June 29th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Should House have passed climate change bill?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

House Minority Leader John Boehner calls the climate change bill a "pile of manure." Only he used the other word for it.

The Democrats released a 300-page amendment to this 1,200-plus page bill at three a.m. on Friday - just hours before the chamber would vote - and before the July 4 recess. Much like the economic stimulus bill, it seems nearly impossible that members even had the chance to read it. The bill passed by a narrow margin - with virtually no Republican support.

The measure would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17-percent by 2020 and 83-percent by 2050 through the so-called "cap and trade" program where companies would buy and sell emissions credits. It would also force utilities to make more power from renewable sources.

Democrats hail the bill as transformational legislation; but it faces an unclear fate in the Senate where majority leader Harry Reid says they will take it up in the fall.

Opponents say some industries will just move jobs overseas to countries that don't control greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans insist the bill amounts to the largest tax increase in U.S. history... saying it will tax anyone who drives a car, flips on a light switch, etc. But Pres. Obama insists it will cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp every day.

Here’s my question to you: Should the House have passed a 1,200 page climate change bill amended only hours before it was voted on?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Robert from New York writes:
During the campaign, President Obama committed to letting the American people view all legislation online for several days before a vote. Apparently the representatives voting on the bill don't even have the opportunity. I support climate legislation, but I also deserve the right to see what is in the bill so I can contact my representative if I oppose any of the funny business that usually gets sneaked in. More change we can believe in.

Edith from Tennessee writes:
No, it didn't take long for things to go back to business as usual - except now it's the Democrats screwing us.

Robert writes:
There should have been more time to read the bill, no question there. But relative to the issue of climate control, we must do something now. It is not going to get better or easier. So we have to bite the bullet for our future and the future of our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

P. writes:
Yes, the bill should be passed. Why are we all acting like all members of Congress read the zillions of pages presented before them? That is for the technicalities. They all know the few main provisions of the bills. My question is: Did Boehner ever read anything while Bush was president?

Scott writes:
No they shouldn't have passed the bill. The bill is nothing but a Nancy Pelosi special and should've been voted down. The fact that 300 pages were added to the bill just hours before the vote shows how fast the Democrats were trying to push this thing through. I'm very surprised that many Democrats in coal-producing states voted for this piece of crap.

M. writes:
Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who said "There's a sucker born every minute?" This is a massive tax hike disguised as a "feel good" environmental bill. Want zero emissions? Build nuclear plants, and move on.

Len writes:
Not to worry, Jack, I'm sure that they all had lobbyists that read the bill for them. I miss my country.

Filed under: Congress
soundoff (198 Responses)
  1. Will from San Jose

    The House should have passed a climate change bill, but not this way. We've had years to come up with good solutions to improve our defense by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. At the same time strengthening our economy by setting up American companies at the forefront of the upcoming energy revolution. Instead of thoughtful researched progress we get a hastily slapped together bill. A recipe for waste and pork barrel spending.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  2. Dominic Gardunio

    Jack, it is time for the House to passed climate change bill. So the next americans doesn't have to deal with this issue.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  3. boxer girl in iowa

    Jack, i got to say that i am worried and so confused about this bill that I wrote an e-mail to the president on the day just before it passed. I told him I was worried about how this would affect my family and that Iowa was very cold in the winter living in a tent. I am still waiting for a reply..

    June 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  4. Robert Pergament, New York

    During the campaign, President Obama committed to letting the American people view all legislation online for 48 hours before a vote. Apparently the representatives voting on the bill don't even have the opportunity. I support climate legislation, but I also deserve the right to see what is in the bill so I can contact my representative if I oppose any of the funny business that usually gets sneaked in. More change we can believe in.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  5. Robert Yates

    There should have been more time to read the bill–no question there. But relative to the issue of climate control, we must do something NOW.
    It is not going to get Better or Easier. So we have to bite the bullet for our future and the future of our children, grand-children and generations to come. We American want the right thing but at No cost. It doesn't work that way. And our taxes are nothing compared to most of the world.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  6. Conor in Chicago

    No. You can't expect people to vote on things they didn't read. This isn't what I voted for Mr. Obama. I voted for you because I was afraid of Pain-not because I believed in you. New boss same as the old.

    Time for a 3rd party America-I've had enough of this.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  7. Mike From Maryland


    Don't worry I am sure someone will provide our represenatives with the Cliff Notes.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  8. Dr. Sanford Aranoff


    June 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  9. Alex in Seattle

    Unfortunately, the last minute amendment reminds me of GOP legislative dirty tricks. I dread to know what goodies for friends and interest groups are hidden there. So, no Jack, they should not have compromised open and honest government by releasing an amendment at 3 in the morning. By the way, how did they get a quorum at that hour?

    June 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  10. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    They probably shouldn't have. It would be nice to see our representatives work together for the common good of all Americans, instead of working for their own political points of view. All incumbents must go!

    June 29, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  11. Todd

    I don't think our legislators should pass any bill that they don't read and understand.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  12. Ben from Boston


    The rule should be 1 day of hearings and debate for every 10 pages in the bill – the same for amendments offered by the authoring party. What happened to transparency? What happened to fairness? They may be inconvenient in these euphoric days of crisis, but lets get it right while we are getting it done. And lets do the people's business in the open, for a change we can believe in.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  13. Failed smell test

    Boehner was being too nice.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  14. carol

    We have to do something so considering how business in done in Washington, at least they passed it. I truly love it that no Republican supported it. As a Democrat who is tired of self-serving, in the pocket of lobbyists, Republicans, thrills me as they are all signing their getting kicked out of office cards!

    June 29, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  15. George

    Unless you want to stay mired in an energy shortfall for the public, and a policy that limits energy companies from gouging its customers, then we need to change our ways on the energy issue. Just the fact that John Boehner doesn't like the bill makes me love it, and when he is talking about cow manure he should check his own dribble.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  16. steve in York

    If you need to rush something as important as this through the legislative process, it probably isn't very good. I guess this is what passes for change with our new leadership, do as much as you can quickly before anyone finds out what happened – No, wait a minute, that's what we had before. It's "good" to see things haven't changed too much.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  17. Bev - NYC

    Yes the bill should pass. Or we could do nothing & see our air rivers, and oceans polluted more. So sick of House and Senate finding ways not to do anything. The needs of the people who vote get considered only during election year, time to thro the bums out.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  18. susie

    They should be required to read the bills first before voting on them.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  19. Ray in Nashville

    Jack, we have been discussing our energy needs for the past 40 years and have done nothing about it. We have to do this now while we have a president in office who recognizes the emerging crisis because, if a Republican wins in 2012, you can bet any kind of alternative energy program will be scrapped and oil companies will rule this country again.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  20. Jeff C in CT

    Never happened!!

    What happened to global Warming Jack??? It's good to see you adhere to the political talking points of the Utopian Marxists!!

    This whole bit of fear mongering is simply a move to control the masses and produce the desired communist affect!!

    Jeff in New Britain, CT

    June 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  21. Joe - Chicago, IL

    The Bill is far from ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  22. Evelyn

    YES! It's about time. We need to take action to leave a better world to our children, grandchildren, and so on. Our purpose here is to make things better here on planet earth and this is a step in that direction.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  23. Tara Pike in Las Vegas

    Simple – yes. We have to start dealing with this issue. We have to move toward renewable sources of energy. We need to lead the world in clean energy technology. The US needs to lead by example and I applaud the representatives that made the difficult "yes" vote.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  24. Anne -- Sulphur, LA

    While I don't agree with adding large amendments to crucial legislation only hours before a vote, I do feel that we have needed to pass similar legislation for a long time. Maybe companies like GM should consider re-tooling plants to make parts for wind and water generators. This would help keep people working and contribute to the growth of clean energy.

