and services
from Tribal Nations and businesses. This will support Tribal Nations
and businesses to rebuild our economies and empower our initiatives to
rebuild economic development and opportunity for our citizens.
Additionally, the federal government must support Tribal economic
parity by protecting our businesses from dual taxation, the restoration
of Tribal homelands, and provide accessible opportunities for energy
production and distribution.
USET Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) is a non-profit, inter-
tribal organization advocating on behalf of thirty-three (33) federally
recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the
Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico. \1\ USET SPF is dedicated to
promoting, protecting, and advancing the inherent sovereign rights and
authorities of Tribal Nations and in assisting its membership in
dealing effectively with public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe
of Texas (TX), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY),
Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern
Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of
Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket
Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mi'kmaq Nation (ME), Mississippi Band
of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (CT),
Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation (VA), Narragansett
Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe
(VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe
at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of
Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe (VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
(NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY),
Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA),
Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
(Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development in Indian Country and the USET SPF Region
Prior to European contact, Tribal Nations, including our members,
had a long history of dynamic economies and governance structures.
Robust trade networks connected Tribal Nations and the goods we
produced. As with other aspects of Tribal governance and
infrastructure, the removal, termination, and assimilation policies of
the United States government negatively impacted our traditional
economic trade. Over the course of centuries, Tribal Nations ceded
millions of acres of land and extensive resources to the U.S.--
oftentimes by force--in exchange for which it is legally and morally
obligated to provide benefits and services in perpetuity. Because of
this historic and ongoing diplomatic relationship, the federal
government has trust and treaty obligations to support Tribal self-
governance and self-determination, along with rebuilding Tribal Nations
and economies. Unfortunately, at no point has the federal government
fully delivered upon and upheld these obligations.
In addition to being relegated to fractions of our original
homelands, which can be in remote areas, Tribal Nations lack
governmental parity in economic development opportunities and treatment
under the U.S. tax code. The Federal Reserve Board of Governor's 2012
report, Growing Economies in Indian Country, outlined eight issues as
fundamental challenges to realizing economic growth in Indian Country.
USET SPF's member Tribal Nations, with few exceptions, face these same
challenges, such as:
1. Insufficient access to capital;
2. Capacity and capital constraints of small business;
3. Insufficient workforce development, financial management
training, and business education;
4. Tribal governance constraints;
5. Regulatory constraints on land held in trust and land
designated as restricted use;
6. Underdeveloped physical infrastructure;
7. Insufficient research and data; and
8. Lack of regional collaboration
All Tribal Nations, especially USET SPF member Tribal Nations, vary
in levels of economic activity, capacity, and development. Some Tribal
Nations have decades of experience and familiarity with economic
development initiatives, while some are just starting to pursue these
initiatives. This diversity demands that federal policy not adopt a
one-size-fits all approach in supporting Tribal Nations and businesses
to pursue economic development initiatives to support our communities
and engage in nation rebuilding.
Expand `Buy American' to Include `Buy Indian' Across the Federal
Government
We appreciate SCIA's effort to examine the barriers Tribal Nations
and businesses experience in accessing financial capital and
marketplaces to produce and distribute Native goods, resources, and
services. The `Buy American' initiative must recognize Tribal Nations
and businesses as economic development partners and direct federal
agencies to actively purchase products manufactured, harvested, and
produced by Native businesses and entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the `Buy
American' initiative should be expanded to include federal government
purchasing priorities outlined by the Department of Health and Human
Services and Department of the Interior's `Buy Indian Act' (`Buy
Indian') regulations. More effective and expanded implementation of
`Buy Indian' regulations should be included in the `Buy American'
initiative and implemented across the federal government to ensure that
all departments and agencies are prioritizing the purchase of goods and
services from Tribal Nations and our businesses. This will support
President Biden's `Buy American' initiative and empower Tribal Nations
and businesses to pursue economic development opportunities.
In June 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) hosted Tribal
consultations on proposed revisions to its `Buy Indian Act' regulations
to increase contract preferences for Indian Small Business Economic
Enterprises (ISBEEs) and Indian Economic Enterprises (IEEs). Proposed
revisions also included updates on subcontracting to ensure consistency
with Federal Acquisition Regulations and an update to the process for
deviating from the `Buy Indian Act' to ensure greater preference for
IEEs. USET SPF submitted comments in support of DOI's proposed
revisions to fulfill the intent of the law and recommended the
expansion of the Act's provisions across the whole of the federal
government. We reiterated these recommendations to the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in response to its November 2020
rulemaking to update the department's `Buy Indian' regulations. In
addition to expanding `Buy Indian' across the federal government, USET
SPF also recommended that DOI and HHS increase internal accountability,
communication, and compliance protocols to document and report on
anticipated, pending, and completed ISBEE and IEE solicitations.
Furthermore, we recommended that DOI and HHS develop ongoing evaluation
mechanisms for `Buy Indian' implementation by hosting annual Tribal
Listening Sessions to receive feedback on successes and challenges with
the Act's implementation. Federal agencies adopting `Buy Indian'
regulations should also include these recommendations to ensure the
purpose and intent of the law is meaningfully implemented to support
Tribal Nations and our businesses.
Ensure Tribal Nation Economic Parity
With nearly every aspect of economic development regulated by the
federal government, economic progress in Indian Country is often
stymied with legal and regulatory burdens on Tribal Nations and
businesses. These burdens have contributed to a perpetual cycle of
social and economic hardships in our communities. Congress and the
Administration must work to free Tribal Nations from over-burdensome
laws and regulations that impede our social and economic success. This
is especially important in an environment of the federal government's
failures to uphold trust and treaty obligations to fully fund programs
and services for Indian Country. Similar to other governments, Tribal
Nations provide vital services to our people, which are funded by
revenues generated by our businesses. The federal government, as well
as state governments, should recognize and uphold Tribal Nation
sovereignty and self-determination to pursue these economic development
initiatives. These include efforts to support Native producers.
As it is for any other sovereign, economic sovereignty is essential
to our ability to be self-determining and self-sufficient. The
rebuilding of our Tribal Nation economies involves the rebuilding of
our Tribal economies as a core foundation of healthy and productive
communities. Building strong, vibrant, and mature economies is more
than just business development. It requires comprehensive planning to
ensure that our economies have the necessary infrastructure, services,
and opportunities for our citizens to thrive. This results in stronger
Tribal Nations and a stronger America.
The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that federal tax
law treats Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign
governmental status, as reflected under the U.S. Constitution and
numerous federal laws, treaties, and federal court decisions. With this
in mind, we remain focused on the advancement of tax reform that would
address inequities in the tax code and eliminate state dual taxation.
Revenue generated within Indian Country continues to be taken outside
our borders or otherwise falls victim to a lack of parity. Similarly,
Tribal governments continue to lack many of the same benefits and
flexibility offered to other units of government under the tax code.
USET SPF continues to press Congress for changes to the U.S. tax code
that would provide governmental parity and economic development to
Tribal Nations.
This includes support for H.R. 4054, the Tribal Tax and Investment
Reform Act, introduced by Representative Ron Kind on June 22, 2021.
