Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
24–505 PDF
2006
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
(PART II)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 9 AND NOVEMBER 10, 2005
Serial No. 109–78
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Subcommittee on the Constitution
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel
E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel
HILARY FUNK, Counsel
KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel
DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NOVEMBER 9, 2005
WITNESSES
Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. K.C. McAlpin, Executive Director, ProEnglish
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. James Thomas Tucker, Attorney, Ogletree Deakins, P.C., Adjunct Professor, Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Juan Cartagena, General Counsel, Community Service Society
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Inserted into the Record by Mr. Chabot on November 18, 2005:
Prepared Statement of Chris Norby, Supervisor, Fourth District, Orange County Board of Supervisors
Prepared Statement of Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund
Voting Rights Cases Brought on Behalf of American Indians and/or Interpreting the Voting Rights Act re: Indian Interests. From Jennifer Robinson, Daniel McCool, and Susan Olson: Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights Act, and the Right to Vote. Forthcoming. Cambridge University Press, 2006
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 203—
BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS
(Part II)
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pusuant to notice, at 5:10 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order.
Okay. We want to thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I'm Steve Chabot, the Chairman. This is our eighth in a series of hearings relative to the Voting Rights Act and its reauthorization.
This is the second hearing we've had here this afternoon. The Chair would request and ask unanimous consent that we waive opening statements from Members up here and get right to the panel.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I will move directly then to the introduction of our panel of distinguished witnesses here this afternoon, soon to be this evening.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our first witness will be Ms. Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. As Executive Director, Ms. Johnson is responsible for monitoring all Federal policy issues that affect tribal governments, coordinating communication among tribal governments, and overseeing consensus-based policy developments among NCAI's 250-member tribal governments.
Prior to joining NCAI, Ms. Johnson served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; was Executive Director of the Tlingit Haida Regional—I apologize if I've butchered that pronunciation—Housing Authority, headquartered in Juneau, Alaska; served as Chairperson of the National American Indian Housing Counsel, and was appointed to the National Commission on American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing.
In addition, Ms. Johnson serves on a number of boards and national executive committees, and continues to be involved in American Indian youth development, having served as the Director of a Native Youth Culture Camp for 13 years.
Ms. Johnson is a member of the Raven-Sockeye Clan of the—would you pronounce that tribe? I want to make sure I don't mispronounce it again. Is it?
Ms. JOHNSON. Tlingit.
Mr. CHABOT. Tlingit. Okay. Tribe. Thank you very much.
Our second witness will be Mr. K.C. McAlpin.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. McAlpin currently serves as the Executive Director of ProEnglish, a national non-profit group dedicated to preserving English as the common language, and to making it the official language of the United States.
Prior to his public interest work with ProEnglish, Mr. McAlpin worked for an oil company in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, and served as a financial analyst for a Fortune 500 company, and as an international controller for a high-tech company.
Mr. McAlpin is a frequent guest on radio and television, including Good Morning America, Fox Morning News, CNN News, C-SPAN, Both Sides with Jesse Jackson, and the Lou Dobbs Show. We welcome you here also, Mr. McAlpin.
Our third witness is Mr. James Tucker. Mr. Tucker is a former trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, where he focused on voting issues.
While at the Department, Mr. Tucker was responsible for litigating several redistricting cases, including those in Georgia and North Carolina, as well as cases involving section 203, Federal Observer Coverage and Contempt Proceedings.
Mr. Tucker also has litigation experience in employment cases brought under Federal statute, such as the title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Tucker is a former law clerk to Chief U.S. District Judge Lawrence Paul of the North District of Florida, and is a former Air Force veteran, serving on AWACS during Desert Storm, operations in the Persian Gulf, and in the active reserves as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate. We welcome you here also, Mr. Tucker.
Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Juan Cartagena. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Thank you.
Mr. Cartagena is General Counsel for the Community Service Society, a position he has held since 1991. As General Counsel, Mr. Cartagena is responsible for directing the legal department and public interest litigation on behalf of the poor in the areas of voting rights, education, housing, health, and environmental issues.
Prior to his work at CSS, Mr. Cartagena was the Legal Director in the New York Office of the Department of Puerto Rican Affairs in the U.S. for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and served as an attorney for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Mr. Cartagena has also served as a municipal court judge in Hoboken, New Jersey, and is a part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, Department of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Caribbean Studies. And we welcome you here also, Mr. Cartagena.
I also want to note that without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional materials for the record, and I also note that Mr. Nadler has asked unanimous consent—will be granted unanimous consent to enter his written statement into the record, as all other Members will also have that opportunity should they chose to do so.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. CHABOT. For those who may not have testified, I'll be very brief in this explanation.