    June 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  25. Matt, Canoga Park CA

    Absolutely not. The only "Jobs" this bill will create are for the bureaucrats to run this scam. What does a Carbon Credit look like Jack? I keep picturing a Chuck E Cheese game token. John Boehner called this one correctly. The only benifit is the democrats that voted for this will be out of work when the 2010 election rolls around.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  26. harendra

    And we voters should defeat those democrats who voted NO for this bill in next 2010 election.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  27. steve in florida

    Yes. And I believe that the last minute amendment issue is a strawman. I'm 56 years old and have been hearing about the last minute change issue as long as I can remember, and it invariably comes from the losing side. If you can't beat 'em, bite their ankles.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  28. John in Virginia

    Gimme a break, Jack – here's another example of the Democrats ramming through a bill that nobody has thoroughly read, let alone analyzed, and that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, lost jobs and markets to overseas competitors and will make us more, not less, dependent on foreign energy. And to top it off, it's fueled by a the myth of global warming, which was recently refuted in a study done by a respected 30-year veteran of the EPA. The EPA opted to bury the report because it contradicted the policies the Obama Administration is pushing. This is change we can believe in? Sounds (once again) like good ol' Chicagoland power politics.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  29. Irv Lilley

    Hi Jack, Probably not. But that is no worse than some of the closed door, middle of the night antics t he Republkcans pulled

    June 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  30. Steve

    No , this thing stinks there is so much special interest in this its stinks,they had to give away the house to get the votes they got

    June 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  31. Catty

    Clear and simple NO!!

    I wouldn't put it past any greasy politicians to have stuck more executive bonus provisions in there granting more money to people who don't deserve it. And who would be there to stop it if no one read it???

    June 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  32. Anthony Reid

    No they should not have. is it too much to expect our elected reps to at least read legislation before voting? Sounds like derilication of duty.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  33. Bob - Pittsburgh

    I think there are way too many representatives that are too willing to vote on a bill because a few in their party's leadership that say it's the thing to do. Doing something in haste because they think that doing something is better than doing nothing is the wrong approach. I often wonder if it's just laziness or their inability to understand the language used in a bill.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  34. annie against biased news

    This bill should not have been passed under any circumstances! It is the largest tax increase in the history of the USA. It will all but destroy the average American taxpayer. BUT NO BILL should be passed without an appropriate time to read and study it. If memory serves me correctly, all house seat are up for election 2010. I can assure you there will be plenty of surprises.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  35. John Murphy

    The US is the largest per capita producer emitter of carbon dioxide and decades behind the rest of the world in CO2 control, so, yes, the US has to take immediate steps to jst keep up.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  36. John, Fort Collins,CO

    President Obama and the Democrats in congress are guilty of trying to run the 100 yard dash and perform open heart surgery on the country at the same time. It is one thing to rush an emergency economic stimulus bill through without reading it, but they need to slow down and understand this one and others that are not in the "emergency" category. For the first time in eight years I agree with the Republicans.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  37. TJ

    Jack, they did the same thing with the stimulus bill and you see how well that worked out, right??? Maybe America would wake up if Ryan Seacrest was explaining how bad this was instead of John Boener...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  38. Anthony....Swedesboro, NJ

    Why not if New York City doesn't want to be a shoal of New York State. It's time we took global warming seriously and use our unprecendented technology to reverse it.
    As one of the major proliferaters of this man-made catastrophy, we owe it to the world to be at the forefront with our unrivaled innovation. What could be a more perfect solution than saving the earth and creating thousands of jobs by the most advanced country on earth?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  39. Ben in Maryland

    Jack. We all know that in most cases, Congress votes on bills from a political perspective, nothing else. If a bill was presented to declare that the world is flat, it would pass if enough Congressmen thought it would help them get re-elected or raise money. So whether or not this bill would actually reduce emissions as forecast becomes almost irrelevant. Republicans, by and large, either do not believe in global warming, or they believe that it is not caused by human behavior, or they do not care, because they expect to be long gone by the time the ultimate effects are felt. I suspect the latter. So the length of the bill and its content and knowledge thereof make little difference in the voting patterns of our esteemed Congressmen. Oh yeah. Here's a mathematical equation for you. Congressman = hypocrite.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  40. Bob - Pittsburgh

    Although it may be unintended, this bill could produce more dreaded carbon in the air than what is currently there. Because it will drive energy prices higher, more people will turn to wood burning stoves to ease the pain. Fewer trees, more less efficient burning, more carbon.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  41. Katiec Pekin, IL

    What difference would it have made. The republicans would have voted against it and complained regardless.
    The party of big business first would never support anything that might make them clean up their acts. They ignore and deny global warming because it would be detrimental to their campaign supporters.
    Our country needs to be a leader in resolving global warming.
    And, as some of the biggest polluters we need to show our
    sincerity in doing so.
    We needed this passed for the future survival of our country.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  42. Jeff , Douglass, KS

    As much as I like theidea of finally getting some energy legislation out of the useless bunch of roadblocks we call Congress, the last minute amendment crap is a load of bull. We hope that our representatives are voting after sound deliberations don't we?
    Hell, we should just fire the lot of them. They don't represent "we the people", anyway.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  43. Greg Mechanicsburg, PA

    Yes indeed, but we cannot stop there. It is true that American companies may move their operations to overseas local that have no ecological conscience. We must level the playing field not just to keep American businesses here, but to keep tomorrow safe for humanity. Corporate greed has no more conscience than Bernie Madoff.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  44. Kerry Diehl

    NO! …Not without having once again read and understood the bill in its entirety! , This is an exact repeat of the stimulus bill and look what that is costing us, not to mention the yet untold built in corruption and campaign paybacks involved.

    More importantly, there is now evidence of a major cover-up by the EPA and the Obama administration of key reports by EPA analyst Alan Carlin denouncing the “Global Warming” crisis. This latest news, if properly brought to light may be bigger than the Watergate Scandal of years past.

    In view of this purposely silenced report for the shear gain of political tax gains it is obvious the Cap & Trade Bill is nothing more than a major tax revenue source with key political supporting companies ready to gain billions as their reward!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  45. John


    This bill had to be passed while President Obama still has the support of the nation and Congress. The bill enforces clean environmental regulations and should provide green jobs to the United States. Global warming is a real threat and must be acted on now, not years down the road. President Obama has succeeded where George W. Bush failed.

    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    June 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  46. Stanley Trott

    No, they should have waited until the ozone layer has been burned away from the planet, grass and plants have died, when you can only go outside with SPF3000 on.

    That is the ONLY time Repubs will vote on Cap and Trade provisions... and then they will blame the Democrats for that as well.

    Kettle, meet pot!!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  47. The Broker.

    Yes! to both times. You can't change the climate, it changes you...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  48. Jon Walters


    Maybe not the greatest process, but it's time to get on with meaningful legislation on climate change.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  49. Randall london england

    no not at all jack very interesting how it went down

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  50. Charmaine

    Patriot Act was handed out right before the vote and it was hundreds of pages deep containing breaks from constitutional rights. Looks like Congress is just following example set by the republicans.

    Don't know what is in the changes, so I can't say yes or no.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  51. Mari, Salt Lake City, Utah

    YES! The fact the House did not means they are COWARDS!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  52. Sam Mendelson

    Yes...they should have passed it! This is a common practice in our government and you shouldn't act so shocked that an ammendment was added at the last minute. This scheme has been used by both democratic and republican congresses (and to be frank...and don't think anyone reads ALL of a bill)...

