29–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–697 

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESPECTING 

THE NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARTON of Texas, from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 745] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 745) of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to provide certain information to the 

House of Representatives respecting the National Energy Policy 

Development Group, having considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 6 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 6 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 6 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 7 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 7 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 7 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 8 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 9 

2 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H. Res. 745 requests the President of the United States to provide certain information to the House of Representatives respecting 

the National Energy Policy Development Group (task force), such 

as the names of the individuals present at each of the group meetings, the names of professional staff assigned to support the task 

force, and the names of the individuals with whom the members 

of the task force and the support staff met to gather information 

for the National Energy Policy, as well as the dates, subject, and 

location of each such meeting. H. Res. 745 also seeks the direct and 

indirect costs incurred in developing the National Energy Policy. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On January 29, 2001, pursuant to Presidential Memorandum, 

President Bush established the National Energy Policy Development Group (task force), ‘‘to develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and as necessary and appropriate 

Federal, State, and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound protection and distribution of energy.’’ The task force was directed by the President ‘‘to gather information, deliberate, and ... make recommendations to the President.’’ Members of the task force included the Vice President, the 

Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 

Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Assistant to the President and 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Assistant to the President for 

Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. Additionally, other officers of the federal government were invited to participate, including the Chairman of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Secretary of State. 

On May 7, 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO), now 

known as the Government Accountability Office, commenced an investigation of the task force at the request of Congressman John 

D. Dingell and Congressman Henry A. Waxman. Pursuant to that 

request, the GAO sought information from the Vice President regarding the names and titles of individuals present at any task 

force meetings, including any non-governmental participants; information pertaining to the purpose and agenda of the meetings; the 

process used to determine the invitees; and whether minutes of the 

meetings were kept. Subsequent to its initial demands, GAO withdrew its request for copies of minutes, notes, and information presented by private individuals. On January 30, 2002, after several 

unsuccessful attempts to obtain the requested information, the 

GAO announced that it would file suit against the Vice President 

to enforce its alleged statutory right of access to the requested task 

force documents. 

On February 22, 2002, GAO filed a complaint for declaratory and 

injunctive relief in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. The Comptroller General moved for summary judgment. 

The Vice President filed a motion to dismiss and opposed the 

Comptroller General’s motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on both motions, the Court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled in 

3 

favor of the Vice President, ruling that the GAO (through the 

Comptroller General) lacked standing to prosecute its claims. 

On July 22, 2004, Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. 

Markey) filed House Resolution 745, which requests the President 

of the United States to provide certain information to the House of 

Representatives respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group. Specifically, the information requested is as follows: 

(1) the name of each individual who was present at each of the 

group meetings conducted by the task force; (2) the names of the 

professional staff assigned to provide support to the task force; (3) 

the names of all individuals with whom each member of the task 

force (including the Vice President as chairman) and each support 

staff met to gather information for the National Energy Policy, including the date, subject, and location of each such meeting; and, 

(4) the direct and indirect costs incurred in developing the National 

Energy Policy. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has not held hearings 

on the legislation. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H. 

Res. 745 unfavorably reported to the House, without amendment, 

by a roll call vote of 30 yeas and 22 nays, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The following is the 

recorded vote taken on the motion by Mr. Hall to order H. Res. 745 

unfavorably reported to the House, without amendment, which was 

agreed to by a recorded vote of 30 yeas to 22 nays. 

4 


Insert offset folio 5 here HR697.001
5 


Insert offset folio 6 here HR697.002
6 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has not held oversight or legislative hearings on this legislation. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of H. Res. 745 is to seek information from the President 

of the United States respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group, such information being related to how the policy 

was formulated by the executive branch. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.Res.745, a 

resolution of inquiry requesting the President of the United States 

to provide certain information to the House of Representatives respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group, would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, September 22, 2004. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H. Res. 745, a resolution of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to provide certain information to the House of Representatives respecting the 

National Energy Policy Development Group. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash Driskill. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH M. ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure. 