H.R. 4054 would specify the treatment of Tribal Nations as states with
respect to bond issuance, modify the treatment of pension and employee
benefit plans maintained by a Tribal Government, modify the treatment
of Tribal foundations and charities, improve the effectiveness of
Tribal child support enforcement agencies, and recognize Tribal
governments for purposes of determining whether a child has special
needs eligible for the adoption tax credit.
Protect Tribal Nations from Dual Taxation
Dual taxation hinders Tribal Nations from achieving our own revenue
generating potential. Although Tribal Nations have authority to tax
noncitizens doing business in Indian Country, when other jurisdictions
can tax those same noncitizens for the same transactions, Tribal
Nations must lower their taxes to keep overall pricing at rates the
market can bear or forgo levying a tax at all. The application of an
outside government's tax often makes the Tribal tax economically
unfeasible.
Dual taxation undercuts the ability of Tribal Nations to offer tax
incentives to encourage non-Indian business entities onto our lands to
create jobs and stimulate Tribal economies. As long as outside
governments tax non-Indian businesses on our lands--even if a Tribal
government offers complete Tribal tax immunity to attract a new non-
Indian business--that business is subject to the same state tax rate
that is applicable outside our jurisdictional boundaries. As a matter
of economic fairness, we ask that you work with us to support and
advance initiatives that would bring certainty in tax jurisdiction to
Tribal Lands by confirming the exclusive, sovereign authority of Tribal
governments to assess taxes on all economic activities occurring within
our jurisdictional boundaries.
Support Tribal Nation and Business Development in the Energy Sector
USET SPF member Tribal Nations, and our respective Tribal Lands and
energy resources, are located within a large region that presents
diverse geographical environments and opportunities for both
conventional and renewable energy development. Our member Tribal
Nations could benefit from the unlocked potential of those energy
resources and realize energy development goals through appropriate
Congressional and administrative action and investment in Indian
Country, particularly to promote balanced geographical representation
and inclusion of USET SPF member Tribal Nations in energy programs.
USET SPF has established its energy priorities, as follows:
Promote Tribal self-determination and control of natural
resources and energy assets to make conservation and
development decisions that preserve Tribal sovereignty, protect
Tribal assets, and achieve economic independence, job creation,
and improvement of Tribal members' standard of living;
Promote Tribal capacity building efforts involving multiple
federal agencies, universities, and the private sector;
Reform core federal programs, expertise, and funding to
support Tribal energy resource development and market access;
and
Remove barriers to the deployment of Tribal energy resources,
such as bureaucratic processes, insufficient access to
financial incentives, and interconnection to and transmission
on the power grid.
Enacting legislation and developing regulations to support these
initiatives will advance the energy capabilities of Tribal Nations and
translate into beneficial economic and health and wellness outcomes for
our communities.
Restoration of Tribal Homelands
Possession of a land base is a core aspect of sovereignty, cultural
identity, and represents the foundation of a government's economy. That
is no different for Tribal Nations. USET SPF Tribal Nations continue to
work to reacquire our homelands, which are fundamental to our existence
as sovereign governments and our ability to thrive as vibrant, healthy,
self-sufficient communities. And as our partner in the trust
relationship, it is incumbent upon the federal government to prioritize
the restoration of our land bases. The federal government's objective
in the trust responsibility and obligations to our Nations must be to
support healthy and sustainable self-determining Tribal governments,
which fundamentally includes the restoration of lands to all federally-
recognized Tribal Nations, as well as the legal defense of these land
acquisitions. With this in mind, USET SPF continues to call for the
immediate Senate consideration and passage of a fix to the Supreme
Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar.
Support Self-Governance Contracting and Compacting for Tribal Nations
Tribal Nations are political, sovereign entities whose status stems
from the inherent sovereignty we have as self-governing peoples that
pre-dates the founding of the United States. The U.S. Constitution,
treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions all
recognize that the federal government has a fundamental trust
relationship to Tribal Nations, including the obligation uphold the
right to self-government. Our federal partners must fully recognize the
inherent right of Tribal Nations to fully engage in self-governance, so
we may exercise full decisionmaking in the management of our own
affairs and governmental services.
Despite the success of Tribal Nations in exercising authority under
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as
well as the recently enacted Practical Reforms and Other Goals to
Reinforce the Effectiveness of Self-Governance and Self-Determination
(PROGRESS) for Indian Tribes Act, the goals of self-governance have not
been fully realized. Many opportunities still remain to improve and
expand upon its principles. An expansion of Tribal self-governance to
all federal programs under ISDEAA would be the next evolutionary step
in the federal government's recognition of Tribal sovereignty and
reflective of its full commitment to Tribal Nation sovereignty and
self-determination.
As was discussed during the hearing, this includes an expansion of
ISDEAA into federal nutrition programs. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized a
demonstration project for Tribal Nations to pursue 638 contract and
compact opportunities under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). This
638 authority should be expanded to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) and other vital federally administered
nutrition programs. Tribal Nations, like other units of government, are
responsible for providing essential services to our citizens, which
includes those related to nutrition and health and wellness. Tribal
Nations have demonstrated that we have the capacity to fully administer
SNAP programs to Tribal citizens, as we have been administering far
more complex federal programs for decades. However, and in spite of a
2014 USDA feasibility study, Tribal Nations continue to be excluded
from administering SNAP and other nutrition programs under P.L. 93-638
contracting and compacting. USET SPF joins Tribal Nations and
organizations across the country in calling upon SCIA and Congress to
ensure that Tribal sovereignty and self-determination for federal
nutrition programs is made a reality, including as part of the next
Farm Bill reauthorization.
In addition, we urge that P.L. 93-638 authority also be extended to
forestry programs at USDA. When Tribal Nations manage our own forests,
we are able to prioritize traditionally harvested plants and animals
that provide vital elements of a healthy Indigenous diet.
Conclusion
Economic insecurity in Indian Country is a symptom of the larger
issues we face as Tribal Nations, due, in large part, to the failure of
the U.S. government to live up to the terms of our diplomatic, Nation-
to-Nation relationship. Development and implementation of policies and
programs that recognize and uphold our inherent sovereignty and fulfill
trust and treaty obligations are necessary to alleviate economic
hardship, rebuild Tribal Nations, and improve the quality of life for
our citizens and communities. Congress must continue to support and
fully fund federal programs that encourage economic development and the
rebuilding of Tribal economies. We welcome the opportunity to
collaborate with the Committee on economic policy that better honors
federal trust and treaty obligations while upholding our inherent
sovereignty.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Janie Simms Hipp
Question 1. You testified that the Department of Agriculture has
key information and expertise to contribute to the Department of the
Interior's efforts to address impediments and barriers in the
agricultural leasing space. What affirmative steps can be taken to
ensure effective collaboration between the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of the Interior on agricultural leasing and other
issues of importance to Native communities?
Answer. As the Department of the Interior (DOI) takes steps to
amend the agricultural leasing template, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) can provide technical assistance on contemporary agricultural
practices, flexible language to support both traditional and western
agricultural strategies, and opportunities for creating alignment with
USDA programming. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is also
available to provide for conservation planning where otherwise required
or recommended under these leases.
