READ THE DAMN BILL!!! This is a energy bill, there is no short term emergency.

[ddiver]

Why the hell can't they read the damn bill before they vote for it? Why can't we have a week or 2 to look over the bill? Where is the transparency?

What is the rush? 14 days is not going to change global climate change. There is a reason they want to ram this through and I don't think our best interests are any part of it.

[jgraz]

1. Because if we read it, we might find out what's in it

[Orsino]

4. Yep. they have to be sure to pass it before *we* read it. n/t

[sudopod]

28. American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2454:

Here is the text of the bill. Notice the .gov domain name, and that it is owned by the Library of Congress.

What? Obama isn't an evil double-crossing monster? People bitch on the internet without actually bothering to find out what's happening out there in the real world? WHO KNEW?

[vaberella]

58. They are deciding to ignore you. I even knew of the bill for my class.

It was in discussion for months for us, because of the discussion on cap & trade and I knew Waxman was working on it. I'm personally against C&T and more on a carbon tax. But that's besides the point.

[Orsino]

62. They know how few of us *will* read it...

...and the sooner they pass it, the sooner they can tell us, "You should have said something."

[sudopod]

29. See Post 28

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8498062&mesg_id=8498394

[dgibby]

2. I thought legislation/bills were supposed to be posted on line

for all of us to read before being signed into law. Is that going to happen before Obama either signs or vetos whatever comes out of Congress?:shrug:

[ddiver]

3. Don't hold your breath on that. I haven't seen it yet.

[jgraz]

6. Wasn't that an Obama campaign promise?

Or was that some other guy?

[jefferson_dem]

9. I think it was Oobama. I know 'cause I heard Hannity complain about this the other day.

And Limballs ranted today.

Dadgummit Obama! Is this what you call "CHANGE"!?!1111(one)

Grr...

[jgraz]

13. Ok, so now the talking point is no longer "HE NEVER PROMISED THAT!!!"

It's "Um... yeah, well, he ... um ... promised that but ... um ... er ... ah ... ONLY RIGHT-WINGERS COMPLAIN ABOUT OBAMA!!!!11111"

How's that workin out for ya?

[jefferson_dem]

15. I was only validating your complaints with what I heard from the right wing haters

these past couple days.

Sorry if linking you with that company makes you uncomfortable.

Nonetheless, carry on with the concern-fest. Please.

[jgraz]

20. And you may carry on with whatever fest you're involved in

Sorry, did that picture make you uncomfortable?

[jefferson_dem]

21. Touche.

Well played. :hi:

[girl gone mad]

22. what you are doing is fairly transparent. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

26. Perhaps.

But that applies to us all.

Fact is, repug after repug are stepping up at this very moment to slam this bill. Some are whining about not being able to read it cover to cover.

Fact is, the president and a near majority of Democrats in Congress will support the bill.

Fact is, whatever bill is voted on will the best bill we can get for "our" side. That's the real transparency.

[jgraz]

35. What does that mean, "the best bill we can get"?

I hear people say that all the time, like we're limited by quantum physics or something. It's the "best bill we can get" because it's the best bill the corporate paymasters will allow. It is the exact opposite of transparency.

[jefferson_dem]

42. You do know that it takes at least simple majority support in each chamber to pass, right?

"We" can't just divine a bill into law.

We're not limited by physics. We're limited by political realities.

Waxman has been forced to make concessions to some legislators (especially some mid-western reps) in order to get support for the bill. Perhaps you would rather be satisfied with the status quo than the *reform* Obama and Waxman (and numerous senators) are trying to pull together. Not me.

It may not matter. Industry, corporate lobbyists, and repugs are working overtime in an effort to torpedo the plan. Seems many on this board would be totally cool with that.

[jgraz]

48. I'm not talking divination, I'm talking about leadership

And if Obama's election should have taught us anything, it's that you can make your own political reality.

Assuming you actually want to.

[sudopod]

32. O_o

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8498062&mesg_id=8498394

[truedelphi]

16. That was the OLD Obama's promise on stuff

He mentioned how harmful it is to have our legislators vote on things before they are read and debated.

Now that he is Prez, he apparently views everything differently!


:shrug:

[sudopod]

33. *Facepalm*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8498062&mesg_id=8498394

[truedelphi]

74. Note: my remark included the

expression - "read and debated."

This is a crappy crappy bill and yet it is being sold to Congress in the broad strokes of "The sky is falling."

Similar rush to legislation led to passage of IWR and also to last year's intial 750 Billion dollar TARP (Rationale for TARP - Pass this welfare bill for bankers or otherwise the economy will just be gone as in "POOF.")

