mr mr harper civil rights division attorney with decades of experience one was the acting head of the division and served under both president bush and pre resolutions author in the attempt to make sure that as much material as possible is made to them and so that we think  uniforms one brandishing a baton in front of voters they cursed at them and tried to block voters entry into the polling location these men were members of the new black panther party for self defense an organization so radical that the original black panther party found it necessary to denounce a year ago the civil rights division of the department of justice filed a complaint against the new black panther party in three of its members for violating the voting rights act which prohibits but one of the defendants no facts no new evidence was uncovered the only thing that did change is the political party in charge of the justice department so why would the obama administration suddenly drop charges in a case that ha the decision to dismiss charges against political allies who allegedly intimidated voters on election day two thousand political interference an internal investigation into attorney misconduct by the justice department office of professional responsibility has been ongoing for several months unfortunately justice department officials recently made clear that they do not plan to publicize the results yesterday twenty four hours before this markup the justice department provided the us work to ensure the voting rights act you'll recall that there was some question as to whether or not the voting rights act would be extended at that time and the ranking republican on the subcommittee hen california but i have a nother reason for appealing to our colleagues your side of the mr chairman to join us in making this a bipartisan effort and it's not related to the underlying  investigation conducted by the justice department and the dropping of these criminal charges nor is it related to even the underlying legislation the voting rights act but it's related to the fact that the  issue of the accountability of our executive branch is very much in play here and it's going to come back to haunt people on either side of the island people who are good government and accountability by very large and very powerful executive branch if we fail to hold them accountable for their failure to respond to the u s commission on civil rights which is doing its job and asking the justice department detailed questions and requesting objected to each and every interaction torreon document requests to the letter in the commission from justice official joseph klein asserts a broader need to protect against disclosures that would undermine its ability to carry out it to review the claims privileges and the privileges are quite frankly extraordinary there is no privilege for exist for instance in saying that the justice department will not identify the personnel working on the case i would i would argue that most of us have never heard of most of the privileges mr carbon specifically noted contrary to justice claims that normally there is no general attorney client privilege unless you're dealing with the president so a claim would have to come under the work product or deliberative process exemption but work product is very narrow and the deliberative process privileges move close which is just as just done and this is especially true when the requests for the information does not involve litigants but instead an agency with statutory responsibilities concerning civil rights and i am quoting mr carvin so i would urge my colleagues for reasons far beyond voting rights act which i agree strongly with from california we should be protecting that by examining what the department's done but we have no authority to tell the just department to prosecute not prosecute we have every authority and every and that is the new black panthers case of voter intimidation in philadelphia was the most clear cut open and shut case so voter intimidation in the history of the united states despite the astounding evidence and clear video of this intimidation the department of justice dismissed the case and as a as a committee with oversight jurisdiction we have a duty and an obligation to understand the department of justice decision to dismiss this case instead of investigating voter intimidation or voter fraud by the  set of documents related to the decision to initiate and then dismiss the black panther voter intimidation case and i'm aware that yesterday the judiciary committee received copies of the department of justice responses to questions about this case by the civil rights commission last year but unfortunately those responses are largely not responsive not respond to the questions raised by the commission the department of justice has a history of not responding to questions before this committee maximum penalty was sought and obtained close quote well that wasn't true mr chairman it was a prepared testimony it was emphatically reiterated in his oral response to a question and it wasn't true in fact the statement was blatantly false and it the philadelphia is clear that this resolution of inquiry is still needed in order to get to the bottom of what really happened in the new black panther voter intimidation case for a committee that so vigorously investigated and investigated alleged career employee with nearly thirty years experience in that environment was quote the washington times has reported that a political appointee associate attorney general thomas perrelli quote from the times was consulted and ultimately approved a decision year he credited the decision to dismiss the charges to loretta and steve rosenthal who is it who made that decision under whose direction so this at the very least this committee needs to get to the bottom of the responses or lack of responses to ranking members letter and additionally just vast resources this committee were used in the u s attorney matter investigating whether