One of the more important things we think we have identified is
USDA building in flexibility into our processes when DOI-BIA is
involved, and us asking DOI-BIA to build into all their forms
flexibility and deference to USDA, to ensure our processes can evolve
over time together.
USDA would also like to work with BIA to promote the HEARTH Act
process so more tribes can take control of their own leasing.
Additionally, DOI and USDA collaborated to host three listening
sessions last year that covered topics such as marketing, contracting,
federal lands, and brucellosis.
Question 2. What can the Department of Agriculture do to establish
a Native purchasing preference in procurement for the Department? What
support--if any--would the Department need from Congress to establish
such a preference?
Answer. USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
Question 3. To what extent is the Department of Agriculture
partnering with other relevant agencies to obtain and share data to
ensure Tribal policymaking efforts across all agencies are well-
informed and based on full and accurate data?
Answer. In the March 2021 USDA tribal ``Consultation on Racial
Equity/Barriers,'' tribal leaders requested USDA explore opportunities
to utilize tribal data to inform tribal need and opportunities when
submitting program applications. In particular our Rural Development
tribal team has begun conversation with DOI regarding measurements of
economic success and distress, and our Forest Service tribal team have
begun conversation with DOI regarding measurements of land and treaty
definitions.
USDA staff participate regularly across the White House Council for
Native American Affairs and its committees as applicable. This includes
collaborating on specific goals of the committees as well as analyzing
where agency needs overlap. We welcome additional cross agency
collaboration on data as well as congressional action that would allow
us to have additional flexibility in determining which data sets are
appropriate to use, including self-reported data provided by Tribes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Janie Simms Hipp
Subject. USDA Agricultural Producer Procurement Programs, Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, ReConnect Program, Tribal
Consultation Action Plan, Tribal Advisory Committee
The Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, or NAPI, is a Native-
owned business in New Mexico established in 1970.
NAPI participates in a state program called the Buy Local
Initiative, which connects producers with food service companies and
schools to integrate fresh, local and seasonal foods into children's
school meals.
Part of what made this program successful was not only the state's
proactive outreach to Tribes and Tribal businesses from the get-go, but
the intentional training and networking it fostered that allowed Native
producers to build sustainable business models with partners and
customers.
Though NAPI has successfully navigated the 638 process through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to win contracts and is certified as a U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) food vendor, it has not participated
in USDA's contract procurement process because of the barriers the
program presents for Native producers.
For example, USDA puts out a purchase announcement for approved
USDA vendors to supply potatoes to three states over a six-month
timeframe.
Such commodity procurement processes essentially prevent Native
producers like NAPI from participating, as many do not have the desired
product in stock during the specified timeframe, have limited storage
and transportation capacity, and each solicitation is not designed for
small scale, local distribution or for seasonal and traditional foods.
Question 1. Ms. Simms Hipp, what changes can USDA make to its
commodity procurement process to improve access for more Native
businesses like NAPI?
Answer. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has solicited non-
competitive cooperative agreements from state or tribal governments
through the Local Food Purchase Assistance program. This program
finances government purchases of food from underserved, including
tribal producers, to distribute locally through their community. This
program utilizes temporary funding made available using the American
Rescue Plan Act.
Without Congress authorizing ``Indian purchase'' preference for
USDA, USDA is exploring some treaty provisions and additional
flexibilities available through HUBZones, administered by the Small
Business Administration, and related tribal interests. Following up on
the March 2021 ``Consultation on Racial Equity/Barriers,'' USDA hosted
a series of consultations addressing tribal equity from April 11-18.
During the April 12th tribal equity consultation on ``Food, Safety, and
Trade,'' USDA clarified with Tribal Leaders their interest on where
USDA should prioritize small batch procurement, better suited to the
size of tribal farms and food enterprises, and solicitations for
indigenous foods.
USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but does not
currently have independent statutory authority to pursue Native
purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs when they directly
and primarily serve Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
Question 2. Ms. Simms Hipp, what would be the impact of a Native
preference in USDA procurement processes should Congress authorize such
a priority?
Answer. Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households could
have a significant positive economic development impact on Native
producers and could result in an increase in local grown and indigenous
foods in federal food packages.
As with any locally grown and/or specialized food, however, local
Native grown and produced foods are likely to have higher production
costs and Congress may want to consider a price evaluation preference,
such as with the HUBZone and other programs.
Question 3. Ms. Simms Hipp, what are USDA's plans to sustain this
program and integrate best practices into the Agricultural Marketing
Services' commodity procurement process?
Answer. USDA has utilized current authorities available under
HUBZones, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to
provide for set asides in procurement and is looking to expand this
use. Virtually all of Indian Country is eligible to qualify for a
HUBZone designation. USDA is exploring how these flexibilities could
apply for relevant procurement solicitations. To be eligible, an
applicable Native food enterprise would need to be certified by SBA as
a HUBZone and by AMS as a qualified vendor.
Question 4. Ms. Simms Hipp, what would USDA need to implement a
``Buy Indian'' initiative within USDA's commodity procurement process
or within its Food and Nutrition Service programs?
Answer. USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs when they directly
and primarily serve Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
Question 5. Ms. Simms Hipp, how is USDA looking to increase lending
and investment opportunities for Native businesses, and how is it
conducting proactive outreach to Tribes and Native enterprises?
Answer. We have identified a few systemic barriers to access for
tribes in our lending and investment opportunities that we are fixing.
These include some internal and some statutory inconsistencies in how
we categorize tribal government owned corporations and their
eligibility. For these and other Rural Development eligibility
criteria, USDA recognizes how the hybrid structure of tribal nation
corporations, instrumentalities, and enterprises operate both for
commercial and government purposes. USDA is currently reviewing Rural
Development authorizations to ensure that these tribal entities are
eligible for program funding as either/or both government and business
interests as appropriate.
A second area USDA is working on, is recognizing the lack of tribal
government tax base and the need to build in matching and other
financial flexibilities when possible. We began to address this
challenge in our broadband programs. Though the ReConnect Round 3
funding opportunity we included new flexibilities to provide Tribes
with more attractive grant funding options to improve broadband
infrastructure at a minimum 100Mps symmetrical service level. For
projects intending to serve tribal lands or socially vulnerable
communities as defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, USDA
Rural Development offered grants of up to 100 percent for eligible
project costs with zero (0) match required.
Another example of matching flexibility was built into the Local
Agricultural Marketing Programs (LAMP) administered by USDA
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to support tribal nations and
enterprises in developing or expanding agriculture and food systems.
Under LAMP, the Farmers Market Promotion Program offers grant financing
for direct, farm to consumer market channels; the Local Food Promotion
Program supports intermediary distribution channels, including grocers;
and the Regional Food System Partnership program offers funding for
developing collaborative, regional models. These programs require a 25
percent match per the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. During this
funding cycle, AMS transitioned from requiring a cash-match to allowing
in-kind, providing tribes with additional flexibility in how they meet
this eligibility criteria.
Tribal nations have consistently raised matching requirements as a
significant hurdle to our economic development programs. Many of our
matching requirements are statutory. USDA welcomes Congress' guidance
on future flexibility on matching requirements for tribal nations.