We have what's called the 5-minute rule. There are two devices there that will have lights on them shortly. For 4 minutes, the green light will be on. The yellow light will come on. That let's you know you have 1 minute to wrap up. And the red light will come on, we'd ask you to wrap up by then, if possible. We won't gavel you down immediately. But try to stay within that as much as possible.
We also are limited to 5 minutes, and we apologize profusely for running late, but we had votes during the last hearing, and that ran us behind. And we also have three votes coming up here in a very short time, so we may be further delayed. And again, please accept our sincere apologies for that.
For those of you who may not have also testified before, it is the policy of this court to swear in all witnesses, so if you would please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. CHABOT. All witnesses have indicated in the affirmative, and we're now ready for our first witness, so, Ms. Johnson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. JOHNSON. Kus'een yu xat du wasaak. Lu kaa adi aya xat. Kogwaantan yadei. Veith Lit daax.
In my own language, Tlingit, I introduced myself and my Tlingit name is Kus'een, and I come from the village outside of Haines, Alaska, Chilkoot, and I come from the Raven-Sockeye house.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, for me being able to testify on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund.
I appreciate this opportunity to express our support for the reauthorization of all the provisions in the Voting Rights Act that are scheduled to expire in 2007, and in particular, I'm going to testify today on the reauthorization of section 203, the Continuing Need for the Minority Language Assistance Provisions, which recognizes the indigenous languages throughout Indian country.
Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has worked diligently to strengthen and protect and inform the public and Congress on the governmental rights of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
NCAI is the oldest and the largest national organization addressing American Indians' interests, representing over 250-member tribes throughout the U.S.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Since 1971, the Native Americans Rights Fund has provided legal and technical service to individuals, groups, and organizations on major issues facing Native people. NARF has become one of the largest Native non-profit legal advocacy organizations in the United States.
Last week, at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma, tribal leaders throughout the country passed a resolution calling upon Congress to reauthorize and expand the Minority Language Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This resolution is attached and submitted as part of my written record.
Native Americans were historically disenfranchised people. Although Native Americans have inhabited North America longer than other segment of the American society, they were the last group to receive the right to vote when the United States finally made them citizens in 1924. And even after 1924, certain States with large Native populations barred Native Americans from voting by setting discriminatory voter registration requirements; for example, various States denied Indians the right to vote because they were under guardianship, or Indians were denied the right to vote because they could not prove that they were civilized by moving off the reservation and renouncing their tribal ties.
New Mexico was that last State to remove all expressed legal impediments to voting for Native Americans in 1962, 3 years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
In addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the discriminatory tactics that kept the African-Americans in the South from exercising the franchise.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress took the first steps necessary to start the process to remedying the history of discrimination and disenfranchisement. While we have made tremendous progress in the last 40 years, we still have a long ways to go.
When the Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in 1975, Congress took another major step in adding section 203 to the Voting Rights Act.
Congress did so based upon its finding that educational inequality and racial discrimination prohibited full participation in the democratic process by Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and other language minority groups.
In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting Rights language amendments, the provisions which are the subject of today's hearing.
At that time, Congress heard testimony from members of—a number of leaders across Indian country, all whom testified the importance of the Minority Language Provisions to Native communities. NCAI and NARF offered joint testimony in 1992, as well as documented the persistent educational inequalities and discrimination in voting that persists today.
While significant progress has been made in franchising Native Americans, the need for section 203 has not diminished in the years since Congress has added that section to the Voting Rights Act.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The value of section 203 to Indian country cannot be overstated. Today, to the new determinations released by the Census Bureau in July of 2002, 88 jurisdictions in 17 States are covered jurisdictions that need to provide language assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Section 203 has resulted in the filing of numerous minority language assistance cases involving American Indians and the vast majority being resolved by consent decree with covered jurisdictions agreeing to provide the necessary translations of written voter materials or the necessary oral assistance in polling places.
While no one knows exactly how many Native language speakers live in the U.S. today, the language provisions of 203 continue to be critical for many Native communities.
In many Native communities, tribal business is conducted exclusively or primarily in their own Native language, while many people, particularly our elders, speak English only as a second language. Even if they have English language skills, many Indian people still have and say that they feel more comfortable speaking in their own Native language and are better to understand the complicated ballot issues in their Native language.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the Federal Government, as expressed by the Native American Languages Act of 1990, to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.
The Native American Language Act was the first and may be the only Federal law to guarantee the right of language minority groups to use its language in public proceedings. Disenfranchising Native Americans by failing to provide language assistance in the electoral process to those who need it would certainly violate the statutory right.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Section 203 ensures Native people, particularly our elders, many who speak English poorly, have access to the ballot box.