    -Sam, Chicago

    June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  53. Pam

    NO!! Just another example of the LOSERS that are in office!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  54. Laurie in Virginia

    Sometimes I think elected officials should have to pass a test on it before they pass a Bill.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  55. Ian

    Absolutely not. How can the future of our country be dictated by a piece of legislature with little oversight sold on the promise of today's "topic words" – renewable energy, greenhouse gasses, etc. Just because part of the 1200 page bill may reduce greenhouse gasses by 17% in 10 years does not mean it is sound legislature.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  56. Janice from Collingswood NJ

    I actively lobbied my Republican representative to vote for this bill and he did. How dense do you have to be to know that something has to be done in this area? Can't you see the effects of climate change now? Sure, I hate to see amendments attached at the last minute. I think it is underhanded but we can just hope that the Senate or Joint committee weeds out the bad stuff. I keep track of who presents these last minute amendments and I plan to work hard to get them out of office.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  57. Carl Heinrich

    Most of the energy bill passed by Congress already exists in California. Whats the big dea?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  58. Michael Miles

    It was wrong of the Democrats to amend a bill and pass it in such a fashion, however, it is the exact same tactics that Republicans used many times in passing legislation while they were in control of Congress. It is things like this that make Democrats sound hollow whenever they talk about the "politics of change." To bemoan Republicans doing the same thing for years and to turn around and do it yourself just makes them hypocrites.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  59. GM from Mankato MN

    Should the House have passed a 1,200 page climate change bill amended only hours before it was voted on?


    In my view no.......but that is asking our representatives to do some actually work.

    They prefer cliff notes.

    I support a bill that helps push us towards a greener environment, however I dislike seeing our reps just throwing together bills.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  60. Scott

    No they shouldn't have passed the bill. The bill is nothing but a Nancy Pelosi special and should've been voted down. The fact that 300 pages were added to the bill just hours before the vote shows how fast the Democrats were trying to push this thing through. I'm very surprised that many Democrats in coal-producing states voted for this piece of crap.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  61. Edith, TN

    NO....it didn't take long for things to go back to business as usual...except its the Democrats now screwing us...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  62. Patrick, Austin, TX

    Of course they should not have done it. The politicians love playing their little power play games without thinking about the consequences for their decisions. Until we stop electing these people to office, we are only getting what we deserve.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  63. Brenda

    No, they should not have passed it until it was at least read (by our politicians) and what happened to transparency? I thought the public would have five days to view any new legislation prior to being voted on. We're having to work hard out here to find out what is going on. What is the RUSH??

    June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  64. Teri

    The passing of this bill again goes to show what idiots we have in government. How can you vote on something that you have not even read? It is time for the people to voice their opinion and get these people out of government.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  65. wake-me-when-its-over

    Thank all of you who voted yes, for saving us from the
    pollution creature from the dark lagoon. I can breathe easy now.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  66. Brian Washington State

    I don't care if a bill is a tax cut, or even a bill to give me $1,000,000. If the representatives don't have time to read through it it should not be voted on.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  67. Martin Powers

    There is no way this bill should have come up for a vote with 300 pages of amendments. The Democrats have lost all sense of appropriatness when it comes to the legislative process. I am thououghly dissapointed with most of the members of congress. I don't know what the electorate thinks about as they re-elect these bozoos !!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  68. patriot

    Yes the bill should be passed. Why are we all acting like all congresspeople read the zillions of pages presented before them? That is for the technicalities. They all know the few main provisions of the bills. My question is : Has Boehner ever read anything while Bush was president? It is one thing being true to the people of America and it is another thing being a simple anti-America. This bill will pass the Senate. It is high time the US aligned with the rest of the world. We are tired of politics.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  69. David from Idaho

    I love all this griping... Like our Reps. ever read this stuff anyway. If anything too heinous was slipped in it will be removed in the Senate Bill and then a joint committee will hammer it out.
    Democracy works and it works slow.
    Calm down people!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  70. DC


    I think Mr. Obama is doing a fine job trying to clean up a mess that Mr. Bush made.. You been on him since election time and still on him... You got 3 more years to do this...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  71. Mitzie - Georgia

    There will not ever be Republican support for A) a climate change bill, B) a bill put forth by congressional Democrats, and C) any bill with Obama's support. Despite that knowledge I do have to express dismay that so many Democrat sponsored bills are run through Congress without time to read, much less debate. I guess the "party of no" is feeling the same pain that the Democrats faced during the 1st Bush term.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  72. John Portolano

    The members of the House should have warmed up by reading War and Peace the night before, after that reading the bill would have been a piece of cake.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  73. Sergio P.

    Yes! The house should have passed a climate change bill because even though fuel efficiency is improving, there will always be a retrograde effect thus resulting in the same situations over and over again.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  74. Damon in Salisbury, NC

    Jack, Just last week people on the left like Bill Maher were complaining that Obama should be more Bush-like. If they don't want to join you then ram it down their throat. Looks like somebody got the message.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  75. Scott Stodden

    Jack I have to agree with you on this one, my answer is simply no. It is wrong to be passing bills only hours after it was ammended and if there's no Republican support you know there's a problem, sounds like when they passed the stimulus bill, passing bills with no Republican votes is not democracy its radical.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, IL)

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  76. Marty Weber

    Noone had read the bill.
    The House of Palosi is out of control

    is under Palosi's control.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  77. Bob - Pittsburgh

    I'm sory for my third post but this bill really irks me.
    I know several elderly folks that exist on Social Security. They live in older homes, that aren't well insulated and have older furnaces. They don't have the money to dix up their homes now because they have to budget $600 a month for cold weather heat. Someone needs to stop and think, that silly $300 rebate won't put a dent in their pain.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  78. Robert Sailing - Helen Handbasket, AK

    No, everyone (liberal & conservative) that voted for this bill should be replaced when they are up for election again.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  79. Ken in NC

    Let me see if I can get this right. NOOOOOOOooooooooo. HINT Taken.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  80. Wiley Alliston

    The House should have turned this bill down cold, just on the basis that they didn't have time to review it. Even the 1,200 page "tome" was released to late for a serious review. That isn't lawmaking – it's gamesmanship, and it's wrong whether you're democrat or republican.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  81. Annie, Atlanta

    Congress should have passed a climate change bill years ago, actually. At least this is a step in the right direction, no matter how it was passed, or how insufficient. If companies want to throw hissy fits and take their jobs overseas, penalize them.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  82. Gary H. Boyd

    Jack - With America's convoluted political system it is completely understandable that bills be added at the last minute and in the dark of night to legislation soon to be voted on. That you would find this surprising, surprises me.
    Gary H. Boyd, Scottsdale, Arizona

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  83. Josh, MI

    Jack, the answer is yes. Your point, that the Democrats used less than transparent means to get the bill passed, is definitely valid. However, I, and I think most citizens of the world– including a majority of Americans– would rather lose a million American jobs than lose the future of our planet and our species. This is a drastic and necessary move for our planet and a depressing and eye-opening view of the sterility of our federal government to create laws that can change the status quo.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  84. Linda

    I don't understand voting on something you have not read. This is how we fund billions of dollars for spending that does nothing. When time get tough we are asked about cutting social security when what needs to be cut is ignorant spending for projects the country doesn't need or that have not been fully assessed. Shame on anyone who voted for this just because it is time for vacation.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  85. jane