USDA continues to conduct outreach directly to tribal nations and
producers, both through electronic and in-person platforms such as
conferences or tribal meetings and in collaboration with tribal
organization partners to raise awareness on these and other USDA
financing opportunities.
Question 6. Ms. Simms Hipp, how much additional funding beyond the
$2 million provided would USDA need expand this pilot program to more
Tribes?
Answer. In terms of cost, the maximum currently allowed in 2018
Farm Bill legislation is $5 million. To-date, Congress has appropriated
$3.0M each year from FY 2020 through FY 2022 for a total of $9.0M to
support implementation of the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations (FDPIR) Self-Determination Demonstration Project. Given
the initial success of the FDPIR 638 demonstration projects, tribal
leaders have expressed an interest in not only continuing and expanding
this program to include more tribes but also expressed an interest in
institutionalizing this approach across FDPIR in its entirety.
Such an approach would mean that there would not need to be a
specific line item but all of FDPIR would be eligible. An Indian Tribal
Organization implementing this program would have the option of either
coordinating through the USDA Food and Nutrition Service to purchase
and distribute foods or they could receive funding directly, in part or
in full, from FNS for the tribe to administer this program directly for
the benefit of their community. In this case, the tribe would purchase
local or regional foods and stock their site for distribution
accordingly.
The total cost for this new approach would require research and
would be more than the current FDPIR costs, due to loss of some cost
efficiencies in consolidated national and bulk purchasing and
additional administrative costs. But it is achievable. There are also
possibilities of cost savings through factors like decreased
transportation costs and tribal efficiencies seen in other self-
governance-like structures. This transition would also serve as an
affirmation by the U.S. government of tribal sovereignty and be
consistent with the oft stated goals of the tribal leaders.
Question 7. Ms. Simms Hipp, what changes can USDA make to the pilot
program to incorporate traditional foods from more Native producers?
Answer. While USDA has not required demonstration projects take
such action, participating Tribes in the demonstration project have
primarily contracted with Tribal vendors, and many have chosen to
incorporate traditional foods, such as bison, whitefish, squash and
wild rice.
One of the challenges for the Native producers that has already
arisen is that these projects are not permanent. Many smaller Native
producers cannot scale up to meet the pilot project/tribe's demand
without assurances that opportunities to continue contracting will
remain available.
Question 8. Ms. Simms Hipp, what policies can USDA change
internally to support Native business capacity building, especially
Native agricultural producers, beyond FDPIR in all its nutritional
programs?
Answer. USDA recognizes that food sovereignty is economic
sovereignty, and the need to empower tribal food growers, processors,
and retail/grocer after the COVID-19 pandemic has never been greater.
We have heard that the 25 percent cash match required under the Farm
Bill inhibited tribal participation to the Local Agricultural Market
Program (LAMP). This set of programs is significant because it supports
both the planning and implementation of food distribution channels:
direct to consumer, intermediary/grocer, and regional food system
resilience. This year, USDA provided new flexibility by accepting
either a cash or in-kind match for programs under LAMP.
Using one-time ARPA flexibilities, USDA is currently accepting
applications for non-competitive cooperative agreements for both Tribes
and State governments to purchase food from tribal and underserved
producers and distribute this food locally. We have heard from Tribal
Leaders for a number of years on the importance of subsidizing local
procurement of Native producers to spur local food economies, and the
Local Food Purchase Assistance program directly addresses this need.
Separately, tribal economies benefit by recapturing all levels of
the food supply chains, including at value added processing and
packaging. USDA recently announced two tribal partners under the Meat
and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance Program, the
Flower Hill Institute and Intertribal Agriculture Council, to provide
dedicated technical assistance to Native and non-Native communities on
establishing meat processing facilities. USDA anticipates utilizing
flexibility under ARPA to release a new program in the Summer 2022
supporting early to mid-stage development projects for building new or
expanding processing plants across the country, including in tribal
nations.
Question 9. Ms. Simms Hipp, how can Congress ensure all these
agencies are effectively working together to address the unique needs
of Tribal communities?
Answer. Executive Order 13175 establishes benchmarks for agency
decisionmaking warranting consultation and the process for conducting
these government-to-government discussions. Congressional legislation
that further cements this requirement, including the protection of
tribal sensitive data from public release, would further USDA and other
agency's ability to engage tribal governments in substantive and
specific dialogue on how USDA can better address their needs. The White
House Council on Native American Affairs has also served as an
important vehicle in fostering inter agency cooperation.
Question 10. Ms. Simms Hipp, what is the status of USDA's official
action plan responding to President Biden's 2021 Memorandum on Tribal
Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships?
Answer. USDA created an action plan last year and USDA Office of
Tribal Relations submitted it on April 26, 2021, to the White House.
Question 11. Ms. Simms Hipp, what is the status of USDA's efforts
to establish its Tribal Advisory Committee?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill established a Tribal Advisory Committee
(TAC), but then-President Trump issued a signing statement that the TAC
was unconstitutional. USDA Office of General Counsel has sent inquiry
to White House Counsel on how to proceed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Rounds to
Janie Simms Hipp
New Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act
Question 1. Ms. Hipp, you mentioned several times in your testimony
the need to address supply chain interruptions in Tribal Communities as
well as the importance of local production having a local impact. I
have introduced legislation, the ``New Markets for State-Inspected Meat
and Poultry Act (S. 107)'' that addresses both of these concerns. The
bill would allow for meat and poultry products inspected locally by
State Meat and Poultry Inspection programs to be sold in interstate
commerce. This approach would have the benefit of preventing potential
supply chain interruptions, like we saw during COVID-19, and allowing
local production to have a positive impact on communities by creating
new market opportunities for Native producers. Can you speak to the
importance of creating new market opportunities in new states for
Native producers, if this legislation were to be signed into law?
Answer. USDA broadly supports legislation and related opportunities
expanding agriculture and food markets for tribal and non-Native
communities. Under the American Rescue Plan Act, USDA is taking steps
to provide funding for developing and expanding meat, et al. processing
facilities and has required that such processors either maintain or
seek to maintain USDA inspection.
As new processing facilities surface across tribal lands, tribes
must determine what inspection requirement best meets their needs and
upholds their sovereignty. Providing parity for state and federal
inspection may broaden markets; however, USDA has heard tribal leader
reluctance to pursue state regulation of tribal enterprises, including
through inspection programs. USDA is respectful of the desire of tribal
nations to have tribal government inspection processes as well.
SNAP Tribal Food Sovereignty Act
Question 2. Ms. Hipp, my colleague Sen. Tina Smith and I have
introduced legislation, the SNAP Tribal Food Sovereignty Act (S. 2757),
to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to
allow the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into self-determination
contracts with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out
supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP). Can you provide some
context for the committee as to why it is important for Tribes to be
able to make these decisions for themselves and how this legislation
might have the potential for improving the quality of life in Indian
Country?
Answer. USDA recognizes the important role that Indian Tribal
Organizations (ITOs) have in ensuring tribal households have access to
nutrition assistance, including SNAP. USDA requires State SNAP agencies
to consult with ITOs in the administration of SNAP and encourages
collaboration that enhances culturally competent access to SNAP.
