« Pickens Plan Media Coverage 11.4.09
Fact of the Day - November 5, 2009 »

We’ve added 22 co-sponsors to the NAT GAS Act in the last two weeks!

Share

In the last two weeks we’ve added 22 co-sponsors to the NAT GAS Act, growing our total number of co-sponsors to 112!

Because of you, the NAT GAS Act (H.R. 1835) is gaining momentum and we’re adding new legislative co-sponsors everyday. But we’ve got to keep going.

We’re still working towards our goal of 120 co-sponsors by 11/20 and I know that together we can do it. Click here to email your Member of Congress and ask them to become a co-sponsor of the NAT GAS Act today.

Following is the full list of Members of Congress who are supporting H.R. 1835.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 6/19/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 6/8/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 11/3/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 6/8/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 4/27/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 6/16/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 9/8/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 9/15/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 5/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 5/21/2009
Rep Boccieri, John A. [OH-16] - 10/29/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 7/31/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 5/21/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bright, Bobby [AL-2] - 7/28/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 6/4/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 4/1/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 5/21/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 5/7/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 6/4/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 10/29/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/10/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 5/21/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 10/29/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 9/15/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 4/28/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 4/1/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 10/29/2009
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 6/2/2009
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 6/19/2009
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 7/7/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 5/21/2009
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 6/10/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 9/8/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 4/22/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 5/7/2009
Rep Foster, Bill [IL-14] - 4/27/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 5/5/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 5/21/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 5/21/2009
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 5/21/2009
Rep Griffith, Parker [AL-5] - 10/29/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 5/5/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 11/3/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 7/14/2009
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 9/22/2009
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 9/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 7/8/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/8/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 4/1/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 10/29/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 4/21/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 9/22/2009
Rep Kirkpatrick, Ann [AZ-1] - 10/8/2009
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] - 7/7/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] - 6/24/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 5/5/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - 10/20/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 10/29/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 10/27/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 4/21/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] - 4/1/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 5/5/2009
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 7/15/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/30/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 6/2/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 4/23/2009
Rep McMahon, Michael E. [NY-13] - 4/1/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 10/26/2009
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 6/16/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 10/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 10/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 7/21/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 6/2/2009
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 5/5/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 9/10/2009
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 4/21/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 6/10/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 4/27/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 6/2/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 5/21/2009
Rep Pomeroy, Earl [ND] - 10/29/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/5/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 6/12/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 10/6/2009
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 6/2/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 9/8/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 10/29/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 11/3/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 11/3/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 4/21/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 10/21/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 6/2/2009
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 10/29/2009
Rep Teague, Harry [NM-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 6/12/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 10/29/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 10/27/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 10/14/2009

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm by TeamPickens in Pickens Plan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Comments14 Responses to “We’ve added 22 co-sponsors to the NAT GAS Act in the last two weeks!”

November 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Michael Mercer


Why are there no democratic cosponsors? I thought this was a bi-partisan effort.. I hate politics.... Anyways, I received a response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that seemed promising: Dear Friend: Thank you for contacting me regarding natural gas. I welcome your thoughts and comments. Natural gas is a valuable domestic asset that is abundant and cost-effective, and the cleanest-burning fossil-fuel available. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) holds undiscovered recoverable reserves of 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. With the United States currently consuming natural gas at a rate of roughly 23 trillion cubic feet per year, there is a 20-year supply of domestic natural gas off American shores. Not only will expanded OCS development move us closer to energy independence, it will strengthen our economy and create stable, well-paying jobs. A December 2008 study conducted by economists and the American Petroleum Institute (API) indicates the potentially broad economic impacts from leveraging these available resources. The study projects that in the year 2030 alone, OCS production would result in more than $8 billion in private sector economic output. It would add nearly 40,000 jobs and $2.3 billion in income for American workers. The benefits of the OCS are clear; now, we must take decisive steps to develop this valuable source of domestic oil and natural gas. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you. Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison United States Senator 284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-5922 (tel) 202-224-0776 (fax) http://hutchison.senate.gov PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as it is not a valid e-mail address. Due to the tremendous volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm . If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the Senator's website at http://hutchison.senate.gov . You will find articles, floor statements, and press releases, along with her weekly column and monthly television show on current events. You can also sign up to receive Senator Hutchison's weekly e-newsletter. Thank you.

November 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Brandy Watson


Michael, Rep stands for Representative, not Republican. :) At a quick glance, I see Chet Edwards who is a Democrat from Waco, Texas. Certainly he's not the only one.