    I am absolutely disgusted with our government. i would expect this type of behavior and tactics from a third world (or is "developing" world the new PC term?) authoritarian regime. regardless of what all the celebrities in hollywood think, the jury is still out on Global Warming. there are hundreds of renowned scientists who disagree on the levels of it and the causes. to put such a huge break on our economy at this critical point in time is sheer madness. especially since the US would be the only country in the world doing it. China and India well surpass the US' emissions and have no intentions of passing such laws. nor should they. i don't think people realize what a HUGE regressive tax this is on the entire population.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  86. Ann in Asheville, NC

    Gosh Jack, sorry to hear you say no, this comment only energizes people who want to be negative. The energy bill has a long way to go before it becomes law, including Senate action, then conference committee, then another vote on both sides. Plenty of time for negativity. Plenty of folks are involved with the details. Meanwhile, let's get on with some positive action towards doing right by our planet and needed changes in our energy policies and lifestyles. There's a lot to do, let's stay focused on action PLEASE.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  87. Jodie Knapton (ATL)

    The goals of the climate bill and the process by which it passed are two TOTALLY separate issues. Unfortunately, this hasty process of bloated bill construction and passage is standard operating procedure in Congress, by both Democrats AND Republicans. Gotta separate the questions, Jack. Yes on the basic idea of the climate bill, and NO on the passage procedure.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  88. SHARON: Anchorage, Alaska

    ABSOLUTELY NOT! The ability of Congress to destroy job growth, economy & national security; thru this bill, stimulus & other bills is quite breath taking. This is occurring through blatant ignorance and on the job irresponsibility within just a few months. Take note of well documented historical data; as unemployment will reach 15-20% across the nation, within the coming 12 months. The only reason we have had a slowing is due to summer jobs & construction; with fall 09 & winter 10 showing true job losses. Wait until we reach Spain's current 33%, France's current 24% or our last depression levels of 25-30% unemployment. This will lead to a 50-70% turnover of representatives & senators during 2010; due to their actions.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  89. Grace W

    Although I don't like the late night, last minute maneuverings of Congress, it is the only way things seem to get done. Otherwise, the line never moves, the parties pander and bills flounder or die slow deaths. I am happy to see progress in any way shape or form. Sometimes I wish Obama could just do what he needs to do and move on...But then that's not democracy with all it's flaws...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  90. Bonnie

    All of the global warming is a con job. Most intelligent folks know that the earth has been changing since the beginning of time. Even the large mammals that inhabited it millions of years ago put out a lot of green house gas. Please don't waste money, the earth will change anyway. Check its history.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  91. Drew Dyer

    How can you expect a person to vote in favor or against a bill that they have not had the time to read and comprehend, and then throw 300 more pages on top of it within hours of voting on it.

    I cannot wait till Pelosi and crew are filling out their resumes in 2010.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  92. Steve

    Absolutely not! What happened to transparency? It's absurd to think a 300 page amendment (25% increase) can reasonably be reviewed and debated 15 hours before a vote.

    This legislation will significantly harm Indiana's coal industry.

    New Haven IN

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  93. George

    From the comments, you would think Congress never before voted for a bill the members hadn't read. Happens more often than not.
    As for the volume, how many of you have seen a congressional bill? Maybe 100 words per page, maybe.

    Ideally, a legislator should read and know the contents of a bill. Sadly, the reality is, this isn't so.

    It's all about perspective.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  94. Saman Sedighian

    Global Warming is a global issue and it should be dealt with at a global level. this bill only weakens an already weak US economy. a wrong approach for a noble cause. NO.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  95. bill springfield

    boehner answer to everything is it is too costly. he never offers any solutions , just the same tired old rhetoric.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  96. Mark

    Yes they needed to pass that bill, if you have to change it to make it right than so be it. If it doesn't work then we know who to blame.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  97. John in Illinois

    Jack if the question is should they have passed the bill without reading it , then it would be no but my question is " can't they read and understand " any bill that is sent forth? I mean why are they there for ..

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  98. M.C. Osborne, Marietta, GA

    No bill should be passed without it being read as seems to be happening on a regular basis in DC. In my opinion, this bill is a complete scam and designed to line the pockets of the powerful, like Al "Owl" Gore. This is NOT A JOBS BILL and I believe companies will take their business overseas to avoid paying this ridiculous tax. This is nothing but a tax bill, pure and simple.

    What happened to the transparancy that was promised us by candidate Obama. It hasn't happened.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  99. Will North Carolina

    No Jack!
    As a Republican, I do not accept the science that there is global warming. What we need instead of that green stuff are more oil rigs, more drilling, more burning of that black coal, more nuclear waste, more Hummers, bigger cars with more horse power, more of our money sent to our friends over seas for their oil, more guns and family values (for the people not the leaders).

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  100. Jason, Minnesota

    Yes. Eventually we needed to take the first step..... It's always the hardest one but we did it and we are on our way to clean energy. If it is going to be so expensive to operate......find a cheaper more renewable way of creating energy.....that's the goal anyway.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  101. Susan (Midland, Michigan)

    The trouble with the bill is that it weakens the Clean Air Act and relies on coal to appease Republicans. No they should not have passed it! I hope the Senate restores the integrity of this bill.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  102. duane

    what a big waste of $$$$....but hey...that's what libs do....waste $$$$$

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  103. Sheri (Indianapolis)

    Why not pass it? We voted to go to war where thousands of lives have been lost and supposedly knew what we were doing there. And we all know how that turned out!!! Since when does, "we haven't had time to read it" make a difference in preventing the stupid things our government does! At least President Obama is trying to do something...give the man a break!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  104. Denise, Oregon

    How can they vote on something they haven't even skimmed through, let alone read in its entirety?
    That's ludicrous and yet another example of how Obama/Pelosi/Reid are trying to push through the most expensive legislation in our country's history without anyone having a chance to research it and find the problems in it first before it gets voted in and we, the tax payers, are stuck with it.
    Tax and Spend is the Democratic Party's motto and this administration has wholeheartedly embraced it and kicked it up a few notches.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  105. Russell

    It's just diisgusting how our politicians work and how they get away with such inappropriate acts. Adding legislation at the last minute with the full knowlredge barely anyone could or would read it before voting on it is so telling of how politicans operate and how they feel they are above reproach. Who are they serving? Surely not the American public. No wonder all of us have no trust for those in public office. They are an embarassment to us all.

    I watched that entire discussion on CSPAN the day the bill passed. An actual copy of the bill was not even to be found for those to read. It was a sitcom watching the pros and cons of this bill debated by these idiotic politicians. Wait, I'm wrong. It was a TRAGEDY.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  106. Amber Krutak

    Dems and Republicans both do it when they are in power- it is called political strategy. Welcome to Washington. Is it right? Probably not, but it is legal. By the way, college kids are expected to read mounds of information in short amounts of time so my advice to those that feel screwed over...crack open the amendment and pull one of those good ol' fashioned all-nighters. I think the law is important enough for that.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  107. Jesse - Houston

    Yes – these legislators have teams of assistants whose jobs it is to read these amendments, even if they are added in the middle of the night. If anything outlandish was added one of them would have caught it and the representative he or she worked for would have said something in voting deliberation.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  108. Tony from Omaha, NE

    While I am a supporter of the main tenets of the climate change bill, I really cringe at legislative tactics like this. Bills should be passed through the power of argument, not the power of parliamentary shenanigans. I'm a progressive, but I must say the Congressional Democrats lack political savvy. Let the GOP spout their misinformation, but rather than let them get away with it, hold them accountable. God forbid we actually try to convince those who aren't on our side that we're correct.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  109. Mike, Chicago

    I think it is perfect. Nobody needs to read it anyhow...who really cares what it says. We need it! Wait a minute, is this 1984????