USDA has heard tribal leader interest across the country on
extending tribal administration and/or oversight of SNAP to tribal
agencies. There are complex cost and administrative concerns to take
into consideration. Additionally, there are barriers in current law
that prevent ITOs from administering SNAP in full. USDA welcomes the
opportunity to discuss this potential expansion of tribal self-
determination with Congress.
USDA is committed to working with tribes to determine which
nutrition assistance programs are best targeted to meet their needs and
upholding our trust responsibility to meet the interest of tribal
sovereign nations. Additionally, the Tribal administration of SNAP,
which includes SNAP-Ed funding, could allow Tribes to directly manage
SNAP-Ed allocation and develop nutrition education and food access
activities specific to tribal needs within the current SNAP-Ed guidance
that apply to all SNAP administration agencies. However, Tribes are not
currently included in the SNAP-Ed funding allocation formula under
section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
School lunch funding issues
Question 3. Ms. Hipp, I was glad that you discussed food security
in your testimony. Food security overall is an important concept and an
important objective. One place it is particularly important for Tribes
in South Dakota is in the schools. School meal programs at the schools
on Tribes' Reservations in South Dakota are a key way the Tribes' youth
receive nutritional meals and stave off hunger. Often because of
prevalent poverty, school meals are the only meals the youth receive.
Unfortunately, it appears that the resources dedicated to school meals
are far less than what is required to meet the need. One Tribe's P.L.
100-297 school informed me that it only receives reimbursement for the
cost of food supplies and one person's salary. You cannot run a school
meal program with just that. Additional staff is needed; preparing and
storing the food is also needed. Thus, the school ends up subsidizing
its meal program with funding that is supposed to go directly towards
educational resources. This school is indicative of all the schools on
this particular Reservation, and I have to think it is happening among
at least the other Tribes in South Dakota. Can you speak to the efforts
USDA is undertaking to address these funding shortfalls and what
avenues Tribes have to properly fund both staff and school meals? Other
than additional funding, what are USDA's solutions to this problem?
Would USDA support a reconfiguration of how school meal funding goes to
schools on Reservations?
Answer. FNS USDA appreciates the steps schools are taking to ensure
that school-age youth receive adequate nutrition throughout the day.
Funding for school meals is generally authorized under the ``Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (P.L. 79-396, as amended by P.L. 116-
94), reimbursing school food authorities for meals that meet
eligibility guidelines serving students qualifying for free, reduced
price, or paid eligibility status.
Funding for school meals is often stretched nation-wide. USDA would
be open to discussions with Congress on funding opportunities
addressing this funding shortage in general and also specifically on
Indian reservations.
School Meal Delivery
Question 4. In terms of Native Business Capacity Building and Buy
Native American, what authorities does USDA have to facilitate Tribal
or Native small businesses in the school meal food delivery area--
particularly for those Tribes that do not have surplus resources? Does
USDA partner with the Department of Commerce on facilitating Native
business in the food security arena? What, if any, additional
authorities from this Committee would be helpful for USDA to have to
facilitate its efforts towards food security in Indian Country,
specifically on large, land-based, remote reservations?
Answer. USDA has utilized current authorities available under
HUBZones, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to
provide for set asides in procurement and is looking to expand this
use. Virtually all of Indian Country is eligible to qualify for a
HUBZone designation. USDA is exploring how these flexibilities could
apply for relevant procurement solicitations. To be eligible, an
applicable Native food enterprise would need to be certified by SBA as
a HUBZone and by AMS as a qualified vendor. This is also an area where
tribes have requested Congressional authorization for separation from
state school lunch regulations.
USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but does not
currently have independent statutory authority to pursue Native
purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
Buy Indian Act
Question 5. The Buy Indian Act Authorizes DOI and HHS to purchase
supplies, services, and equipment from qualified Native American
vendors. Is it possible to use the Buy Indian Act to purchase Indian
Agriculture Products, such as MREs or school lunches through
cooperation between the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and
Defense? Is additional guidance from congress needed to enhance inter-
agency cooperation in this area?
Answer. School districts typically manage their own budgets in
collaboration with third-party, private vendors to provide the majority
of foods for breakfast and lunch. USDA, in turn, offers reimbursement
through the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program
respectively.
In 2015, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service released guidance on
the ``Service of Traditional Foods in Public Facilities,'' including
schools, to clarify for school districts and related authorities how
traditional foods meet dietary guidelines and are eligible for
reimbursement.
As a whole USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to
Janie Simms Hipp
Question 1a. On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued Executive
Order 14017 ``America's Supply Chains.'' Executive Order 14017 directs
the Administration to support a resilient, diverse, and secure supply
chain that is able to withstand pandemics and other biological threats,
cyber-attacks, climate shocks and extreme weather events, terrorist
attacks, geopolitical and economic competition, and other conditions
that can reduce critical manufacturing capacity. The Executive Order
requires Agency heads to consult outside stakeholders--such as those in
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, communities, labor
unions, and State, local, and Tribal governments. Can you discuss how
each of your Agencies have consulted with Tribal governments, and
relevant stakeholders in fulfilling the policy of Executive Order
14017?
Answer. USDA conducted a consultation and listening session on
``Creating a Tribal Action Plan for Fairer Meat, Poultry, and Seafood
Processing'' in late January 2022. Through this consultation, USDA
solicited tribal input on how USDA could support or help facilitate
nationwide, integrated tribal processing infrastructure.
This consultation/listening session spoke to funding made available
under the American Rescue Plan Act and the Biden-Harris
Administration's priority in creating an action plan for fairer, more
resilient meat and poultry supply chain. USDA mission area leadership
from both Marketing and Regulatory Programs and Rural Development,
areas principally tasked in USDA for administering these programs
served as Consulting Officials on behalf during this session. Specific
to Alaska and the Northwest, USDA received significant input on the
importance of seafood in processing and supply chain.
Question 1b. What role did your respective offices play in
supporting your Agency's broader outreach on the Executive Order?
Answer. One-year after this Executive Order, USDA published the
``USDA Agri-Food Supply Chain Assessment: Programs and Policy Options
for Strengthening Resilience,'' to identify potential solutions and
address vulnerabilities related to the implementation of this Executive
Order. The Office of Tribal Relations in the Office of the Secretary
contributed to this report with issues specific to Indian Country food
systems and supply chains.
USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs recently announced
agreements with Flower Hill Institute, a Native-owned community
directed non-profit, out of New Mexico, and the Intertribal Agriculture
Council, out of Montana, to provide nationwide technical assistance for
the development and expansion of value-added infrastructure, furthering
resilience in agri-food supply chains.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Tester to
Janie Simms Hipp
Question 1. How can we ensure that we are promoting competition in
our economy while also giving Tribes a fair shot?
Answer. Our trust and treaty responsibility to tribal nations is
constitutionally based and legally unique. We were able to obtain the
land that now comprises our great nation through the bargain of these
treaties. In addition, the United States and state governments created
a complex jurisdictional system whereby we have essentially eliminated
tribal government tax bases to independently fund their governmental
services.
Promoting competition in the market is only possible if there is a
market. By empowering tribal and Native owned business and producers
within Indian Country we are creating strong markets in which we all
prosper. We can promote tribal economies and tribal producers by
promoting preferences on tribal lands and when programs are serving
tribal communities.
