[House Report 111-404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-404

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


 
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT TO THE 
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 
  POSSESSION RELATING TO THE DECISION TO DISMISS UNITED STATES V. NEW 
                          BLACK PANTHER PARTY

                                _______
                                

  January 27, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 994]

                  [Including Committee Cost Estimate]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 994) directing the Attorney General to 
transmit to the House of Representatives all information in the 
Attorney General's possession relating to the decision to 
dismiss United States v. New Black Panther Party, having 
considered the same, reports unfavorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the resolution not be agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background.......................................................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     5
Dissenting Views.................................................     6
Dissenting Views of Mr. Harper...................................    11

                          Purpose and Summary

    H. Res. 994, introduced by Representative Frank Wolf, 
directs the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives copies of any document, memo, or correspondence 
of the Department of Justice with regard to United States v. 
New Black Panther Party, or any portion of any such document, 
memo, or correspondence that refers or relates to--

          (1) any Department communications with regard to the 
        case between November 5, 2008, and November 15, 2009;

          (2) any communication with the defendants or the 
        defendants' attorneys between November 5, 2008, and 
        November 15, 2009;

          (3) any communication with third-party organizations 
        or individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 
        15, 2009; or

          (4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the 
        case.

                               Background

    Under the rules and precedents of the House of 
Representatives, a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods 
that the House can use to obtain information from the Executive 
Branch.\1\ It ``is a simple resolution making a direct request 
or demand of the President or the head of an executive 
department to furnish the House of Representatives with 
specific factual information in the possession of the executive 
branch.''\2\ The typical practice has been to use the verb 
``request'' when asking for information from the President, and 
``direct'' when addressing Executive department heads.\3\ 
Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives provides that if the committee to which the 
resolution is referred does not act on it within 14 legislative 
days, a privileged motion to discharge the resolution from the 
committee is in order on the House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Christopher Davis, House Resolutions of Inquiry, CRS Report, 
November 25, 2008, at 1 (quoting U.S. Congress, House, Deschler's 
Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94-
661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, Sec. 8).
    \2\Id.
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While recognizing the importance of effective enforcement 
of the Voting Rights Act, the Committee believes that H. Res. 
994 is unwarranted. The Department of Justice has provided and 
continues to provide relevant information on the subject and to 
respond to Congressional requests.
    First, on July 9, 2009, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, 
Representative Wolf, and several other House Members wrote to 
DOJ's Inspector General requesting an investigation concerning 
the partial dismissal of the case. The request was referred to 
DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which 
informed Representative Smith and the other requesting Members 
that it had initiated an inquiry and would contact them with 
the results when complete. In response to a further inquiry by 
Representative Smith and Representative Wolf, OPR explained on 
November 24, 2009, that in accordance with standard Department 
procedures, a complete investigation would take more time, that 
the investigation was proceeding apace, and that OPR would 
inform them of the results ``as soon as we are able to do so.''
    Second, prior to the initiation of the OPR investigation, 
Representative Smith and Representative Wolf requested 
information and briefings from DOJ on the case. Chairman 
Conyers directed Committee staff to help facilitate such a 
briefing for all interested Committee Members. DOJ wrote 
separately to Representative Smith and Representative Wolf on 
July 13, 2009, providing a four-page analysis of the legal and 
factual issues and DOJ's actions in the case, enclosing to 
Representative Smith all non-privileged documents relating to 
the dismissal as he had requested, and noting to Representative 
Smith that DOJ had already contacted Committee staff about 
arranging a briefing. Copies were sent to Chairman Conyers, 
Chairman Nadler, and Representative Sensenbrenner. A briefing 
for Representative Wolf was held on July 20, 2009. As 
scheduling and other arrangements were underway with respect to 
Representative Smith, OPR initiated an inquiry, and DOJ 
determined to await the outcome of the OPR inquiry before 
responding further. DOJ wrote to Representative Smith on 
September 11, 2009, providing some additional information and 
stating its plan to await the outcome of the OPR report. There 
has been no further correspondence relating to a DOJ briefing.
    Third, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas 
E. Perez has responded to questions by Committee Members about 
the case. During the December 3, 2009 hearing of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties, Mr. Perez explained that the decisions with respect 
to the disposition of the case were made by two career 
attorneys with over 60 years of combined experience, including 
one who was serving as acting director of the Division earlier 
in 2009, prior to Mr. Perez's confirmation. Mr. Perez discussed 
the significant injunctive relief that was obtained in the 
case, and stated that he was looking forward to the results of 
the OPR review. Written follow-up questions have been sent to 
Mr. Perez.
    Fourth, the Committee is already in receipt of documents 
requested by H. Res 994. On January 11, 2010, DOJ determined 
that a number of documents relating to the case could 
appropriately be released in response to requests by Congress, 
and accordingly sent more than 1,850 pages of documents 
concerning the case and related matters to Representatives 
Smith and Wolf, Chairman Conyers, and the U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission, along with answers to written questions from the 
Commission. The documents produced include correspondence 
between the Department of Justice and each of the defendants in 
the case, as requested by H. Res. 994.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on H. Res. 994.