7 

H. Res. 745—Resolution of inquiry requesting the President of the 

United States to provide certain information to the House of 

Representatives respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group 

H. Res. 745 would request that the President provide certain information about the National Energy Policy Group to the House of 

Representatives, such as the names of the individuals who participated, the dates, subjects, and location of meetings, and the costs 

associated with developing the National Energy Policy. CBO estimates that passing this resolution would not affect the federal 

budget. 

The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash Driskill. This estimate was 

approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee requested the Federal mandates statement from 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Congressional 

Budget Office did not provide the statement. The Committee believes the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in Article I, section 8, clause 

3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

H. Res. 745 requests the President of the United States, to the 

extent possible, to furnish the House of Representatives, not later 

than 14 days after the date of adoption of the resolution, information respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group (the 

‘‘task force’’), to-wit: (1) the name of each individual who was 

present at each of the group meetings conducted by the task force; 

(2) the names of the professional staff assigned to provide support 

to the task force; (3) the names of all individuals with whom each 

member of the task force (including the Vice President as chairman) and each support staff met to gather information for the National Energy Policy, including the date, subject, and location of 

8 

each such meeting; and, (4) the direct and indirect costs incurred 

in developing the National Energy Policy. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

(9) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce experienced one of its 

lowest days in the Committee’s history during the consideration of 

this resolution of inquiry. For the first time in our memory, Members were not permitted the opportunity to make an opening statement despite the recognition of the right to opening statements in 

our Committee rules. Thereafter, the Chairman refused to permit 

any debate on the resolution, instead first recognizing a Republican 

member to make a speech, and then recognizing the same member 

to make a motion to move the previous question to deny Members 

an opportunity to debate the issue. The resolution was then reported adversely on a party-line basis. We shall discuss this quashing public debate later, but first we want to explain why we supported the resolution, and why these matters are important. 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

As the report will indicate, the resolution was a very simple resolution. It calls upon the Administration to provide a list of names 

of individuals who served on the Vice President’s Energy Task 

Force, the names of people with whom the Task Force met, and the 

costs of the Task Force. That is all. 

Early in 2001, President Bush asked Vice President Cheney to 

develop a national energy policy. A Task Force was formed called 

the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) chaired 

by the Vice President. On April 19, 2001, Ranking Member John 

Dingell and Ranking Member Henry Waxman of the Committee on 

Government Reform asked the Vice President to disclose who was 

meeting with his Task Force. The General Accounting Office 

(GAO), at their request, asked for similar information. 

The Vice President’s lawyer basically told the requestors to mind 

their own business, and that the public had no right to the information. The Vice President contended that he could not receive advice from outsiders if he had to tell us who he met with. As the 

Chairman noted at the markup, this Committee has held numerous 

public hearings on energy. None of our witnesses were reluctant to 

provide their views in public, no have any Committee members 

ever suggested that the committee could not receive adequate testimony if the hearings were open to the public. 

Ultimately, the GAO was required to go to court to seek the information. Here are some excerpts of what Comptroller General 

David M. Walker told Congress, in a letter dated January 30, 2002, 

when he went to court: 

The Congress has a right to the information we are 

seeking in connection with its consideration of comprehensive energy legislation and its ongoing oversight activities. 

Energy policy is an important economic and environmental 

10 

matter with significant domestic and international implications. It affects the lives of each and every American. How 

it is formulated has understandably been a longstanding 

interest of the Congress. In addition, the recent bankruptcy of Enron has served to increase congressional interest in energy policy, in general, and NEPDG activities, in 

particular. This, plus the Senate’s expected consideration 

of comprehensive energy legislation this session, reinforces 

the need for the information we requested concerning the 

development of the National Energy Policy proposal. In 

this regard, we recently received a request for the NEPDG 

information we are seeking from four Senate committee 

and subcommittee chairmen with jurisdiction over the 

matters involved. Importantly, our governing statue requires GAO to perform such committee requests. 