senior administration officials misled this committee  takes its oversight responsibilities seriously must get to the bottom of whether ranking members had been misled in this matter and i believe that i was misled before the testimony and i believe that mr gohmert was misled by the testimony where we're close to a year into this administration and that we as a committee let this matter pass without taking any serious steps to get answers where we be a year from now two years from now or beyond just not following through with the black future civil rights abusers so too will failing to follow through on whether the ranking member has been misled emboldened other executive branch to ignore congress oversight role in the future so i'd ask mr chairman i aaron militarily uniformed black panthers standing in front of a polling place in philadelphia with a billy club in their hand calling people crackers who are white people coming in there that want to vote if that is not earthquake that i've come to know on this side of of the atlantic ocean and that is a seven point zero earthquake in haiti and i would ask i'm asking  is that some of us be allowed to go there as soon as possible but i would ask if we could take just a moment of silence for the recognition of the devastation  haiti and the many friends that we have there hope i'm making inquiries in like two to join you and thank you again for the leadership that you've shown in the trips that we've made to haiti together i know that they are in most desperate need and i finish the comment on haiti by making note as well that they believe that a large number of the u n force may have been lost and that is certainly an enormous tragedy and i also pay my respects to the united nations and the forces that they have on the ground on this issue if i might turn to this resolution and indicate that i think information sharing if you will from the administration is crucial i was delayed coming into this markup because of a classified briefing on flight two fifty three so i know the importance of truthfulness and the administration being truthful but i would make the argument first of all i  want to be very clear those of us know the distinction this is the new black panther party many of us knew members of the black panther party of which this is not and we know members of the black new black panther party some in my own constituency who worked to empower people to vote and in my jurisdiction i never saw any group of new black panther individuals standing by discouraging people to vote or discouraging them from voting for barack obama so i would make the assumption and my speculation only that this was an isolated incident and individuals chose to take the name of a group  so they could possibly take advantage of that same time the administration has been forthright in my understanding is that as of january eleventh there was a determination of what documents relating to this case could be appropriately release and on january twelfth yesterday my birthday more than one thousand eight hundred fifty pages of documents relating to the case w colleagues will tell me that they have reviewed every document of the one thousand eight hundred fifty pages and then determine further how we should proceed but going forward with a resolution of to suggest that there is a cover  up i think is a stretch and i would make the argument that the documents have been released that was an isolated incident that these individuals were represented that they were intimidating which i don't in any way agree with and if there were appropriate charges and jurisdictional issues that could be addressed of their actions it should be done if there is a denial of someone's civil rights then someone makes that part of justice should handle  it but to suggest that they have not been forthcoming with all these documents before us i think is wrong and it is a misstatement and i believe that we should move to not favorably department are protecting from appropriate prosecution for what may be the most publicized and egregious violation of the voting voting rights act in history the southern poverty law center reports that the new black panthers leaders have seemed to focus almost exclusively on hate and white a former member of the new black panther party muhammad said that  quote these are hard words mr chairman quote there are only two kinds of white bad white folks and worst white folks regarding whites in south africa after apartheid he said quote we will kill the women we will kill the babies we will kill the blind we will kill the cripples we will kill them all those are horrifying words the anti defamation league has called the new black panther party the largest organized anti semitic black militant one attack call the united states and israel quote the number one and number two terrorist right now on the planet has also led chance of jihad at rallies outside a synagogue also reports that bobby a founding member of the original black panther party called the new black panther party quote a black racist why is it mr chairman that the obama administration and its political appointees attorneys in the voting rights section of the civil rights division when it decided of the case including that of the four league career attorneys in this case christopher coke j christian adams agreed that the complaint appeared supported by the facts as well light of the facts of the concerns repeatedly raised by my colleagues in the u s commission on civil rights and concerns which i cannot even begin to have time to address the manufacturer entered into a price agreement with the retailer liability automatically attaches in two thousand and seven in a case called legion versus p s k s the supreme court continue to trend away from per se were and held that resale price would be evaluated under the rule of reason the decision was not without controversy the bush administration's department of justice the federal trade commission along with a number of economists