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 13, 2010, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered H. Res. 994 adversely reported, without amendment, by a 
rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 14 nays, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall vote occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H. Res. 994:
    H. Res. 994 was ordered reported unfavorably by a vote of 
15 to 14.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................                              X
Mr. Harper......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this resolution does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that 
implementing the resolution would not result in any significant 
costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost 
estimate for the resolution.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 does not 
authorize funding.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 is not a 
bill or a joint resolution that may be enacted into law.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 is not a 
bill or a joint resolution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    H. Res. 994 directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date 
of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo, 
or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to 
United States v. New Black Panther Party, or any portion of any 
such document, memo, or correspondence that refers or relates 
to--

          (1) any Department communications with regard to the 
        case between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009;

          (2) any communication with the defendants or 
        defendants' attorneys between November 5, 2008 and 
        November 15, 2009;

          (3) any communication with third-party organizations 
        or individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 
        15, 2009; or

          (4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the 
        case.

                            Dissenting Views

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    We strongly support H. Res. 994 and oppose adversely 
reporting this resolution to the House of Representatives. H. 
Res. 994 directs the Attorney General to transmit to the House 
of Representatives all information in the Attorney General's 
possession relating to the decision to dismiss United States v. 
New Black Panther Party.
    On Election Day 2008, outside of a Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, polling location, two men were dressed in 
paramilitary uniforms, one brandishing a baton in front of 
voters. The men cursed at voters, shouted racial obscenities at 
voters, and tried to block the entry of voters, and those 
assisting them, 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 
has found it necessary to denounce it.
    On January 7, 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice (the Department) filed a complaint 
against the New Black Panther Party, the Chairman of the 
organization, and the two members involved in the Philadelphia 
Election Day incident for violating the Voting Rights Act, 
which prohibits any attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce 
any voter and those aiding voters.
    According to the Department's complaint, the two 
individuals involved in the Philadelphia incident ``made 
statements containing racial threats and racial insults to both 
black and white individuals,'' and ``made menacing and 
intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at 
individuals who were present to aid voters.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Civ. 
No. 09-0065 SD (E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 7, 2009) (Comp. 10-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Neither the New Black Panther Party nor its members 
responded to the lawsuit. Thus, the Department was instructed 
by the Court to prepare a motion seeking a default judgment. 
Rather than seek this default judgment, however, and ensure 
that defendants could not participate in future voter 
intimidation tactics, the Department abruptly dropped charges 
against all but one of the defendants. With regard to that 
remaining defendant, the Department narrowed the scope of its 
proposed remedy. Rather than being permanently enjoined from 
engaging in such conduct at any polling location the remaining 
defendant was prohibited only from engaging in this behavior 
outside of polling locations in the city of Philadelphia, and 
only until mid-November of 2012.
    The Department's actions in this case have led many to ask 
why the Obama Administration would suddenly drop most of the 
charges in a case it had effectively won. No facts had changed. 
No new evidence was uncovered. The law had remained unchanged. 
The only thing that did change is the political party in charge 
of the Department of Justice. Judiciary Committee Ranking 
Member Lamar Smith and Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Frank Wolf wrote the Department 
eight times since the case dismissal seeking the answer to one 
simple question: what changed between January 2009 and May 2009 
such that the law necessitated the dismissal of most of the 
Department's claims and the narrowing of the remedy for the 
remaining defendant?
    The Department's inability or unwillingness to address this 
question leaves the minority members of this Committee with no 
other alternative but to conclude that improper--likely 
partisan political--motivations were behind the Department's 
actions, that politics improperly played a role in its decision 
to enforce the Voting Rights Act. These concerns were only 
heightened when it was learned that one of the defendants 
against whom charges were dropped was a Democratic poll 
watcher.\2\ Through media reports it was later learned that the 
lead career attorneys on the case strongly advocated in favor 
of seeking the default judgment against all original defendants 
in this case.\3\ When Department officials sought a second 
opinion from its career appellate attorneys, they agreed with 
the recommendation of the lead attorneys that default charges 
should be finalized as against all original defendants.\4\ 
Those same media reports assert that senior political 
appointees may have overridden the decision of career 
attorneys.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Letter from Members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to 
the Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
Justice, (Aug. 10, 2009) (on file with minority staff of the Committee 
on the Judiciary).
    \3\See Jerry Seper, Exclusive: No. 3 at Justice OK'd Panther 
Reversal, the Wash. Times, July 30, 2009.
    \4\See Id.
    \5\See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         II. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST 
                        ALL ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS

    The Department asserts that default judgments are not 
automatic, and that the government must still prove the case 
based on the law and the facts. The minority members of this 
Committee find this argument unpersuasive because one would 
assume that the Department would not have brought the case 
against the Defendants unless it believed the evidence 
supported it and that it could prove each alleged act based 
upon that evidence. Furthermore, we know from news reports that 
the attorneys in charge of the case never wavered from their 
belief that the evidence did prove the allegations against each 
defendant.
    Ultimately, the question that minority members of the 
Committee wish to have the Department explain and that the 
Department has thus far refused to do, is why. Either the facts 
were not strong enough for the case to have been brought, or 
they were but the Department decided not to move forward with 
the case. If the Department would simply explain what standard 
it used in early May to analyze the facts and why these facts 
did not meet these legal standards that the Department had 
concluded just five months earlier did would go a long way 
towards addressing concerns raised by the minority members of 
this Committee. However, the Department's failure--or refusal--
to engage in this discussion has led us and observers to wonder 
whether DOJ has something to hide. And in this instance the 
Department's silence appears to be an admission of guilt.

   III. WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT PURSUED THE FULL SCOPE OF THE REMEDY 
      ALLOWED UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT INTIMIDATION PROVISIONS

    The Department asserts that with regard to the remedy 
sought against the remaining original defendant in this case it 
sought to punish him to the fullest extent under the law, an 
injunction. However, the Department fails to address why it 
rejected the original permanent injunction sought in the 
January filings and instead submitted a more narrow request to 
the court in May that requested an injunction applicable only 
to polling locations in the city of Philadelphia and only 
through mid-November 2012.

 IV. THE DEPARTMENT'S ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL 
                            RIGHTS INQUIRIES

    Twenty-four hours before H. Res. 994 was marked up by this 
Committee, the Department provided responses to interrogatories 
served upon it by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the 
Commission). The Department provided copies of these responses 
to the Committee. It also produced approximately 1800 pages 
worth of Department documents.
    Unfortunately, the Department's responses to the 
Commission's interrogatories provided little, if any, 
information that would assist Congress in the performance of 
oversight on this matter. The Department refused to answer, 
either wholly or in part, 31 of the Commission's 49 
interrogatories. The Department asserts that it did respond to 
the Commission's interrogatories and document request last 
week. However, its answers for those 31 questions consisted of 
the statement that it ``generally objected'' to the question 
being asked. In some instances the Department explained in 
greater detail he source of its objections. Nonetheless, it 
cannot be argued that the Department answered the questions 
asked of it by the Commission. Instead, they answered by saying 
that they would not answer those 31 questions.
    Furthermore, the 1800 pages worth of documents provided by 
the Department while voluminous, failed to provide Congress any 
information about the dismissal of this case, particularly with 
regard to how the case could be strong enough to be filed one 
month and too weak to pursue four months later. So Congress 
remains unable to explore the application of the Voting Rights 
Act to the New Black Panther Party case.

V. THE AFFECT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
REVIEW ON CONGRESS'S OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTIONS IN THIS CASE