Clearly, the formulation and oversight of energy policy 

and the investigation of Enron-related activities represent 

important institutional prerogatives of the Congress. Furthermore, a number of other important principles are involved. Failure to provide the information we are seeking 

serves to undercut the important principles of transparency 

and accountability in government. These principles are important elements of a democracy. They represent basic principles of ‘‘good government’’ that transcend administrations, partisan politics, and the issues of the moment. As 

such, they should be vigorously defended. Otherwise, it 

could erode public confidence in and respect for the institutions of government. 

The disclosure of the activities of the NEPDG is also important for precedential reasons. Specifically, the NEPDG 

was financed with appropriated funds and staffed largely 

by government department and agency personnel assigned 

to it. We disagree with the White House position that the 

formation of energy policy by the NEPDG is beyond congressional oversight and GAO review. Were the Vice President’s arguments in this case to prevail, any administration seeking to insulate its activities from oversight and 

public scrutiny could do so simply by assigning those activities to the Vice President or a body under the White 

House’s direct control. 

In our view, failure to pursue this matter could lead to 

a pattern of records access denials that would significantly 

undercut GAO’s ability to assist Congress in exercising its 

legislative and oversight authorities. We would have 

strongly preferred to avoid litigation in connection with 

this matter, but given the request by the four Senate committee and subcommittee chairmen, our rights to this information and the important principles and precedents involved, GAO will take the steps necessary to file suit in 

United States District Court in order to obtain, from the 

Chair of the NEPDG, the information outlined in our August 17, 2001, report. This will be the first time that GAO 

has filed suit to enforce our access rights against a federal 

11 

official. We hope it is the last time that we will have to 

do so. (emphasis added) 

Unfortunately, a District Court judge appointed by President 

Bush denied GAO’s request, effectively saying it is up to Congress 

to demand the information. So that is what we did today. Despite 

claims by our Republican colleagues that the request was purely 

political, the remarks of the nonpartisan Comptroller General 

should put to rest any doubt as to the value of the information both 

to the Congress and the public. 

Why is this specific information important? Here is an example: 

Throughout 2001, Vice President Cheney contended that skyrocketing electricity charges on the West Coast were the result of 

inadequate supplies, not market manipulation. As a result, his energy policy contained no penalties for fraudulent practices. Instead, 

it repealed the consumer and investor protections in the Public 

Utility Holding Company Act, and supported further electricity deregulation. 

When the Enron scandal was revealed in the fall of 2001, people 

began to ask about the role of Enron in the development of the energy policy. We learned that there were over 40 meetings between 

Enron and White House officials, including several involving the 

Vice President and Enron CEO Ken Lay. Shouldn’t that have been 

important in evaluating the Vice President’s false claims that the 

West Coast energy crisis was about supplies, and not manipulation? 

During the limited debate on the resolution, the Chairman alluded to various hearings and markups in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This discussion, of course, was not relevant to 

our request, which was directed at the process through which the 

Bush Administration, and particularly the Vice President’s Task 

Force as directed by the President, did its work. We also note the 

Task Force was charged with much more than the transmittal of 

energy legislation to the Congress. Indeed, as many as three-quarters of the recommendations involved administrative actions. 

Documents obtained through private lawsuits have shown how 

those with access to the Task Force had unique opportunities to influence policy. For example, a proposed Executive Order prepared 

by the American Petroleum Institute officials relating to the consideration of energy production in all regulations was sent to a Department of Energy official involved in the Task Force’s work on 

March 20, 2001, and was soon followed with an Executive Order 

issued by President Bush on May 18, 2001, with almost identical 

wording. Whether the policy is correct or not is not at issue, but 

as the Comptroller General said, the issues of transparency and accountability in government is the issue. 

