Marcia Fudge

Section 2 we know is a very time-consuming and expensive way to litigate the voting rights issue.

It is our responsibility as people who represent the Federal Government to protect protected classes of people.

I know it when I see it, and I have seen it throughout this process as we have traveled this country.

Congress has a unique responsibility to legislate here because of the government-to-government relationship the United States has with Tribal Nations.

I thank the House Judiciary Committee for ensuring Native voices are a part of the efforts to strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

In 2020, this type of disenfranchisement is unacceptable. It is a stain on our Federal trust responsibility and our democracy.

We must work together to break down the barriers that prevent Native Americans from voting.

I just really have two questions: One is, for the museum honoring Latinos, there was a capital site that was--or a recommended site for the museum, which, we understand, can accommodate a building of about 250,000 square feet.

I wholeheartedly support the museums, but I also--we have some fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.

What would you then do with your storage needs? What would happen with that, if that is the site that was selected?

Is there still an effort to co-locate offices in the field?

With all due respect, it probably isn't your intent, but that is, in fact, the effect.

I welcome the opportunity to continue our dialogue on the conservation collaboration grants.

It seems to me that the rules or the direction that you are going is really pushing minority farmers and community-based organizations out of conservation programs.

I am disappointed that the most recent announcement for Conservation Innovation Grants funding did not include socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

NRCS has consistently increased our efforts to assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

I mean, because when you don't include black farmers, I don't know who else you include.

The fact is it is not included.

But how could you be historically under-served if you are not socially-disadvantaged?

It is interesting to me that we talk about the number--many of the reasons.

Will all of you commit today to allowing researchers to test your products without prescreening?

I'm always amused by how we change positions from day to day.

You determine what the upgrades in security should be because you're dancing to their tune, not to the EAC.

We're in 2020, but we're using standards.

It is critical to our democracy, and your equipment is purchased with taxpayer dollars.