    It has been argued by some that Congress should not 
investigate the New Black Panther Party case dismissal because 
of the ongoing review by the Department's Office of 
Professional Responsibility (OPR).
    At its heart, the Department's handling of the New Black 
Panther Party case is really a policy question: how can the 
conduct underlying the case be allowable under the Voting 
Rights Act and, if it is, what changes, if any, should be made 
to the law to prevent such conduct in the future? Policy is set 
by Congress, not the Department, and it is up to Congress to 
determine whether current law reaches the conduct that Congress 
intended the law to reach when enacted.
    It is unclear in this case based on what is publicly known 
why the incident of Election Day 2008 is not prosecutable as 
intimidation under the Voting Rights Act, Thus, Congress has a 
constitutional responsibility to inquire into whether the law 
as currently written is strong enough to prohibit such conduct.
    The law either currently is strong enough, and the 
Department made its decision to drop the case based on reasons 
other than substantive legal analysis, a decision which would 
show partisan political influence, or it is not, in which case 
Congress has a duty to review whether the Voting Rights Act 
needs to be revised to cover such acts.
    Thus far, in response to inquiries and document requests 
from Republican members of this Committee, the Department has 
stated that the claims were not appropriate under the Voting 
Rights Act, despite the fact that based on the same set of 
facts, the Department had but months earlier decided the facts 
did merit the initiation of the suit.
    In light of the Department's current view of the law, it 
appears Congress must consider whether to strengthen the Voting 
Rights Act. In order to have that debate, Congress needs to 
know the facts that the Department had in front of it when it 
decided to file this case and when it decided to dismiss it.
    The Department's review of whether its employees committed 
misconduct while implementing policies set by Congress has no 
relationship to Congress's obligation to ask the above 
questions about implementation of the Voting Rights Act. 
Congress still has an independent duty to ask whether the 
policies it has set, and the laws enacted to implement those 
policies, work. This duty cannot be performed by the agency 
tasked with implementing Congress's policy determinations. Nor 
can it be extinguished by an agency's decision to investigate 
the conduct of its employees in relation to the implementation 
of those laws.
    OPR's review is merely an internal inquiry into the conduct 
of Department lawyers in the course of performing their duties. 
In this case, those duties involve the enforcement of the same 
Voting Rights Act provisions, the application of which Congress 
has grown concerned about after the November 2008 incident in 
Philadelphia.
    In the course of its investigation OPR will review whether 
Department attorneys were competent in their knowledge of the 
applicable area of the law, whether they were diligent in 
efforts to prepare materials and arguments made before the 
court, and whether their conduct complied with the law, 
governing ethical requirements, and the duty of care owed by 
all attorneys.
    With regard to the questions raised by the Department's 
case against the New Black Panther Party, it is simply outside 
the scope of an OPR inquiry to determine how broad the scope of 
the Voting Rights Act currently is or should be and whether the 
Voting Rights Act as written reaches the conduct Congress 
wishes to regulate or prohibit.
    While both Congress and OPR will find relevant some of the 
same information, the two entities have different focuses. It 
is, however, the exclusive province of Congress to determine 
and set policy. And the Department has yet to articulate how 
Congress's review of these documents, in furtherance of that 
duty, at the same time OPR reviews those documents will 
interfere with OPR's ability to assess the import of those 
documents.

                             VI. CONCLUSION

    What if on election day in Philadelphia, Mississippi, two 
white men in white robes and hoods, one of them armed with a 
baton, station themselves in front of a polling place and make 
threatening comments to African-Americans arriving to vote.
    In the wake of that election, a Democratic Justice 
Department files suit against the two Klansmen and the Klan, 
who fail to respond, and the federal judge directs the 
Department to submit an unopposed order resolving the case.
    Instead, a new Republican Justice Department dismisses the 
case and files only a very limited injunction against the one 
Klansman with the baton.
    In the case of this hypothetical, would our Committee 
colleagues in the majority not be demanding information 
justifying what led to the Department's about-face? Of course 
they would be, and the minority members of this Committee would 
join them, because the intimidation provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act were designed with precisely that case in mind.
    In the New Black Panther Party case we have a case that 
seems tailor-made for the application of the intimidation 
prohibition in the Voting Rights Act, and Department lawyers 
apparently came to that conclusion as well in filing the suit.
    But a new set of eyes at the Department apparently saw the 
case differently. We need to know why.
    In its meager responses to congressional inquiries, the 
Department suggests that the Voting Rights Act may not be 
adequate to address the actions of these defendants, but that 
analysis should have occurred before the suit was filed. And 
the Department fails to point out any change in the law after 
the case was filed or any newly uncovered facts that would 
justify its change of heart. The only fact that appears to have 
changed is the change in political control of the Department.
    So we are left with one of two choices: either the 
Department erred in filing the suit or it erred in dropping the 
suit. We should be able to make that judgment, but we cannot on 
the basis of the inadequate response from the Department to Mr. 
Smith's and Mr. Wolf's letters.
    We need to know because it is up to us, on this Committee, 
to decide whether the intimidation provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act need to be strengthened, or if this matter reflects 
simply a new judgment by the new President and his team that he 
does not want to harm his political allies. If that is the 
case, as it appears now to be, then the majority may have 
finally found the first case in which actual political 
influence appears.
    For more than two years, the majority on this Committee has 
been looking for such a case as it pursued its investigation 
into the firing of political appointees. The problem is they 
have looked only for such cases during the last administration. 
But in its first six months, the new administration has 
apparently provided an instance that we have yet to uncover 
during our microscopic investigation of the previous one: a 
case tainted by partisan political influence.
    There cannot be true justice if those responsible for 
ensuring justice rely on a political compass rather than facts 
and evidence.
    It is unfortunate that this Committee chose not to obtain 
answers to the serious questions raised by the Department's 
conduct in this case by reporting this resolution out 
favorably. The right to cast a ballot free of intimidation is 
at the heart of our democracy. We jeopardize our democracy if 
we look the other way in this case.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
                                   Howard Coble.
                                   Elton Gallegly.
                                   Bob Goodlatte.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   Steve King.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Louie Gohmert.
                                   Jim Jordan.
                                   Ted Poe.
                                   Jason Chaffetz.

                     Dissenting Views of Mr. Harper

    I join Sections I-V of the dissenting views offered by 
Ranking Member Smith.

                                   Gregg Harper.

                                 