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  110. Algore

    The more I read, the more scientific debate I hear in an uncensored environment, the more I realize that global warming is a bogus hoax with no scientific validity. The science does not support it. Jack, why don't you find men of science, not environmental talking heads to explain why global warming if happening at all, is not the result of an overabundance of carbon-dioxide!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  111. david

    This is what happens when there is a one party political system. The House is voting for the man and not the issue. Don't be surprised when this trend continues, seeing that the Republican party can' t seem to get out of it's own way.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  112. Sue from Redwood City

    Anything that is an effort to control the global warming is good. Hopefully we will have even stricter laws about it in the future.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  113. Rob

    Should our representatives have voted for something they haven't read? That wasn't retorical? They shouldn't have voted for this even if they did read it. Anyone who thinks we should do 'something', even if it's stupid, please feel free to go plant a tree and leave me alone!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  114. Diane - St. Louis

    Absolutely not! What do we-the-people have to do in order to get those we elect to fulfill their job responsibilities...accurately? They personally wouldn't sign a 1200-page mortgage contract for themselves without reading it first...would they?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  115. Patricia Sakal

    I sell Mr. Oboma is attempting to make all his campaign promises to the public with disreguard to the cost of the out come. Such a complex issue, just slipped together, ammendments added and voted on. What happened to "We the People"?.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  116. Bob

    Yes. The fallout from doing nothing, as usual, is no solution. Congress need to look towards the future, and not their narrow minded selves for a change. I do not think the lobbyist should have anything to do with the outcome, but some have sold out a long time ago.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  117. JOHN

    I doubt if last minute changes made any difference in the vote. They didn't read the base document, as usual!!!

    Same-o-same-o. The speed at which Pelosi and company rammed these things thru makes it impossible for members to rea (AND UNDERSTAND) - even if they wanted to.

    I hope she enjoyed her ride to California on our USAF Gulstream 20

    June 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  118. Brad - Los Angeles

    Hi Jack,

    Boy is it fun to watch the Ultra Liberal base respond to this question. Try as they may to blame the republicans, some even seem to admit that they can't this time! You better be careful when questioning the actions of our current administration, you may offend 90% of your audiance just by raising a question.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  119. Randyb

    what would be the point in showing the amendments to the repubs ahead of time? There is nothing concieved of by the democrats that the "just say now" republicans wouldn't reject. Their only consideration is regaining political power ...certainly not advancement of the human condition!!!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  120. Jonas Pomales, Ret USMC

    Jack, in reply to you question: Should the House have passed a 1,200 page climate change bill amended only hours before it was voted on?
    MY answer is a definite NO!
    It is like the Stimulus package, which they did not get a chance to read – line by line – as President Obama promised. And this one is liewise, they try to rush it through before going into their July 4th vacation. And then, they hope that the rest of Congress will chop it up!
    What a way to do business for our country!
    God Bless America and return us to RULE BY THE PEOPLE!
    Semper Fi,
    J. P Orlando

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  121. Richard

    Well, Let's see. an 11000 page bill was passed without congress really
    knowing what was in it. Why are we suprised. Mr. Obama loves to say it needs to happen now. He said the same thing about TARP money and still has over half of it.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  122. Allan Frenkel

    Passing any 1,200 page bill "overnight reminds me of a comment by Charles Barkley, " you can't fix stupid."

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  123. Norman Rosen

    Of course the answer is NO! Those who have said yes appear to believe that anything is better than nothing, but this is ridiculous.
    The bill wants to do what has been tried in parts of Europe but as I understand, studies in Denmark and Spain have shown these tactics will not work. Pasing bills without reading them; and people can't understand why we are where we are...

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  124. Raymond James Thibault

    Congress hasn't thought anything out for over 40 Years. I'm 56 and I started watching and reading about them. They are our representation, RIGHT!. They look out fo themselves, ignor their Constitutents and Vote on what ever puts money in their Pcokets.
    We need to clean the Lawyers and Money takers out of Office. The best thing could happen is NONE of them every getting reelected again. Pelosi and Company and the growing list of Adultterious Idiots need to removed from Office. It's never been the President who makes Policy and Law. He has to manage and Live with It. People wake up. the Constitution Puts all the power in hands of Congress.
    The Spend and decide what will and will not be funded.
    LOOK AT YOUR CONGRESS PEOPLE, SWEEP OUT THE MUSTY DUSTY OLD CRAP AND VOTE IN NEW PEOPLE. Business and Educators. Nurses and Doctors, Farmers and Union Members, No More Lawyers Please. Lets simplify Government. Like in 1776.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  125. Bob Savittieri

    I wonder what happened to gaovernment by the people? It appears that it's the same old policies govenment by the interest groups that have the most money to influence the elected voice of the PEOPLE!!!

    With the age of the Internet we ought to be able to vote on all issues before our reps and sens. on their web sites. I know it can be done.

    And to make a long story short NO NO NO they were absolutly not looking out for the PEOPLE's best interests.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  126. Herb Marsh

    It’s amazing that every bill which cost the tax payers Trillions of dollars is rushed through congress before the American public has a chance to understand the ramifications it will have on them. Its obvious congress is not representing the American people, but their own interest. Just one more thought, If public health care is so good why doesn’t Congress dump their plan and adopt Obamas’ Health plan.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  127. Ron Kelley

    This is ridiculous! Not that I don't expect this type of behavior from a group (in this case Democrats) who seem to be power mad. It reminds me of the old statement: "Trust me. I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

    What trust? What help?


    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  128. Robert Schellenberger

    The concept of the bill is necessary. What we need is both parties looking after the needs of the country. The proceedure used will reduce the likelyhood that we will ever get both parties looking after the real needs of the country.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  129. Nicole Amelung

    It's about time, America joins the rest of the world in climate protection: For over 30 years Europe warned about climate change, global warming etc. and made strict laws. America ignored the problem and made money instead. Economy first! In America the word "global warming" was a taboo, was banned even – yes – from You the media. You helped the governments to ignore the problem and keep the public in the dark. Thanks God it changes now – better late than never!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  130. Jeff in Houston

    No. I am a strong supporter of President Obama, but if sings this i will have to question my vote. This bill is nothing but more pandering to the oil companies. I hope the President does not throw in with them like Cheney did. We cannot withstand to trust good old American Coporations for another day.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  131. Tom

    In principal – no. While we do need a climate bill we don't need one that is just "politics as usual". I listened to Boehner read the ammendment and all of the exceptions/add-ons all the while wondering where the money would be coming from. I thought we were out of money. OH WAIT!!! I forgot we haven't been taxed enough yet!!!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  132. michael armstrong sr.

    mike in tx. dr. jack every body loves the energy department if it wernt for them we would have money to by a grave site to burry our selves in after they cause us to die of heat stroke and freezing to death and taking all our money for food and paying other bills it shure seems to me this decision shurly must have been made up by madolf our somebody who hates us good lord mr. president get a clue .