Question 2. Is there a role for things like Tribal Set-Asides and
waiving cost-share requirements in USDA programs that will lift up
Tribal producers while also promoting competition?
Answer. Yes. Federal policies have created such an imbalance we can
only create a fair competitive market by balancing it back to even it
out. Because tribal nations essentially have no tax base, a creation of
federal and state government policies, if there is no tribal set-aside
or the ability to waive matching-cost share requirements, tribal
governments and producers are generally not able to compete and apply
for USDA programs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Lexie Holden
Question 1. You testified that much of Indian Country is a ``credit
desert,'' and that more data about the extent of the disparity is
needed to inform policy reforms. What information, specifically, is
needed for a comprehensive analysis of Native access to agriculture
credit?
Answer. In the formal recommendations submitted by the Native Farm
Bill Coalition in 2017 ahead of the 2018 Farm Bill, we included the
following:
The Intertribal Agriculture Council, based on its finding of the
existence of ``Credit Deserts'' in Indian Country, asserts the need for
an in-depth analysis by the Government Accountability Office into the
nature of credit in Indian Country; specifically examining compliance
with the Community Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian
Reservations.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (See Page 71) https://seedsofnativehealth.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/06/Farm-Bill-Report_WEB.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the final language of the 2018 Farm Bill called for instead
was a GAO study into Native producers' access to credit via the Farm
Credit System. While such information would be useful to know, the Farm
Credit System, and subsequently the data gleaned from this study, would
represent merely a subset of the wider issue that is Native American
producers' barriers in accessing ag credit. Additionally, the results
of this report have never been published despite it being commissioned
in 2018.
We would again like to see a GAO study into the nature of credit in
Indian Country, however we need a report which examines all financial
institutions including commercial lenders, federal lenders, and
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). We understand
that not every lender is equipped to deal with the high-risk, capital
intensive industry that is agriculture. For those that are equipped,
they might not be prepared to serve Native American producers, whose
assets and operations might be ``non-traditional'' in the eyes of
lenders.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth
Question 1. Access to credit is a consistent concern raised by
Native stakeholders in the agricultural space. What challenges has MA`O
Organic Farms observed or experienced regarding access to funding for
Native agriculture ventures in Hawai`i?
Answer. The most prominent hurdles MA`O faces to scaling up are
shared by many other Native Hawaiian farmers and `aina-based (land-
based) organizations (and likely faced by similarly positioned native
governed organizations across the US) include:
Costs related to local and national food-safety
certification and compliance are burdensome. The process is
time intensive, there is the compliance costs themselves, but
there is also the dedication of personnel time to document and
complete the paperwork. Technical assistance and expertise is
often not available.
Wrap-around services and resources for native Hawaiian and
other BIPOC populations working in ag/farming ventures is not
available/inaccessible. There is a lack of sufficient and
accessible health, mental well-being, academic and family
support resources for native Hawaiian organications,
particularly after the last two years of the pandemic.
Automation, technology and other innovations for native
farmers/agriculturists are unavailable and or inaccessible so
that we can scale-up the ag/farming operations. High need and
emerging infrastructural needs include energy and water
optimization and efficiency. Access to capital to secure better
products and services is needed but is often cost prohibitive.
Other: Affordable Housing. In order for MA`O to scale up its
ag venture, there is a need for a stable workforce,
particularly for staff and families in rural and native
communities. Funding for ag housing projects is extremely
difficult to access especially since land is so expensive in
Hawai`i.
Question 2. Based on your experience, what recommendations do you
have to help address access to funding issues for Native farmers in
Hawai`i?
Answer. We know there is precedent for redefining eligibility for
USDA programs, and believe that this is necessary to create greater
impact for a wide array of Native Hawaiian-led organizations in our
state's food system.
Reinstate the 2005 waiver Section 278-1-A-B-6 that allows
any community out of urban HNL to qualify for RD programs,
while also expanding it to all islands in the State (not just
Honolulu County, island of Oahu) see copy of 2005 waiver.
Allow Hawai`i USDA program applicants to use Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) subdivision boundaries to help
define location eligibility to better target programs to
communities with high concentrations of Native Hawaiians.
Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA)
program to all USDA programs and specifically recognize
proximity to DHHL lands as eligibility for SUTA
In terms of our broader experience with other programs such as ANA
or EDA, the same general points of friction pose a challenge to MA`O to
make the best use of the program resources and are likely barriers to
many other Native Hawaiian-led organizations even attempting to access
these programs at all:
Reporting burden. For small Community Based Organizations
(CBO) like MA`O, there is often a misalignment of the RFP
expectations for reporting with the reality of time and
resources available for reporting. In the past, we have worked
to incorporate the program narrative reporting into our
workflow, however, financial reporting is still burdensome.
Since the pandemic, many of the reports have transitioned into
online reporting, however, the access to the portals, the
outreach/access to technical assistance, and the obsolete/
duplicative processes are still areas they are working on.
Scarce/scant resources to meet the RFP proposal criteria. To
be competitive, `aina based organizations need access to
technical assistance during the proposal writing process. ANA
has an excellent model of TA/TTA Centers that are based
throughout the US that other agencies could note. Virtual
meetings have helped with access to TA but not necessarily with
the quality of services to build/develop a competitive
proposal.
Staff turnover, understaffing. When we are lucky enough to
receive program funding, staff turnover and understaffing at
the federal agency often leaves us with inconsistent guidance
on program administration or reporting. We often have to
contend with long wait times for guidance and approvals,
hampering our ability to deliver outcomes effectively and
efficiently, and to meet the deadlines of the grants or loans
themselves.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Wahleah Johns
Question 1. You testified that the Department of Energy is not
currently implementing its policy establishing a purchasing preference
for Tribal energy. What affirmative steps will you take to ensure this
policy will be implemented?
Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office
of Indian Energy), within the confines of the Tribal Energy Purchase
Preference provision, commits to reopen a dialogue within DOE, and
between DOE and GSA to develop recommendations that will strengthen the
intent of this policy.
Implementation of this policy aligns with the Administration's
priorities to support American firms and workers through government
procurement, address equity goals, and expand contracting opportunities
consistent with the Buy Indian Act.
Question 2. What must be done to establish a purchasing preference
for Tribal energy across the federal government, particularly to
General Services Administration and the Department of Defense?
Answer. Title V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
established a Tribal Energy Purchase Preference provision which
authorizes Federal agencies to provide preference to qualified Indian-
owned organizations for the purpose of purchasing electricity, other
energy products, and energy byproducts (so long as the agency does not
pay more than prevailing market prices or receive less than prevailing
market terms and conditions).
In a May 2011 Decision Memorandum, the Secretary of Energy
determined that DOE's policy would focus on a preference for the
purchase of energy produced by renewable resources, renewable energy
products, and renewable energy by-products. In December 2012, then
Secretary Chu issued a Policy Statement allowing DOE sites to conduct
limited competitions that include only tribes and tribal enterprises.