November 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

David Mauz


Michael; The Rep. before the sponsors name stand for Representative not Republican. There seems to be quite a number of Democrats co-sponsoring.

November 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Evelyne


What does the number behind the state abbreviation stand for?

November 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Carlton Houston


The number is the congressional district, right?

November 4th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Ronald L. Jennings


Yes Michael Rep did not mean Rep. You must be a Dem or you would have known that. In fact Oregon is all Dem. in Congressmen, Senate and Gov. thats part of the problem as Oregon is one of the highest in unemployment. One thing that needs to be done in this country is to recongnize the independent party. Oregon is one of eight states that does not and as an Independent I cannot vote in the primaries. There is need of a third party as many are independents and have to run as a Rep or Dem. Also it is time for the President to go all out in drilling for Nat. Gas. so we can pull away from the mid-east. I remember when we went into Iraq we were to be paid back in Oil so when is the President going to ask for it. we saved that country from being run over by Syria and Iran so now its pay back time in some free Oil.

November 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Aaron Allen [Air'n Al'ln]


How about 'heading' list of 'Reps' with 'House Members' and 'Senators' for the 'other body'? The previous 'title' 'Rep' cud be replaced with Party-State-District [eg, D-XX-23]...Now, pls browse: HHO gas generators for gas and diesel vehicles [Read ALL references carefully]... ALL folks who DON'T need to drive over 25 miles a day shud use an electric vehicle... ALL diesel cars-n-trucks SHUD convert to Compressed Natural Gas [CNG] as Boone urges... ALL auxillary generators [Aux. Power Units] and petro-heaters on vehicles SHUD be CNG with HHO-added!..Adios, OPEC!.. Aaron Allen...

November 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Robert Thayer


It might be more useful to considered a program that converts these defunct auto dealers around the country, all 12,000 of them, to multi-fuel distribution facilities. Such facilities could become storage and upgrade centers for NG, hydrogen fuel cell, electrical, and ethanol over the next 30 years. there is at this time virtually no universal energy distribution network in the USA, only gasoline facilities that are not remotely suitable for control of multi-fuels. These congressional processes should include localized support for ALL energy forms along with NG, not your easiest storage container if they service ten thousand people. Of course there is no profit or jobs involved in such a facility now, only gas related fuels. But which comes first, the availability of energy or its distribution network?

November 4th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Daniel Burger


This bill and all the effort behind it will be meaningless if the EPA is not forced, ordered or otherwise pushed aside. The EPA will stall and or totally stop this effort in order to perpetuate its existence.

November 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Daniel Burger


Addendum to my previous post. The EPA's stance will not dissuade me from contacting every Congressman and Senator that I can, but it does remain a problem. Everything has a point of begining.

November 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am

Truett Biggs


Robert Thayer's idea of using the out of business automobile dealers as fueling depots for alternative energy is a good one. The times we live in call out for more constructive solutions of that type.

November 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am

Roger Boyd


I'm pleased that HR1835 is not a partison issue. In these highly charged times, it's a comfortable feeling to witness the apparent cooperation developing between competing political parties. Thank you Dan Lungren, CA-3, for supporting this climate change/global warming legislation as your first act in your newly elected office. Roger Boyd, CA-50

November 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

JERRY COLBURN


Nobody wants to hear this, but the great opportunity took the wrong form -- the "Cash for Clunkers" appropriations. The money went only to a limited number of Americans who could afford to buy new cars, and to the limited number of large companies that produce them, with most of the cash ultimately taking a trip to the Orient. Local dealers got a cut, but not a big one. Much more wisely, the money should have gone for conversion of existing vehicles from gasoline to natural gas. Almost every car owner, even the unemployed, could have participated in this, especially if the incentive took the form of free money, as with the "Cash for Clunkers." Even better, the program would have created jobs all over the United States, as auto repair businesses hired new workers to carry out conversions on a massive scale, while gas stations hired for the conversions on their end. Instead of the Orient, the money would have stayed on Main Street in every American small-town. Why did the Pickens Plan let the opportunity slip by? Congress should amend HR 1835 accordingly.

November 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Kristina Newby


To my knowledge, Picken's plan does not actually recommend natural gas vehicles for the consumer. I see my representative on that list and couldn't be more pleased with Rep. Thaddeus McCotter.

Leave a Reply

Sign Up

First Name
Last Name
EmailZip
25425 Followers