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  133. Rick Fairley

    Is this a trick question??? A better question would be, should our representatives excercise "common sense" in matters of policy making. They are making a mockery of the American people and are boldly their haughty arrogance and ignorance though I am not sure which one is greater? I wonder how I would have scored on a test in school if I was expected to study 1200+ pages before a test but never studied? I am extremely disappointed in our "out of control" government!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  134. Jeff

    This is an energy tax bill. There are no firm figures on the expense that will befall the american tax payer for this "follie". The politics of Washington have so watered this bill down nothing but increaesed taxes will come of it. Can't wait to see the Obama Care Bill that will really bankrupt us.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  135. Jyothi

    Jack, I agree, that every one should be given time to atleast know what are are voting for but before condeming the current government lets be fair, we all need more bills that stop toxic gas emitions and pollutions so that the future generations can still live and breath easy.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  136. all or nothing

    Unless we can come up with a solution that will solve every problem, at once, while not inconveniencing us in the slightest, we really have no alternative, but to do nothing.

    I mean, how bad could it possibly get?

    I think the environment is just jealous of our freedom.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  137. Bob

    That's right Carol – be happy that no republicans supported this garbage. The democrats can take pride in their baby when unemployment reaches 15% as a result of this legislation.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  138. Pablo in Tejas

    Dear Jack
    yes, even though the bill is not as strong as it should be, especially in regard to plant emissions and coal production and use of coal, it is a first step. In coming years i hope to see bills mandating hydrogen powered electric engiines in automobioles and light trucks.

    Arlington, Texas

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  139. johnnie

    every bill the president is putting forward, is for the country to have a better future. the gop has no ideas,for climate change ,but change in their pockets.it is not haste,finally we have a president ,putting congress to work, they have been idle 4 eight years.its a new agenda for america, we won , they lost, we controll the majority,the democrats, yes we should have pass ,and yes we did,the president knows what he is doing, and get use to it,the gop had 8 replubicans vote for this bill,change has come to america.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  140. Jim Blevins

    Obviously, this is step one. Lots of changes and compromises remain. Something has to be done to reclaim a livable world.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  141. Scot

    Was there 1 person that read the 1,300 pages? This should have been phased in, over a longer period of time. We have millions without jobs and this is going to create additional tax's, with higher oil prices.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  142. Dave in Belfast Me

    I keep hearing about the 300 page amendment, its been 3 days has anyone read it yet??? I have not yet heard what was in the amendment. That being said I think a good energy bill is long overdue, at least someone is finally pushing. Politics has really kept meaningful and necessary change from occuring on energy and healthcare for way too long.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  143. Jeff in NC

    This is dangerous legislation. The West Coast and New England states, where their power costs are high already, are trying to get the rest of the country to pay the same amounts they currently pay. Look at the home states of the congressional leaders (Waxman / Markey) who are proponents of the legislation. I'm all for solar, wind and hydro power, but the best places to produce them are far from our population centers. The cost to get that power to the locations of need would be BILLIONS of dollars. Bottom line: renewables are not FREE power and anyone who thinks this way needs to study the true cost of power supply. If you don't have a significant increase in nuclear power for base load power, the renewables will not matter very much.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  144. Opa Winz - Orlando

    YES, When the party-of-no was in control they did the same thing! This is the first creditable bill to come out of DC in 30 years!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  145. Sean - Detroit

    I guarantee that those in the general public that support this bill and the method under which it was passed have little to no idea what was in it.

    I see assumptions that this bill will "save the planet" and "lead to cleaner air and water." Mmhmm. Good luck on accomplishing that through more beauracracy and taxation.

    I also love Obama's "postage stamp a day" quote.
    How many of you believe this stuff?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  146. Debra, Marshall

    Lets do it right, gather information, discuss, create then debug. It won't be perfect but something we can build on to make us better and generations to come. We have to to do something this is long over due I expected something from our government a long time ago. No one has done anything. When are we gonna start when its to late..... No more lining the pockets of the rich time to take care of all the people.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  147. Mac Texas

    I've decided that our congressmen (and women) need to spend more time reading a bill and understanding it instead of getting side tracked with all the infighting. I thought Obama said that all bills would be made public before being voted on. Maybe I misunderstood.
    Nothing should ever be voted on before it is gone over in detail by everyone voting.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  148. Louise Dembeck

    "No"? Wrong, jack. first of all, it was only the amendment that was completed at 3 AM.. . the other 900 pages had been available before. Second, those who voted against the bill wouldn't have bothered to read it anyway. Their minds are made up and they don't want to be confused by facts. Except for those who oppose the bill because it doesn't go far enough, most of the opposition seems to think global warming is a "hoax." Delay is the deadliest form of denial. We've delayed for too many years already. The US must stand up, if not lead, in the fight to save our planet.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |

    Yes they should have passed it. We need to take care of the climate now, not when it is too late. Who cares if and what is new that the Republicans didn't vote for it?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  150. kamenwati

    Unfortunately the bill has been watered down. But even with its weaker provisions it is still needed. Too bad so many in this country, including some of the people posting here, fail to grasp the massive harmful consequences that continued rampant pollution of our environment will bring to our climate and our quality of life. McConnell, Boehner, Inohofe and other politicians of that ilk care nothing about this country and the environment which sustains all our lives. They are craven stooges for the energy companies and polluters who put profits above the health and welfare of the public. BTW, when's the last time a Republican created any kind of job in this country that wasn't at a lobbying firm?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  151. John Bachmann

    Love ya, Jack, but you are dead wrong on this one. This particular bill has been under development for months (not including the 8 years wasted doing nothing). Staffers had weeks to read it for their bosses, most of whom probably never read any legislation in full. And last second amendments happen all the time. It's not like the product is now polished and going in for signing – its just one big step to get to the slicing, dealing and dicing that will go on in the senate over the next few months. And after that it will have to go back to the conference committee. Personally, I think the goals in the legislation aren't strong enough, but if there are clunkers in it as well, there is plenty of time to fix them.

    No, the symbolism of this vote – that the US is finally going to get it's head of the stuff R. Boehnert is apparently eating these days and do something about climate and energy dependency – is worth getting even a flawed piece of legislation out the door.

    Climate change is happening, and the most recent science suggests it may be worse and faster then thought even a few years ago. Time is wasting. Get the best bill possible, but get it this year.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  152. carol

    It would be nice if they had read it but it would be even better if they would allow enough time to do so and not ram a bill through before yet another vacation. (How many vacays do they get anyway???) Our legislature is an embarassment. There is So much work to be done. We need some grown-ups in the government.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  153. Michael, St. Louis

    What is the point of having a republic if the representatives do not read what they are voting on? There isn't much difference between that and a totilatarian state. I don't care how good the bill is, it still needs to be debated. I also ask those who are for doing this course of action, did you support the Patriot Act when it was rammed through the house without any debate? You probably didn't.

    The unintended consequence of this bill is that it will cause more unemployment in this recession. Do we really need that at this current time. I don't have a problem with more environmental measures when the economy is going good, but it is insane to pass something like this right now.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  154. Ann Oriadha

    YES! I am tired of Congress complaining about not reading a bill while at the same time claiming that everything in it is bad, wrong, won't work, etc.

    I watched some of the debate before the vote and it was the same tired arguments from the Republicans – denouncing climate change or that man has any impact on the environment.