Nonetheless, a 2019 GAO report (GAO-19-359) found that no agency
had used this preference, and the GAO report recommended,
To the extent that Congress wants to further encourage use of
tribally owned energy sources, it should consider amending
EPACT05 to provide more specific direction to federal agencies
for implementing the tribal energy preference, to include
consideration of additional incentives or requirements.
[Emphasis added]
The GAO report further noted that use of the Tribal Energy Purchase
Preference is discretionary.
Based on the above, consideration could be given as to whether the
confines of not paying more than prevailing market prices or receive
less than prevailing market terms and conditions, are limiting use of
the provision. Further, additional consideration could be given to the
recommendations of the 2019 GAO report (GAO-19-359) and the
discretionary nature of the statute.
Question 3. You testified that an estimated 30,000 Tribal homes
currently lack electricity. What is the Department of Energy doing to
address this lack of critical infrastructure?
Answer. Within the Department of Energy (DOE), there is a
multifaceted approach to address lack of critical infrastructure in
Tribal communities. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs
(Office of Indian Energy) was recently realigned under the newly formed
Office of Infrastructure which gives greater focus and alignment of
resources for addressing important tribal infrastructure needs. The
Office of Indian Energy continues to support financial and technical
assistance opportunities which can directly address many of those
needs. Additionally, with the increased budget the Office received
under fiscal year 2022 appropriations, the Office of Indian Energy will
be able to initiate a multi-year effort focused on remedying that lack
of critical infrastructure and providing power to unelectrified homes
across tribal communities.
Additionally, there are substantial investments available that stem
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Over $62 billion in
resources across 60 new programs are available through DOE with many
available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The
Department of Energy held a Consultation on March 29th, 2022 with every
federally recognized Tribe invited. The Consultation event discussed
the various programs and opportunities for which tribal communities can
apply. To meet this task and better prepare all DOE staff, agency wide
training was provided in March 2022, covering tribal history in the
United States and best practices for effective working partnerships
with Tribal Nations. Increased partnerships with tribal communities
must be met with increased awareness and understanding of tribal
communities at DOE, and we are taking steps to make that happen.
Because we need better data related to the exact needs, our Office
has been tasked by Congress to submit a report on energy access and
reliability in Indian Country. Once complete, we look forward to
providing more precise data about needs in Indian Country. Tribal
involvement is essential to the accuracy of this report and we are
contacting tribal communities directly and encouraging participation.
Among these efforts included a listening session hosted by the Office
of Indian Energy this past November (Energy Access and Reliability on
Tribal Lands Listening Session). A second listening session on the
report will be held this summer.
Question 4. How does the Department of Energy-Office of Indian
Energy Policy and Programs collaborate with Indian Affairs' Division of
Energy and Mineral Development to develop coordinated solutions to
Tribal energy issues?
Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office
of Indian Energy) participates, along with the Department of Interior
(DOI) and the DOI Division of Energy and Minerals (DEMD) on the White
House Council on Native American Affairs (WHCNAA). Prosperity and
resilience for all Tribal Nations is the vision of the WHCNAA and the
WHCNAA endeavors to advance this vision through collaborative inter-
agency work across the Executive Branch, regular and meaningful Tribal-
Federal engagement, and by fostering an all-of-government approach in
meeting treaty and trust obligations to Tribes.
Further, the Office of Indian Energy has had a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the DOI Office of Indian Energy and Economic
Development, including DEMD, since June 2016. That MOU provides a
framework for cooperation in Indian energy issues between the
participants. That MOU was amended September 2018 to add the DOI Indian
Energy Service Center. In support of this MOU, the DOE Office of Indian
Energy participates in monthly calls with the DOI Division of Energy
and Minerals and the DOI Indian Energy Service Center to coordinate and
collaborate on mutual issues. The DOE Office of Indian Energy also
participates in Federal Partner calls hosted by the DOI Indian Energy
Service Center. The Office of Indian Energy also uses its website and
electronic newsletter (20,000+ subscribers) to disseminate
opportunities, upcoming events, and services provided by DEMD, as well
as tribal energy related information from many other federal agencies
and offices.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to
Wahleah Johns
Question 1a. On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued Executive
Order 14017 ``America's Supply Chains.'' Executive Order 14017 directs
the Administration to support a resilient, diverse, and secure supply
chain that is able to withstand pandemics and other biological threats,
cyber-attacks, climate shocks and extreme weather events, terrorist
attacks, geopolitical and economic competition, and other conditions
that can reduce critical manufacturing capacity. The Executive Order
requires Agency heads to consult outside stakeholders--such as those in
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, communities, labor
unions, and State, local, and Tribal governments. Can you discuss how
your Agency have consulted with Tribal governments, and relevant
stakeholders in fulfilling the policy of Executive Order 14017?
Answer. In response to Executive Order 14017, ``America's Supply
Chains,'' 86 FR 11849 (February 24, 2021) the Department of Energy
issued a Request for Information (RFI) on November 18, 2021. Responses
received from the RFI informed the February 24, 2022 report, America's
Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy
Transition as summarized on the DOE website. This DOE energy supply
chain strategy report summarizes the key elements of the energy supply
chain as well as the strategies the U.S. Government is starting to
employ to address them. Additionally, it describes recommendations for
congressional action. Tribal governments and other constituents were
consulted through the RFI process, and further stakeholder and tribal
engagement are planned relative to sections of the report.
Question 1b. What role did your respective office play in
supporting your Agency's broader outreach on the Executive Order?
Answer. The Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs provided
guidance to the Department on best practices to building relationships
with tribal nations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Rounds to
Wahleah Johns
Tribal Energy
Question 1. The ancestral knowledge held by indigenous peoples
reflects a keen understanding of science and engineering based on
thousands of years of living with nature's regenerative cycles. As the
world grapples with how to meet our energy needs using renewable
resources, native peoples can utilize this knowledge to serve their
communities and neighbors while also serving as a source for economic
development and innovation. What kind of collaboration currently exists
between the Departments of Energy and the Department of Interior to
support tribes in accessing capital and building capacity to own and
operate large-scale energy projects to generate electricity and create
fuels for transportation, including biofuels and hydrogen? Should USDA,
Interior, DOE and DOD be collaborating to purchase Native American
energy and build economic capacity in Indian country and address
National Defense at the same time?
Answer. Regarding collaboration, the DOE Office of Indian Energy
Policy and Programs (Office of Indian Energy) participates, along with
the Department of Interior (DOI) on the White House Council on Native
American Affairs (WHCNAA). The WHCNAA endeavors to advance this vision
through collaborative inter-agency work across the Executive Branch,
regular and meaningful Tribal-Federal engagement, and by fostering an
all-of-government approach in meeting treaty and trust obligations to
Tribes. The Energy Subcommittee of the WHCNAA Economic Development,
Energy, and Infrastructure Committee is developing an Access to Capital
Working Group among the participating agencies.
Further, the Office of Indian Energy has had a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the DOI Office of Indian Energy and Economic
Development since June 2016. That MOU provides a framework for
cooperation in Indian energy issues between the participants. That MOU
was amended September 2018 to add the DOI Indian Energy Service Center.
In support of this MOU, the DOE Office of Indian Energy participates in
monthly calls with the DOI Division of Energy and Minerals and the DOI
Indian Energy Service Center to coordinate and collaborate on mutual
issues. The DOE Office of Indian Energy also participates in Federal
Partner calls hosted by the DOI Indian Energy Service Center.