The implication that the only reaction to a resolution of inquiry 

is to vote it down on a party-line basis stands in contrast to the 

last time such a resolution was considered in the Committee. The 

last time this Committee dealt with a resolution of inquiry was in 

1979, when the Republican Minority Leader John Rhodes introduced a resolution to obtain energy information from the Secretary 

of Energy. After the resolution was introduced, then subcommittee 

chairman John Dingell immediately requested the information 

from the Secretary, the Committee received the information, and 

12 

the Committee then disposed of the resolution on a bipartisan 

basis, voting to report the resolution adversely by voice vote, since 

the information had been provided. When Republicans on the 

House floor reiterated their desire to adopt the resolution, it passed 

by a bipartisan vote of 340–4. 

But in this case, our Republican colleagues have chosen to ignore 

their oversight responsibilities for the last four years of the Bush 

Administration. The request of Representatives Dingell and Waxman was widely publicized, as was the GAO investigation and lawsuit. Yet at no time did our Republican colleagues express any interest in requesting similar information. The resolution before us 

was introduced on July 22, 2004, yet during the intervening eight 

weeks, they made no effort to obtain the information from the Administration. 

The secrecy surrounding the Vice President’s Task Force is unfortunately not an isolated incident. In fact, this Administration 

has proven to be the most secretive Administration in recent history. We have learned, for example, that the Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services went to extraordinary 

measures to prevent his Chief Actuary from disclosing to the Congress prior to its vote last year that the cost of the Medicare reform 

bill would be $139 billion more than the Administration had said. 

We are now finding out new information about Medicare premium 

costs scheduled to rise by 17 percent next year. 

The effects of this kind of secrecy have only been compounded by 

our Republican colleagues in the House, who have shown absolutely no interest in asking any tough questions of the Administration on key issues such as energy, Medicare, and contracting for 

the Iraqi war, to name just a few. Requests by the Minority for information from the Administration are routinely ignored, and it is 

not difficult to understand why, when the Republican leadership 

rarely supports such oversight. The resolution of inquiry has become the only procedural alternative remaining to House Members 

to spur any debate on obtaining information from the Executive 

Branch, and as today’s markup proved, and as described below, Republicans do not wish to even debate the merits of asking for information. 

PROHIBITING PUBLIC DEBATE AND EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURAL

ACTIONS

The Committee consideration of this resolution was extraordinary in the procedures adopted by the Chairman to preclude 

Committee Members from debating the merits of the resolution. 

The markup began with the Chairman stating, in response to a 

Parliamentary Inquiry by Ranking Member Dingell, that he intended only to recognize himself and the Ranking Member for 

opening statements. 

While on occasion the Committee has adopted certain limitations 

on opening statements at hearings, for example to allow a witness 

to complete testimony in a timely fashion, we have no recollection 

of the denial of opening statements at a markup, where Members 

were seeking recognition. While there no House Rule on the subject 

of opening statements, there is a Committee Rule. That rule 4(e) 

states in part: 

13 

Opening statements by members at the beginning of any 

hearing or markup of the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the 

chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective designee) of the Committee or subcommittee, as applicable, and 3 minutes each for all other members. 

The Chairman stated that the rule was not a right of members 

to give an opening statement, but only a limitation on time. Staff 

discussions with the Parliamentarians earlier this year indicated 

that while the rule does not explicitly guarantee a right, its implementation must be determined by looking at precedent. 

The precedent could not be clearer. At the organizational meeting 

of our Committee on January 29, 2003, Former Chairman Tauzin 

discussed the possibility of amending the rules to provide Members 

an incentive to forego an opening statement in return for additional 

questioning. He noted an interest in possibly limiting opening 

statements, adding: 

‘‘I recognize the imperative of not diminishing members’ 

rights.’’ He went on to say that under the existing rules of 

the Committee at that time, ‘‘the Chairman and the Ranking Member are entitled to 5 minute opening statements. 

All of the members are entitled to 3 minutes.’’ (emphasis 

added) (transcript, page 22) 

On February 12, 2003, the Committee adopted an amendment to 

the rule, which allowed Members to waive an opening statement 

and receive an additional 3 minutes for questioning the first panel. 