claim that it will lead to higher prices for consumers before legislating a return to a per se standard this committee and the court should take a hard look at the actual facts supporting resale price the rule of reason allows courts to conduct the kind of detail fact finding necessary to determine the actual harm and benefits to consumers of resale price maintenance congress should only repeal the supreme court where it is absolutely clear that the practice in question is never proclaimed after two years a reasoned analysis of the record has not been established to justify a return to the old rule for example we heard testimony from a former official in the solicitor general's office that  agency guidelines is preferable two attempts at legislative change to specify different analyses characterized by innovation intellectual property and technological change and we also need to be careful that our decisions here do not have unintended consequences at the subcommittee markup one member inquired as to whether this legislation is intended to apply to agreements between a matter of fact and that manufacturers wholly owned retail outlets what if i was a lengthy and confusing discussion about whether this legislation implicates other supreme court decisions such as copper wealth or independent court that decision held that a parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary cannot conspire under the sherman act while it was clear from that discussion that this budget this legislation did not intend for this bill to overrule copper well it is not clear on the text of the legislation that is only one item that may just be cleared up in the absence of a more thorough record it is hard to know whether we need to carve out other safe harbors that said i support the committee's efforts to ensure that consumers are seeing a benefit from this sale price however at this time i can of my amendment or opposing the bill from the national association of manufacturers and from the consumer electronics association be entered in the record both of them will be entered into the record without objection and my amendment is the middle ground and i hope that it will be seen by the majority in addition to the minority as just that it's very clear that we do want to protect the consumer that's a bipartisan effort as someone who has been a manufacturer of let me hopefully explain very quickly one thing that causes this to be amendment be offered a manufacturer in a retail environment has but one product that their computer their i pod they have a product in the floor of commerce the retailer on the other hand has a plethora of choices normally a retailer you don't go to the apple store a retailer has apple blackberry samsung in fact most retailers particularly the large retailers in the retailers that are in support of this legislation on amended have all the brand your or your best buy or you're any retailer and you have the ability to take the most expensive brands the best brand the one that has the most demand and reduce its price and then when people come in because it says on the bottom limit one per store you have created traffic at the expense of the perceived value of that product you also of course have the ability to raise and lower that price to your whim you have all the option to manufacture again has but one product the product that they're presenting in the way that they'd like to present it if that manufacture and this is the crux of the amendment has market power then in fact johnson is right we should hold that manufacturer to the higher standard if that manufacture does not have consideration of any kind of market power if it is small manufacture the startup the little guy and they say the only way that we believe that we can get the attention of the market is to price our product where it belongs to realize that we may sell you less but we will sell to a discerning customer who appreciates the advantage if that is a decision the manufacturer with their price their intellectual property the thing that they created and proudly brought to market then in fact if they have no market power why shouldn't they be given some reasonable control over their own product with standard but not the standard review that is the same as a corporation which has real market power that's the standard for the amendment that what we're offering the reason we're offering it is one it's the middle ground two there is a fundamental flaw in the underlying bill as it is i happen to be the owner of many apple products i like i've been to the apple stores i've been to other retailers under this legislation if an amended because apple owns an interest as a large corporation might in many of their stores they would be exempt from this pricing policy well in fact a small company one that could not begin to own a piece of a retailer would not so the even the exemptions in this bill would need to be changed if we do not in fact open  reasonable rule that if you are not under any definition of able to have any market power then why is it that you shouldn't be held to the post market dominance in others the only way to determine whether a manufacturer has market power is to go through much of the same rule of reason analysis question in nutshell i believe him or deserves to have real price competition i also believe that in fact when you buy general motors automobiles you not only want to good price but you want to fact carefully make sure that the advertisement of my logos and materials was consistently seen throughout the country so that there would be an expectation that the consumer could count on what he saw in advertising being delivered when he went to the retailer i know there's a balance this amendment because the consumer should understand if you've got market power therefore we want to you if you are the but if in six percent of the cases ten years ago consumers were losing and ten years later and nine percent of the cases consumers are losing that is a price that i