[Thrill]

47. Obama said on non emergency legislation. It would be out there before he signed it

Not before they vote on it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. WIN!

That's exactly what he said.

I wonder why people think Obama controls the legislative calendar.

[vaberella]

65. +1----You pay attention THRILL...but if it's the H.R. 2454--I've known of this for a while.

[masuki bance]

73. ...

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html

“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.

When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.

Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two. . . .

Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.

“In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president’s desk, the White House will post the bill online,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. “This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Administration also appears to be backing off its promises for greater access to government documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202875

One argument for modifying (abandoning) the "Sunlight before Signing" policy is that the public no longer has any meaningful opportunity to influence prospective laws once legislation has passed Congress. Yet this is only true if the White House does not intend to be responsive to public concerns. Further, the original pledge was about ensuring that the executive branch did its part to ensure transparency and accountability in government, and was never pitched as a substitute for actions Congressional leaders could take to increase legislative transparency.

The explanation of the policy change also presupposes that there is meaningful opportunity for public involvement while legislation is still pending and subject to revision. Yet as the debate over the Waxman-Markey climate change bill illustrates, this is not a fair assumption. As Jim notes below, the House is preparing to vote on an 1,000-plus-page bill that was subject to a 300-page amendment last night — an amendment that was not even available to many members of Congress until today. Most members of Congress have had no meaningful opportunity to read, let alone digest, the bill. The same is true for most legislative staff. Forget the public.

If legislation of this sort, which establishes the first-ever regulatory controls on the most ubiquitous byproduct of modern industrial society, imposes new efficiency requirements on all-manner of appliances and consumer products, could trigger the imposition of tariffs on foreign products (likely in violation of U.S. trade commitments), furthers the federal government's environmentally destructive love affair with corn-based ethanol, contains numerous provisions drafted or urged by various special interest groups, and (at least in one version) contained provisions designed to create a national housing code, can be adopted by a House of Congress within hours of being written (let alone becoming public), then any claim of transparency in government is a farce.

UPDATE: FWIW, the Waxman-Markey climate bill passed 219-212. Any guess how many of those 219 (or, for that matter, the 212) really know everything that is in the bill?

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_21-2009_06_27.shtml#1246058209

[sudopod]

31. See Post 28

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8498062&mesg_id=8498394

[Thrill]

46. Obama said on non emergency legislation. It would be out there before he signed it

Not before they vote on it

[boppers]

7. They've been online for years. 15 years, to be exact.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. I think the promise had something to do with a public comment period.

They would post the bills and the PUBLIC would have time to read them and comment.

[uponit7771]

14. on something new right? Not something that's been up for 15 years....

..

[boppers]

17. Updates are daily, covering yesterday's issues.

Not as fast as watching C-SPAN, but lots of stuff that makes it into the record isn't actually read/discussed on the floors.

[vaberella]

37. I thought that was the function of the library of congress? To hold the bills for public viewing?n/t

[ficus1]

27. Visit youtube, look at comments

The promise to let the public comment on bills for 5 days before being signed was always a stupid one. As someone noted downthread the bills are already online for your perusal. But I guess we should give the racists and birthers a platform every time a bill is passed.

[girl gone mad]

52. How can the bill be online for our perusal when members of the House are still, at this very moment,

having meetings behind closed doors to hammer out last minute details?

[ddiver]

71. No shit.

[sudopod]

30. See post 28

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8498062&mesg_id=8498394

[masuki bance]

5. Greenpeace calling upon Congress to vote against this bill

Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey
Climate Bill not Science-Based; Benefits Polluters
June 25, 2009


Washington, D.C., United States — In advance of tomorrow’s vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett issued the following statement:

"Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.
“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

“With many others in the environmental, faith and consumer rights communities, Greenpeace has expressed tremendous concern about the role of offsets in this legislation. Unless strictly controlled, the abuse of offsets could prevent real emission reductions for more than a decade. The decision to move authority over offsets from EPA to the Department of Agriculture further reduces the likelihood that such controls will be maintained and increases the likelihood they will undermine real reductions.

This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

We call on the Congress to reject this bill and begin immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change. We call on President Obama to move beyond rhetoric and deliver on his commitments to “restore science to its proper place” and to lead the world in addressing climate change.

#####

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark

[dgibby]

8. Thanks for posting that. Throws a whole new light on things, doesn't it?

[jefferson_dem]

19. Figures.

The "perfect is the enemy of the good" purists can't stand even the wiff of success cause it's just not good enough.

It's "Waxman-Markey" for God's sake. Do people really think policy compromises would have been made if they weren't absolutely necessary in order to garner support for the bill to pass?