As we continue today, I hope that you continue to encourage and to be able to ensure that the Native language provisions, or the language provisions in section 203 are maintained. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), I appreciate this opportunity to express our support for reauthorization of all of the provisions in the Voting Rights Act that are scheduled to expire in 2007; and in particular, to testify today in support of reauthorization of Section 203 and the continuing need for the minority language assistance provisions throughout Indian country.
Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has worked diligently to strengthen, protect and inform the public and Congress on the governmental rights of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. NCAI is the oldest and largest national organization addressing American Indian interests, representing more than 250 member tribes throughout the United States. Since 1971, the Native American Rights Fund has provided legal and technical services to individuals, groups and organizations on major issues facing Native people. NARF has become one of the largest Native non-profit legal advocacy organizations in the United States, dedicating its resources to the preservation of tribal existence, the protection of tribal natural and cultural resources, the promotion of human rights and the accountability of governments to Native Americans.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
TESTIMONY—SECTION 203 SHOULD BE REAUTHORIZED
Last week at the NCAI Annual Session in Tulsa, Oklahoma, tribal leaders from across the nation passed a Resolution calling upon the Congress to re-authorize and expand the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This resolution is attached and submitted for the record. Native Americans were an historically disenfranchised people. Although Native Americans have inhabited North America longer than any other segment of American-society, they were the last group to receive the right to vote when the United States finally made them citizens in 1924. Even after 1924, certain states with large native populations barred Native Americans from voting by setting discriminatory voter registration requirements. For example, various states denied Indians the right to vote because they were ''under guardianship,'' or Indians were denied the right to vote unless they could prove they were ''civilized'' by moving off of the reservation and renouncing their tribal ties. New Mexico was the last State to remove all express legal impediments to voting for Native Americans in 1962, three years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, Native Americans have experienced many of the discriminatory tactics that kept African-Americans in the South from exercising the franchise.
With the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress took the first necessary steps to start the process of remedying this history of discrimination and disenfranchisement. While we have made tremendous progress in the last 40 years, we still have a long way to go. When the Voting Rights Act came up for reauthorization in 1975, Congress heard extensive testimony regarding voting discrimination suffered not just by African-Americans, but also by Hispanics, Asian-Americans and American Indians. As a result, Congress took another major step by adding section 203 to the Voting Rights Act. Congress did so based on its finding that educational inequality and racial discrimination prohibited full participation in the democratic process by Native Americans, Alaskan Natives and other language minority groups.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In 1992, Congress moved forward again, passing the Voting Rights Language Assistance Amendments—the provisions which are the subject of today's hearing. Under the 1992 amendments, Congress strengthened the triggering mechanism of section 203 by adding a numerical threshold provision and by adding the so-called ''Indian trigger''—wherein a state or political subdivision is ''covered'' if it contains all or any part of an Indian reservation where more than five percent of the American Indian or Alaskan Native voting age population are members of a single language minority and have limited English proficiency. In 1992, Congress heard testimony from a number of leaders from across Indian Country, all of whom testified about the importance of the minority language provisions to Native communities. NCAI and NARF offered joint testimony at that time as well and documented persistent educational inequities and discrimination in voting that persist today. In passing the 1992 Language Assistance Amendments, Congress clearly recognized the need for language assistance in American Indian and Alaskan Native communities.
While significant progress has been made in enfranchising Native Americans, the need for Section 203 has not diminished in the years since Congress added that section to the Voting Rights Act. Historically disenfranchised, Native Americans continue to need and to use language assistance in the electoral process today. This assistance enables those who understand their own language better than they understand English to effectively participate in the democratic process. The value of Section 203 to Indian country cannot be overstated. Today, according to the new determinations released by the Census Bureau in July 2002, eighty-eight (88) jurisdictions in seventeen (17) states are covered jurisdictions that need to provide language assistance to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Section 203 has resulted in the filing of numerous minority language assistance cases involving American Indians, with the vast majority being resolved by consent decree with the covered jurisdictions agreeing to provide the necessary translations of written voter materials, or the necessary oral assistance at polling places.(see footnote 1)
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While no one knows exactly how many Native American language speakers live in the U.S. today, the language provisions of Section 203 continue to be critical for many Native communities. In many Native communities, tribal business is conducted exclusively or primarily in Native languages. Many Native people, particularly our elders, speak English only as a second language. Even if they have English language skills, many Indian people have said that they feel more comfortable speaking their Native language and are better able to understand complicated ballot issues in their Native language. Furthermore, it is the policy of the federal government, as expressed in the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (NALA) to ''preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.''(see footnote 2) The NALA was the first, and may be the only, federal law to guarantee the right of a language minority group to use its language in ''public proceedings.'' Disenfranchising Native Americans by failing to provide language assistance in the electoral process to those who need it would surely violate this statutory right. Section 203 ensures all Native people, particularly our elders, many of whom speak English poorly if at all, have access to the ballot box. At the same time, it recognizes the importance of preserving and honoring indigenous languages and cultures.
