[House Report 108-697]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



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

                          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 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.


                      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.

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 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.

                            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 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 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 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:

          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 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.
                                   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.

                                  
