PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 21, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on July 14, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to: (1) conduct a five-year program of natural gas vehicle research, development, and demonstration; (2) coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding such program; (3) coordinate with the natural gas vehicle industry to ensure cooperation between the public and the private sector; and (4) report to Congress on implementing such program.
Includes among program objectives: (1) the continued improvement and development of new, cleaner, more efficient light-, medium-, and heavy-duty natural gas vehicle engines for onroad and offroad applications; (2) the development and improvement of nationally recognized standards for the safe operation of natural gas vehicles and their components; (3) improvement in the reliability and efficiency of, and certification of, natural gas fueling station infrastructure; (4) the improvement of existing natural gas fuel storage systems and the development of new storage materials; and (5) the use of natural gas engines in hybrid vehicles. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Sullivan, John [R-OK-1] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 - 35 (Roll no. 598). (text: CR 7/20/2009 H8364-8365)
House roll call 598 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 - 35 (Roll no. 598).(text: CR 7/20/2009 H8364-8365)
House roll call 598 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8446-8447)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1622.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8364-8367)
Mr. Lujan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 112.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-206.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-206.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1622 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1622 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1622 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1622 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.