    We need to take bold action to do something about our dependence on foreign oil, protect our environment and create jobs for the future (green energy jobs) otherwise we are going to get left behind. At a cost of a stamp a day, the return is far greater!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  155. Ron from SF

    I've got mixed feelings on this bill. On the one hand, I'd like to save the planet from the peril that awaits it, if we don't take drastic action. On the other, I recognize that this bill has been so watered down to protect polluters, that it won't achieve it's goals. As to the procedure used to get this thing passed; well it's child's play compared to the tactics the Republicans used to get the nasty things they rushed through, when they were in control.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  156. James, Charlotte, NC

    Jack, Would you close on a house when the real estate agent adds more contracts to sign that you haven't read yet? No

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  157. Zack Canton Michigan

    yes, Jack, yes. Republicans were complaining because the bill was put up to late, so they didn't have enough time to look it one. Well then how did they get all that garage about it then? I heard someone talking about this the other day and they actully said "god gave us oil for a reason! to use it!" well then why would god let it run out? do republicans really think that? are they really basing their opinion on religious belief instead of what goods for us and the next generations? really jack? Really?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  158. wallace Mckenzie

    Of course they should read it before voting. How can we comment on the bill with any valid points when it hasn't yet been published. Voters wise up..... just because we need action doesn't mean we need this.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  159. Connor

    Profit-mongers will always gripe when their bottom line is challenged - especially when that challenge is necessary for the common good and opposed to their selfish greed.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  160. John Scotto

    Mr Cafferty,

    The answer is "absolutely not". The issue is not the merits of the legislation itself (that's a different argument) but rather the irresponsibility of legislators who are willing to pass major, substantive legislation (at least if you buy the bill's proponents' arguments) with only a cursory glance.
    We didn't elect congressional staffers to make laws but that is what is happening more and more by default because staffers (and lobbyists) are the only ones who know what is in these mega-bills. I would prefer fewer pieces of legislation but ones that are truly understood, debated, and then thoughtfully passed by Congress. Volume of votes does not equal better lawmaking. Likewise, more pages in a bill doesn't equal better laws.


    John Scotto

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  161. Torch

    This shows the true side of the Democrats.

    Each one of them is heavily invested in these so called "Green Jobs" that this is suppossed to create. GE, who owns NBC, who owns Obama, stands to profit nicely.

    Problem is, everyone is going to get taxed on this. What? am I suppossed to wait for the mean temperature to go down in 20 years, and then call it a success.....??

    This is the most irresponsible peice of legislation ever crafted and thank goodness no Republicans supported this.

    Foget about your economic recovery, it's not happening when you are going to raise the price of energy in the name of the biggest lie in the world......a Liberal religion......Global Warming.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  162. Alex

    I'm all for some cap n trade legislation, but to issue a total of 1500 pages without some time to digest the information is wrong.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  163. kevin

    I am a life long democrat , but give me a break. You call this change? It is the same backdoor garbage the republicans used when they were in power.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  164. Cleve Leonard

    300 pages added to an already 1200 page bill???No wonder things take forever to move through the current govenment.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  165. karlstro1

    If this Cap and Trade was soooo good for all Americans what was the rush to pass it?! Not one single person could read all the pages, have some question on some of the details, and feel very comfortable with knowledge that they did a good thing for mankind. This leadership insanity has got to stop for the sake of future generations. It is a real pity that Congress doesn't have to live in the society nightmare middle America is trying to survive in.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  166. Kurt

    While the tactics weren't admirable, the bill itself is. We're forgetting that these 11th hour tactics were used by the last administration to rape and pillage our country into war, deficit, and economic ruin. I suppose if the Republican minority is going to hold us hostage, we have no choice but to use the same tactics when it's our turn.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  167. Todd Madon

    The bill is flawed as all bills are but it's a crucial step to save the planet, if for nothing else, to protect Republican's right to object to scientific reality.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  168. Bob Gambrell

    Of course they should not have passed the bill. Anyone with any intelligence knows that every bill should be considered for its merits or lack thereof, and the only way to have that happen is for legislators to have time to read and study a bill. I believe this is a stunt by the Democrats to pass legislation that pushes an agenda that they know the majority of Americans would not support. That seems to be the standard mode of operation for Democrats–Democrats don't like for anyone to really look at their ideas or for anyone to hold them accountable for their ideas or actions, because they are often shallow and ill-conceived. That's what happened throughout the presidential election with Obama–Obama did not accept responsibility for anything from his past, and the media did not demand any accountability from him.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  169. Jose Paul

    Who knows what other pork is stuffed in amongst those 300 pages.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  170. Len Chamberlain

    Not to worry Jack, I'm sure that they all had lobbyists that read the bill for them... I miss my country.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  171. drc

    Wow, another un-read bill passes. Must be nice to be a clueless wonder and somehow are running our country.

    I don't care what party you are in, if you cannot read a bill, there is NO reason it should even be voted on.

    More laughable are those that love Obama so much they wanted change...and somehow, this is change? I guess the old saying "The more things change...the more they stay the same" says it all.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  172. Timothy in Chicago

    You ask this as though legislators, few of whom have backgrounds in science, would be able to comprehend the bill anyway. While I don't necessarily know if this cap-and-trade program is the solution to our global warming problem, it is time we let scientists, and not politicians, guide science policy.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  173. Robert Columbia, SC

    If the bill had been read by every member of Congress there is no way it would have passed, so the answer is "no."

    The sections I've read are full of nothing but Pork and Big Brother overseeing things like what light bulbs we are allowed to use and where our electrical outlets should be placed.

    When will these Democrats realize what's good for San Fransisco and Connecticut may not be best for the rest of the country?

    Columbia, SC

    June 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  174. Scot

    If Global Warming was such a real threat, the environmentalist would not have changed the name to Climate Change. A) Two facts" 35% of all methane gas is created by Cow farts. B) According to the open minded scientist, the earth is going into a cool period, as the recent, last 5 – 10 years was a high amount of solar storms, it appears the Sun is going to be dormant and this will require additional methane gas or CO2 to offset the lack of solar storms, to prevent cooling.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  175. Nick Cerjanic


    Its effects on the environment would be very minimal and its cost would be huge. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost $280B a year for six years.

    That is $1.68 trillion for at best a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas.

    Worse yet, its unilateral, so while we spend our money reducing 4% India and China can each add 5-10% more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. So what would be accomplished?

    Bad bill vote NO!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  176. Missy M

    Boehner is right on this one and I'm happy to say that my congressional representative, a democrat, voted against this bill. Hopefully it will be killed in the Senate.

    Missy M., Arizona

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  177. Brian

    Isn't this sort of partisan hogwash what Democrats were complaining about back when they were in the minority. Now that they have the numbers they are even more brazen and partisan than the Republicans were before them. When will this country learn that both party's are completely obsolete and the majority of us in the middle can't stand either of them.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  178. Ellen Messmer

    Nobody in Congress should vote on something he or she can't read, but are you sure they know how to read? Let's find out! Somebody should slip in some wording in that climate legislation reducing their salaries by half or telling them their last day is Friday–something the American people have been hearing a lot the past year–and see if they vote for it. Good reading test!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  179. Rus in St. Paul, MN

    Regardless of anyone's politics or views on this particular bill, I think all Americans should be appalled that our representatives are passing bills in this manor. What were the amendments? How does that overall affect the bill? Shouldn't that be submitted back to the CBO to re-evaluate the costs so representatives know what they're voting on?

    I'm simply just ashamed to have to admit to myself that this is how Washington "works".

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  180. Michael, St. Louis

    "Most of the energy bill passed by Congress already exists in California. Whats the big dea?"

    There is more to the United States than California. In Missouri, for example, the majority of our electricity comes from coal. The costs would drastically increase here in the Midwest and many jobs would be lost. You can go on with your west coast elitism, but at least try to think about the other states for once.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  181. Doru Radu

    It does not matter. People decided to believe in Obama. Everything he does is good.; the faster the better.
    Then, we'll see if believing in Mr. Obama, without even questioning his initiatives, was good or bad. Unfertunately, it will be too late.
    If it take years to change the climate why was this rashed to a vote? Why could not wait until at least our reps read it and expain it to the constituents?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  182. Don

    Yes, the manner of getting this legislation moving is of not of much importance. The legislature has, for a long time, been aware of the issue and the direction in which this approach is heading.