In describing the interpretation of the amended rule, Chairman 

Tauzin said the following: 

If you want to give an opening statement, that is your 

right. No one is going to take it away from you. (transcript, 

page 12) 

Yet at the markup, Chairman Barton refused to agree to Chairman Tauzin’s interpretation of the Committee rule, instead saying 

the committee rule provided no right, just a limitation on time. 

The issue also came up at a full Committee hearing on April 1, 

2004, with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. At the beginning 

of the hearing, Chairman Barton confirmed the interpretation of 

former Chairman Tauzin when he stated: 

I was led to believe until last week that we actually had 

a rule that said all members of the committee had a right 

to give a specified opening statement. 

He later contended that the Parliamentarian had provided an 

opinion that the rule did not provide a right. That discussion apparently occurred in the absence of Minority representation. The 

Parliamentarians subsequently confirmed to Minority staff that in 

discussions with the Majority, they had not been provided with any 

of the legislative history described above. They noted that the 

precedents of the Committee should carry great weight in interpreting rules. 

It should be noted that the entire discussion of opening statements and concerns over the time spent on them were all in the 

14 

context of hearings. At no point was there any debate over the 

amount of time spent on opening statements at markups. The 

amendment to the rule, providing an incentive to forego an opening 

statement, applied solely to hearings, as it allowed the time to be 

used for questioning witnesses. 

In this case, the precedents of the Committee were ignored and 

the rights of Members were abused. Unlike the shared concerns 

that opening statements can often subject witnesses and Members 

to long waits before testimony begins, the decision in this case to 

deny opening statements was based upon a simple political interest. Our Republican colleagues did not want to allow us to speak. 

Unanimous consent requests by Democratic members were objected 

to by Republican members. For example, a unanimous consent request to allow each side to debate the resolution for one hour per 

side by Representative DeGette was objected to by Representative 

Issa. A unanimous consent request by Representative Waxman to 

allow 15 minutes of debate per side was objected to by Representative Radanovich. 

The silencing of debate was followed by an extraordinary decision 

to prohibit debate upon the resolution or amendments to the resolution. At the beginning of the debate, the Chairman recognized 

Representative Hall, who proceeded to debate the matter, and then 

moved the previous question to cut off further debate. During parliamentary inquiries, the Chairman stated that Representative 

Hall had been recognized to strike the last word, although he also 

was recognized for purposes of moving the previous question. Had 

Rep. Hall been recognized for purposes of moving the previous 

question, his debate would not have been in order. Had he been 

recognized to strike the last word, he was apparently recognized a 

second time to move the previous question. In essence, only one 

Member, a Republican, was recognized to debate the resolution. 

It should be noted that there were no time constraints on Members at the markup. The markup began at 10:00 a.m. and there 

was plenty of time available for debate. In both cases, denying 

opening statements and denying debate, the purpose clearly was an 

attempt to muzzle Minority members of the Committee from raising issues that were apparently uncomfortable for our Republican 

colleagues. The process followed at the markup was unquestionably 

the most abusive use of the rules we have seen in this Committee 

in our memory. We intend to continue to vigorously protest these 

Republican tactics designed to obstruct our right to debate matters 

of public importance. And more importantly, we intend to fight to 

allow the American public the right to hear these matters debated 

in public. 

JOHN D. DINGELL. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

RICK BOUCHER. 

E. TOWNS. 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr. 

SHERROD BROWN. 

BART GORDON. 

PETER DEUTSCH. 

BOBBY L. RUSH. 

15 

ANNA ESHOO. BART STUPAK. ELIOT L. ENGEL. ALBERT R. WYNN. GENE GREEN. KAREN MCCARTHY. TED STRICKLAND. DIANA DEGETTE. LOIS CAPPS. MIKE DOYLE. CHRIS JOHN. TOM ALLEN. 

JIM DAVIS. 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY. 

HILDA L. SOLIS. 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ. 

Æ