Traditionally, voter participation rates by American Indians and Alaskan Natives have always been among the lowest of all communities within the United States. While voter registration and turnout by Native American voters is still below non-Native averages in many parts of the country, many Native communities have seen steady, even significant increases, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of Native American candidates who are being elected to local school boards, county commissions and state legislatures.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In 2004, the National Congress of American Indians spearheaded a groundbreaking campaign to register and turn out a record number of American Indian and Alaskan Native voters. Known as ''Native Vote 2004,'' NCAI, in collaboration with various national and regional organizations, local tribal governments, urban Indian centers and, most important, many grassroots organizations throughout Indian country, coordinated an extensive national non-partisan effort to mobilize the Native vote and to ensure that every Native vote was counted. The culmination of the Native Vote 2004 efforts on November 2nd was a resounding moment for tribal governments nationwide, as it empowered Native voters and raised the profile of Native issues in the eyes of politicians.
In the appendices to our testimony, we have provided a copy of our study: Native Vote 2004: A National Survey and Analysis of Efforts to Increase the Native Vote in 2004 and the Results Achieved. To our knowledge, this report is the first of its kind in Indian country. This study provides background information, Native voter participation data and election results for eight states: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin. Each assessment provides invaluable information regarding how the Voting Rights Act is working in Indian country, and the challenges that still lie ahead.
We anticipate that the substance of this report will provide, in part, the evidentiary basis underlying the need to strengthen and extend the Voting Rights Act. At its essence, the research shows a direct correlation between focused localized commitments to increasing voter participation rates in Native communities and the actual increases that result. I submit to you that Section 203 is an essential component to ensuring the success of such focused localized commitments in our Native communities. Thank you.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
ATTACHMENT 1
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I'd like to explain what's going on here. The bells indicate that we've been called to the floor for a series of votes. Unfortunately, those series of votes are going to extend over probably an hour's period of time, so we have somewhat of a dilemma here. We could come back after an hour, which would inconvenience the panel obviously even more than they've already been inconvenienced.
We've come up with possible plan, and what we have indicated, and I think the minority side is agreeable with this is that we would allow the witnesses to submit their testimony in writing. We would then have access to all that, read it, and then be able to submit questions to the panel, and if you all would be willing to get those questions back to us.
The alternative to that is to come back or to have another hearing on another date, but we don't want to inconvenience the panel there as well.
And I would at this point yield to perhaps the Ranking Minority, Mr. Conyers, to perhaps get his input. I think the staff has indicated they were—they had talked to Mr. Nadler, and he's agreeable to submitting in writing and not having another.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that procedure.
Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Is there—members of the witness panel okay with that? Would you be willing to submit in writing your statements?
Ms. JOHNSON. Sure.
Mr. CHABOT. I think all the witnesses are indicating in the affirmative. We will then submit to you in writing our questions, and if you could get those responses back to them, they will all be entered into the record, just as if this had been done orally.
I apologize for any inconvenience, but it would be inconvenient really any way we handled this at this point, and because of the lateness of the hour, I think probably this is the best solution under the circumstances.
So if there's no further business to come before this Committee, that will be the process that we'll follow. And, again, I want to apologize to the panel, but we will do this in writing just as we would have done it orally had you been here.
Mr. Cartagena?
Mr. CARTAGENA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question——
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Mr. CARTAGENA. —for clarification. Would it be possible for each one of us members of this panel to receive each other's submission, because many times the questions that you will ask are——
Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely.
Mr. CARTAGENA. —informed by the positions taken by other members.
Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely. And we'll rather than have the questions come at you from different angles, we'll have the staff get these all together so you get our questions all at one time together, and we'll make sure that you all are provided with each other's statements as well.
I think Mr. Nadler is in agreement as well.
Mr. NADLER. Yes. He's in accord.
Mr. CHABOT. Is in accord. So we're all in agreement? So if there is no further business to come before the Committee, we're adjourned.
Thank you
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Next Hearing Segment(2)
(Footnote 1 return)
See e.g., U.S. v. Bernalillo County, No. 98–156–BB/LCS (D.N.M. July 1, 2003); U.S. v. Arizona, No. 88–1989–PHX EHC (D.Ariz. May 22 1989, amended September 27, 1993); and U.S. v. San Juan County, No. C–83–1287 (D.Utah Oct. 11, 1990).
(Footnote 2 return)
25 U.S.C. 2901, et seq.