To repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels.
Other Bill Titles (1 more) 3/31/2008--Introduced.
Amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to repeal provisions prohibiting any federal agency from entering into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless ... moreSee Full Bill Text
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Bill Status
| Introduced | ![]() | Voted on by House | ![]() | Voted on by Senate | ![]() | Considered By President | ![]() | Bill Becomes Law |
| March 31, 2008 |
Users tracking H.R.5656 (1) are also tracking:
| People | Bills | Issues |
|---|---|---|
In the News
April 06, 2008 Air Force to look into alternate fuel sources
With HR 5656, the congressmen are saying they don’t care how much greenhouse gas emissions are produced, and that they’re no cause for concern, Werner said. ...
Blog Coverage
August 14, 2008 Calling for Immediate Action on Energy
... the floor of the US House of Representatives to demand Speaker Nancy Pelosi call Congress back from its five-week paid vacation so we can vote on the âAmerican Energy Actâ (HR 5656) and begin to make America more energy independent. ...
July 16, 2008 Ol Security
Blackburn supports a one-sentence bill (HR 5656) that would delete the prohibition from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The deletion would allow the US Air Force to contract for alternative fuels at a time when the . ...
Source: Ol Security
July 14, 2008 Morning Coffee 07/14/08
Blackburn supports a one-sentence bill (HR 5656) that would delete the prohibition from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The deletion would allow the US Air Force to contract for alternative fuels at a time when the ...
Source: An Ol' Broad's Ramblings








Rating Filter: 5
(Close help)
Comments
(Close help)
"Amends" "to repeal" "prohibiting" "from entering" "for procurement".... WHAT is ALL that Garbarge??
I apologize English Scholars for this entry, but I don't get it. To me that is like saying, "..we are, aren't , are, aren't, can't, might..." I WANT to understand, but I am afraid if I pick one way or the other I will pick wrong. Are a lot of these bills written to purposely be confusing and thus interpreted however the richest prosecutor who hires the best lawyer says they are worded?
Add A Comment