    Delaying the issue based on rules of etiquette would be playing into the hands of Republicans whose only tactic is to put things off. This move will get the environment on the front page of the congressional agenda.

    We can't allow the opposition to run the country by sitting on their hands. Lets discuss the climate when the decision arived at will count, it's time to stop the rhetoric and start the game. Modern people want something done about the future our progeny will face.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  183. Lenore in Florida

    You say no, I say yes...the system in Wash. is so broken that this is the methodolgy to get things done...what I like about Obama is that dispite how things are in the toilet right now he is still thinking about the future...like will there be a world here if we don't deal with the climate crisis...we know the Republicans NEVER will ....yes business will go overseas, it already is anyway, so this bill doesn't really affect that issue..that is not an argument...but at least we are not toatally ignoring the climate crisis...maybe some energy companies from the US operating overseas may set new emmision standards...these countries are already are ahead of us with their smaller cars etc...(and true the Chinese have their coal burning issues) but we nead to LEAD on the issue, someway, somehow....

    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  184. Henry G. "Knobby" Luberacki

    I come down on the side of the House Reqpublcan Leader. Nobody had a chance to read the admendmernt dropped in the bill at 3:30 a.m. I can't wait to hear all about the memos that were hidden at the EPA about calling Gobal Warming aa big hhoax..If wind and solar ppower would be so good, we would be already using this form of power generation. Since the restriction on off shore drilling was lifted has there been any new permits issued? I watched a lot of the debate on CSPAN and got sick. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs the speaker told everyone. I say not in your wildest dreams I say to the speaker. Takes for listening. Knobby, Lake Gaston, North Carolina

    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  185. Richard, Washington, D.C.

    I can't imagine that everyone who voted on this bill actually read it in its entirety. It's time the nation educate itself properly on the benefits of a green economy. In this day and age, we all expect immediately results. Green technologies and renewable energies have profits that are seen in the long term, both monetary and environmentally. The Green Economy will slowly emerge from this legislation and we will find more funding in technologies that will help to provide people of all education backgrounds with stable jobs because of increased investment towards this reformed economy.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  186. Terry Lee

    Absolutely not..........would you sign any agreement or contract without having read it? This government of ours (both parties) are spoiled rotten, self centered , corrupted children . The American people deserve better and need to pass a one page law (in the middle of the night) that sends each and every one of them home permanently. I and most hard working Americans are ashamed of the lack of quality and mature leadership representing us. God help our country and may God help our future generations if this is the continued path .

    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  187. Gigi

    Will it be safer, produce jobs, etc.? Then the answer is yes.
    It sounds pretty much like business as usual to me. What we need more than anything is a third party.
    When the rich don't win, they move to a third world country. Which will give them more profit and if it endangers the working class so be it.
    The reason we are in an economy mess today, is because the rich can pick up and leave the country to make a better profit. At...the expense of they US working class and then blame it on their opponents.


    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  188. Greg Mechanicsburg, PA

    Yes indeed even if the legislation has not been thoroughly reviewed or discussed, but we cannot stop there. It is true that American companies may move their operations to overseas local that have no ecological conscience. We must level the playing field not just to keep American businesses here, but to keep tomorrow safe for humanity. Corporate greed has no more conscience than Bernie Madoff.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  189. Scot

    I think it is pretty arrogant for a group to state what the issues are with the entire planet. Please remember that G-d controls everything, have faith and do not panic. Second, 30 years ago, these same environmentalist were shouting Global Cooling. This is non sense, they now state, "Climate Change", so they are never wrong.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  190. Jeff Schroeffel


    No. Bill should be read and debated. Nobody even know whats in this bill yet...and that includes those who voted for it.

    It cracks me up that whenever Democrats use a sneaky tactic it is because Republicans did it first. Find me a Republican bill that passed with this little Bi-Partisan support but was championed by the media instead of being maligned as something that was rammed down the throats of the minority.

    Why is it that when Republicans are in the minority they need to compromise and stop being the party of No. But when Democrats are in the minority it is Patriotic to disagree?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  191. Hot Air

    Wasn't it W.C. Fields who said "There's a sucker born every minute?"

    This is a massive tax hike disguised as a "feel good" environmental bill. Want zero emissions?........build nuclear plants, and move on.

    Come to think of it, I think ol' W.C. would smile at the whole "Global Warming" scam anyway............lots and lots of suckers.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  192. Michael Maggs

    Absolutely not! Any bill that long along with 300 pages added leaves me to believe not one person really voted on the bill itself. Instead its Washington at its finest. A bill getting either voted on or declined simply bases on wich party drafted it up!!

    June 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  193. David - New York

    Last minute amendments are wrong, but that is not the real isuue.
    The real issues are: When will we finally realize that being dependent on foreign sources of oil is a serious risk? When will we stop sending young men to fight wars in the middle east as a proxy for an energy policy? When will we say, you know the leading scientists of the world , including those from China and Saudi Arabia unanamiously agree that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and the effects may be devastating to the only planet we have, that we will stop calling this a hoax? When will we recognize that mining and burning coal have important health concerns?When will we live up to our responsibilities as adults for our children?. Yes, there will be some small pain but the alternative is too awful to consider.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  194. John

    What would the people do who oppose anything the Democrats try to pass. We still have morons who claim that the world scientist are all wrong and there is no such thing as global warming. The bill had amendments to get the so called Blue Dog Democrtats to vote for it instead of siding with thier Republican friends. We should all be looking at how to remove these fake Democrats from the Democratic party and let them join thier looser friends on the other side of the isle. The Republicans and big business care nothing about what is happening to our world and the world we will leave our children as long as they can continue with thier wrecking of our climate.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  195. sweetentertainment

    If that bothers us, I suppose it should bother us that this process happens with every bill. This is a process used extensively and equally by both parties. Anyone claiming something else are simply blind in their hatred for the "other" side. How destructive and wasteful. How about you read those long bills and inform us instead.

    Should we waste our time comparing each party's stats on how long and how many amendments are attached to bills? Should we question how its ever even possible to read and fully digest one, let alone hundreds of thousand page long laws. Yes, journalists should for sure, citizens must.

    Yet, holding up climate legislation based on it is ridiculous, as silly as those who claim climate change is a fallacy. Come on, do we really have time for this silliness? How many more ice caps have to melt?

    Get on with it already.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  196. Frank

    No! It is a bad bill to begin with. A bill based on dubious 'science'. Adding a huge amendment, then saying, "Vote now! before anyone has a chance to read and comprehend what this mammoth legislation does is obsurd.

    Anyone saying yes we should have passed it is simpley playing party politics. Or maybe they just trust the government a whole lot more than I do. I am tired of this.

    A good bill doesn't need to be rushed through and hidden. Does anyone believe differantly?

    June 29, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  197. Mark

    The answer to your question is the bill is "good manure". It stinks bad because we the consumers have to pay for it. But our childern and our children's childern will benefit from this in the distant future.

    So we have to hold our nose and take it.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  198. Matt ouimet

    If I knew alot about what is in the bill without reading it they certainly should have. They will always come up with some excuse why a bill that they don't like shouldn't be passed. I'll bet that they heard from their special interest groups what they didn't like about the bill.This could go on for another 50 years while our planet goes down the tubes. Let's get on with it.
    Matt in Lady Lake Florida.

    June 29, 2009 at 4:29 pm |