[dave29]

68. Al Gore is for this bill.

just sayin

[masuki bance]

69. Al Gore was the Clinton admin's go-to guy on NAFTA.

Just sayin'

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-32.htm

[MadBadger]

72. LOL, Al Gore isnt good enough on issues of Climate Change to some of you anymore

Thats pathetic.

[Cha]

76. So..Al Gore has

learned things over the years..you should be so fortunate.

[Subdivisions]

10. Ala the Patriot Act. Something is fishy here. It needs digesting first. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread, ddiver.:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

18. Why? They need a bill passed before December in both houses,

reconciled then the joint bill passed.

One thing to think of - any bill that gets a cap and trade system up - even if the goals are not as high as we want - is better than no bill at all. Senator Kerry, in speaking of likely costs, has often referenced the fact that once a system was set up for acid rain, sulfur dioxide was reduced faster than required for less money than people thought. The reason he gave was that once technology was pushed to do it, things no one had predicted were found to work.

This is beyond the fact that, if we start something this year it is better than starting something marginally better a few years from now.

[4lbs]

23. You want to read the bill? Geez, look it up at --> thomas.loc.gov

That site, that's been run for over a decade now, has EVERY House and Senate bill, along with revisions, posted for access to anyone.

What do people need to have their hands held and be led to water?

Do you really need the Obama Administration to post it on the White House site first?

[sudopod]

34. Thank you! Sheesh! nt

[vaberella]

38. People just want to bitch. n/t

[ddiver]

41. Yes, I want to bitch about them voting on a bill that is HOURS old.

Is the environment going to expire in a week and nobody told me? Let the public and especially the elected officials take a week or 2 to read it and think about the ramifications of passing it as it stands. If it isn't a total piece of shit it should be able to stand the test of 2 weeks reading.

[vaberella]

53. See post #28. I knew of this bill since I had to study in it in class this term.

If you were so concerned, how come you didn't? And I'm not trying to be snarky.

or

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

Type in H.R. 2454

Note date of introduction---more than a month to read it.

[ddiver]

67. 300 pages were added last night at 3AM. Did you read those last month also?

We are talking about energy and the environment. What is the rush? This is not emergency spending. What are they hiding?

[ddiver]

40. That was not the complaint. The complaint was the rush.

There is no reason this can't be examined and talked about for a week or 2. It's called transparency. Why does it have to be voted on before the ink is dry?

[vaberella]

55. The bill has been introduced for a month and been in discussion for months.

Note the date the video was posted:

http://globalwarming.change.org/blog/view/waxman_to_gingrich_the_problem_with_these_numbers_is_theyre_simply_not_true

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhvQhdxkfmM

Unless of course, this is not the same bill. But this the only Waxman bill on energy and cap & trade that I'm aware of.

[griloco]

70. you can lead

a republican to knowledge
but you can't make 'em think

[Beacool]

24. It's the same reason they rammed the stimulus bill down our throats.

They don't want transparency and for people to see what's in it until it's too late.

[vaberella]

64. What bill is this? Is this the H.R. 2454?

Please confirm or deny if that is true.

[girl gone mad]

25. Because cap and trade is a scam designed to enrich the banksters.

Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/could-cap-and-trade-cause-another-market-meltdown">Mother Jones

You've heard of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Are carbon default swaps and subprime offsets next? If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn't get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown.

Cap and trade would create what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton anticipates as a $2 trillion market, "the biggest of any derivatives product in the next five years." That derivatives market will be based on two main instruments. First, there are the carbon allowance permits that form the nuts and bolts of any cap-and-trade scheme. Under cap and trade, the government would issue permits that allow companies to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Companies that emit too much can buy allowances from companies that produce less than their limit. Then there are carbon offsets, which allow companies to emit greenhouse gases in excess of a federally mandated cap if they invest in a project that cuts emissions somewhere else—usually in developing countries. Polluters can pay Brazilian villagers to not cut down trees, for instance, or Filipino farmers to trap methane in pig manure.

In addition to trading the allowances and offsets themselves, participants in carbon markets can also deal in their derivatives—such as futures contracts to deliver a certain number of allowances at an agreed price and time. These instruments will be traded not only by polluters that need to buy credits to comply with environmental regulations, but also by financial services firms. In fact, a study by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions anticipates that if the United States passes a cap-and-trade law, the derivatives trade will probably exceed the market for the allowances themselves. "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market," says Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of the US Climate Task Force.

[zulchzulu]

36. Do we have to fucking print this shit off the web for these Texan asshats?

I'm watching CSPAN right now and the Repigs apparently never heard of the web or have staff as stupid as a bag of rat's shit.