Regarding collaborating with USDA, Interior, and DOD to purchase
Native American energy and build economic capacity in Indian country
and address National Defense at the same time, the DOE Office of Indian
Energy welcomes the opportunity and will initiate dialogue towards that
end.
HEARTH Act
Question 2. Many business projects and energy projects involve
rights of way, easements, or leases of land. Infrastructure projects,
much of which facilitate economic development on Tribal lands (such as
broadband projects), also can include the need for rights-of-way or
easements. Unfortunately, the process when needing BIA approval of such
can be slow and arduous. With the Infrastructure Act's resources now
getting out to Tribes to put to use on their lands, can the Bureau put
into place an expedited process for obtaining approved rights-of-way,
easements, and leases? What does the Bureau need from this Committee to
facilitate such an expedited process? In terms of leasing, can you
address my question for those tribes with HEARTH Act ordinances and
also for those tribes without HEARTH Act ordinances?
Answer. DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs cannot
speak on behalf of the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). We respectfully request those questions be posed to BIA.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Wahleah Johns
Question 1. Last June, Secretary Granholm testified in front of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In this hearing,
Senator Kelly asked the Secretary about the $2 billion Congress
provided to the Department of Energy in 2005 to establish the Tribal
Energy Loan Guarantee Program to support Tribally owned renewable
energy projects.
As of June 2021, no loans had been issued under this program. We
have been told that the Department of Energy is working on getting the
funds out to eligible loan recipients, and we are hopeful that
Congress' recent authorization of direct federal lending in the Fiscal
Year 2022 Omnibus will have a positive impact on loan accessibility.
This is loan program is very important for developing Tribally
owned renewable energy projects in New Mexico and across the country.
Ms. Johns, can you provide an update to the committee on these
efforts?
Answer. The Department of Energy and the DOE Office of Indian
Energy understand the importance of the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program for developing Tribally owned renewable energy projects in New
Mexico and across the country. The Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program
is being implemented by DOE's Loan Programs Office (LPO) which has
experience in administering direct loan and loan guarantee programs. We
are working closely with this office to provide constant outreach to
tribes related to the opportunity provided by the Tribal Energy Loan
Guarantee Program and held jointly with LPO the DOE Roundtable
Discussion on Funding and Financing Tribal Energy Projects May 2021.
DOE's LPO program confirms that DOE supports the Fiscal Year (FY)
2022 Omnibus language to allow the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program
(TELGP) applicants access to direct loans from DOE via the United
States Treasury Federal Financing Bank (FFB). DOE plans to issue a
solicitation supplement incorporating FY22 direct loan authority and is
actively moving forward with interagency processes to establish the
direct loan program through TELGP. The Department is publicizing this
important change to ensure the Tribal community knows about the new
authority through Tribal stakeholder events, communications, and
outreach. The FY22 Omnibus language only provides direct loan authority
through FY 2022. The Administration supports continuing in FY 2023 the
language enacted by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022, that broadens TELGP authority to allow applicants to apply to LPO
for direct loans via FFB.
In April 2021, the Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy
held a roundtable on funding and financing Tribal energy projects,
which resulted in several recommendations the Department could
implement on its own to improve the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program, which the Department is in the process of doing through the
issuance of a revised solicitation.
Question 2. In 2021, the Department of Energy Office of Indian
Energy held a roundtable on funding and financing Tribal energy
projects, which resulted in several recommendations the Department
could implement on its own to improve the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
Program. These recommendations included funding more energy development
projects, changing the program's credit rating requirements, and
modeling the application process after the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Indian Loan Guarantee Program.
Ms. Johns, what is the status of these recommendations made to the
Office of Indian Energy? Have any been incorporated or does the
Department have plans to do so?
Answer. The Loan Programs Office is preparing to issue a
significant amendment to the TELGP solicitation that is intended to
address comments received from tribes, lenders and other stakeholders.
These changes will clarify ownership requirements, lending obligations,
and fees and are expected to increase interest in and accessibility to
TELGP loan guarantees.
Question 3. Ms. Johns, what steps has the Department taken to
streamline business processes and remove barriers to energy development
on Tribal lands for Native enterprises?
Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy's statute supports all
federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska Native Village and
Regional Corporations, tribal energy development organization, and
intertribal organizations. Based on those statutory responsibilities,
our focus really is on energy development and not specifically economic
development or business development. The majority of tribal energy
projects funded by the Office of Indian energy have been for facility
and community scale and although there may be local savings, most are
not for the export of energy for revenue generation as would be the
case for utility scale energy projects.
While Native enterprises are not directly eligible by statute, many
have benefited from technical assistance as well as financial
assistance. Specifically, the Office of Indian Energy has provided
funding to make Tribal businesses more efficient, including parking
garage light efficiency upgrades for Forrest County Potawatomi Nation
of Wisconsin. We have worked with Coeur d'Alene Tribe and Pribilof
Islands Aleut Community of St. Paul Island to upgrade efficiency and
energy use at grocery stores.
These are just a few examples of tribal businesses engaging with
the Office of Indian Energy. While the Office of Indian Energy does not
partner with individually owned businesses, we understand that that
affordable and reliable energy access in tribal communities creates a
foundation for continued economic potential and progress.
Relative to the TELGP, the forthcoming amended TELGP solicitation
referenced in A3 above will provide a more streamlined approach to
accessing the TELGP program for tribes working through an established
lender. In addition, the FY 2022 Omnibus language allowing TELGP
applicants access to direct loans from DOE via FFB, will obviate the
need for a partial guarantee of a commercial lender, streamline Tribes'
access to capital, and increase interest in and accessibility to TELGP.
The Administration supports continuing in FY 2023 the language enacted
by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, that broadens
TELGP authority to allow applicants to apply to LPO for direct loans
via FFB. Continuing the authority will ensure the greatest impact and
that tribes have sufficient time to complete the application processes
for projects in the early stages of development.
Question 4. Ms. Johns, how is the Department of Energy looking to
increase lending and investment opportunities for Native businesses,
and how is it conducting proactive outreach to Tribes and Native
enterprises?
Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy is working closely with the
Loan Program Office to provide constant outreach to tribes related to
the opportunity provided by the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
DOE's Loan Program Office (LPO) has been working with a number of
Native American organizations to increase awareness and understanding
of the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program. LPO has participated in
several conference roundtables and webinars with the Native American
Financial Officers Association (NAFOA), and is planning events to
address special topics related to energy finance, such as the use of
tax-equity. LPO also participates in conference roundtables with the
National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development (NCAIED)
through their annual Reservation Economic Summit (RES). LPO also done
outreach to Alaskan native communities by attending the Alaskan Federal
of Natives (AFN) conference and maintain an active outreach presence in
Alaska through coordination with the DOE Alaska Energy Office. The
engagement of potential TELGP lenders and borrowers by DOE's newly
organized Outreach and Business Development Division has resulted in
receiving the program's first application in 2021. LPO continues to
solicit feedback as appropriate to better serve tribes' needs,
consistent with LPOs authority.