They're whining about not seeing the bill's amendments when those have been available for hours at least.

It's not the Party of No. It's the Party of No Brain.

[vaberella]

39. There are a few people on this thread doing the same. n/t

[Peacetrain]

82. Ah Yep

[jefferson_dem]

43. Word.

I made this point upthread ... after learning that the OP was not a bit of sarcasm as I expected.

This thread is a poster child for what's wrong with the Democratic Party...or the "Democratic Underground" at least.

[tkmorris]

50. Sure, it's available now.

But NO one has had time to read through it all and digest it. Why do you have a problem with that?

[jefferson_dem]

51. I want to pass a climate change bill.

Do you?


EDIT: The 'i haven't had enough time to read and digest the bill' canard is just that. It's a phony argument offered up by those who want to rationalize their opposition to a a bill. And, yes, it was a gimmicky campaign promise by Obama. But i'll match this administration's commitment to openness and transparency against any other.

Boehner is up now talking shit about the bill. He would give some of the DUers in this thread generous back slaps and "high fives" for carrying the water.

Dirty little secret: they don't actually read the bills anyway.

[girl gone mad]

57. There is no need to rush this through.

None.

We were promised that we would do better than the failed Cap and Trade Europe passed. Supposedly, we learned from their mistakes. As it stands now, what we have looks even worse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20090608/bs_ibd_ibd/20090608general

If you want to give tens of billions more in what amounts to government subsidies to the financial sector, by all means, rush this bill through. If you want something that actually works to reduce CO2 emissions with minimal disruptions to the economy, then we need to pause and rework this bill.

[tkmorris]

66. Of course I want a climate bill

That isn't really the point. The point is that you can't pass a bill if you don't know what's in it. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this version of the bill has only been available for perusal for a few hours. Is that correct? If it is then yes, they need to sit down and read the thing first. And I object to your calling it a "phony argument". Perhaps it is disingenuous when a Republican that knows they are going to vote against it anyway does it, but not when I say it. Time and again we've seen crappy bills pushed through, or bills with absurd new little laws hidden away on the bottom of page 571, only to be told by our Congressional Representative that they hadn't read the damned thing.

IMHO any Congressman who votes on a bill without knowing what's in it should not bother showing up for work anymore.

[masuki bance]

44. Hours! The 300 page ammendment should have been read and understood by then. nt

[vaberella]

60. Are we all talking about the Waxman bill? If it's the Waxman bill.

How has it been hours?! Where is this information coming from?

[Abq_Sarah]

45. There are a lot of people here

Who don't want them reading the bill either.

[discopants]

54. "READ THE DAMN BILL!!! " ... Boner has taken your advice as is reading the whole thing.

Right now on the House floor he's reading through the entire amendment and doing free-form interpretive comedy of what he can't understand because it was "thrown into the hopper at 3:09 am in the morning!!!."
Boner is granted extended (unlimited) time as party leader to stall the vote tonight

Almost as funny as Bachmann saying the bill was a choice between liberty and tyranny.

[jefferson_dem]

56. Repug Boner is doing the DUers business.

Wonder if they are standing up and cheering yet.

[girl gone mad]

59. If it puts a stop to the mad rush, then yes..

I'm cheering as are all of the environmental groups who are opposed to this bill.

I'm sure that Government Sachs and their lobbyists aren't happy, though.

[jefferson_dem]

61. LOL!

"Government Sachs"...

Boner's slamming the bill because it creates too much regulation and government-enforced climate management policies. I'll mark you down as being on his team this time. Check.

Any "environmental" group that opposes this bill is...short-sighted.

[vaberella]

63. I don't appose the bill because it's the first step.

And does a lot of good in regards to energy jobs too...we're talking about H.R. 2454, right? However, I am a carbon tax supporter.

[w4rma]

75. Nah. They should pass it ASAP. (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

77. Yah - Gore is such an idiot for supporting this.

[ddiver]

78. My problem was with the urgency. I am tired of the " too big to fail" and "can't wait" meme.

[ProSense]

79. Typical nonsense.

Same as the financial crisis. Remember when everyone claimed it wasn't really a crisis. As soon as Obama was elected, his actions to stem it were then pounced on as inadequate. A day doesn't go by without a reminder that he isn't doing enough to stem the once deemed imaginary crisis. Some are even claiming it's too late, we're doomed.

There is no need for Democrats to join the choir of Repubs in chanting that there is no urgency on climate change. Seriously, that's ridiculous.

[Zavulon]

80. If they had read it, it might not have passed.

I, for one, hope it dies an early death in the Senate.

[Honeycombe8]

81. Ummm....the plan has been on the WH website for some time.

You read it, right?