Here is the cap-and-tax “placeholder:” Where’s the fine print?
When I live-blogged the House debate on cap-and-tax last Friday, I noted the existence of a “placeholder” in the bill. Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage. Later, I noted that Barney Frank explained on the floor on Friday that the placeholder in the cap and trade bill apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions. Frank said he was confident a “good system will be in place.”
Well, I looked up the placeholder in Waxman’s late-night, 300-page manager’s amendment.
Here it is. First, in the table of contents:
And in the text:
Now, since everyone in Washington is so concerned with fine print, why don’t they show us the fine print of the missing section of this bill.
Where is it?
Has the Energy Czar seen it?
Will the members of the Senate see it?
How about the GOP’s Cap-and-Tax 8?
Call them. Ask them.
Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti
Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4835
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Budget Deficit: Does Obama Really Think He Is Fooling Us? « NEOAVATARA
- Energy Czar Doesn’t Really Know All That Is in Energy Cap-and-Trade Tax Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The Anchoress — A First Things Blog
- Crap and Tax dead in the water in the Senate? I don’t buy it! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- When No one Reads the Bill before Passing it « The Political Inquirer
- With all the Media Hullabaloo… « The Harrington Report
- Watcher of Weasels » Democrat or Decepticon?
- The Top and Bottom 10 States for Overall Freedoms « Jim Blazsik
- Jeremiah Films
- Why It’s Critical to Actually READ Bills Before Passing Them | No Compromise when you're Right!
- “Placeholders” in the cap and trade bill « The TRUE Cost of "Cap and Trade"
- RedStateEclectic
- What was in the 310 page addition to the Climate Bill at 3 am? | The Patriot's Mind
- Democrats buy climate-change bill Vote with $3.5 billion in taxpayer money « Goodtimepolitics
- What Rebuplicans Need to Do…
- Cap and Trade “Placeholder” « Cadillac Tight
- Don’t Be Fooled By Pelosi’s Shell Game | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Who Is This Republican Turncoat Dave Reichert, and Why Is Washington State Ready to String Him Up? « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Barb’s Blog » Fine Print Police
- The Weekend Claw 7-3-09 - AllMilitary.com's Military Blog
- Cap and Trade or Smoke and Mirrors - Political Wrinkles
- News Shots 07-04-09 | Johnny No One: I Hope You’re Happy
- Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax Bill… We’re in the Middle of Pretending to Save the Planet, Baby « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Government Always Watching Out For Us « The Mike Slater Show
- How Much Is “Such Sums”? « The Mike Slater Show
- Applause: Contacting Senators about Cap-and-Trade Travesty Paying Off: Global Warming Hoax Tax Vote Put on Hold « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Section 304: Global Warming Bill Tyranny in Your Home « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Section 304: Global Warming Bill Tyranny in Your Home « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Section 304: Global Warming Bill Tyranny in Your Home « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Op-Ed Cartoons: Al Gore’s Global Warming Scam « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The proposed health care bill pages 425-430. - Expedite Trucking Forums
- Cap and Trade Shocker: Will Americans Be Forced by Commerce Sec. Gary Locke & Democrats to Pay for China’s Global Warming Emissions? « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Minus 10: Approval Index for Obama Still in the Dumper & Still Double Digits « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: cap and trade
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» GOP Opens up 7-Point Lead on Congressional Ballot, Obama Numbers Dive on Health Care, Gitmo, and KSM
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
What Democrats do when they are asked for details and facts. Disclaimer: Users must visualize wide eyes and gaping mouth to get the entire picture…
‘Section reserved’==all elected in dc will get a raise every three months and all d’s will never loose to a R. bho will be elected for life. No elected will have to be accountable for cratering our Republic or go before hearings on such. All in dc can get as much graft as their little slimy fingers can get. A bill must have at least 9000 pork projects to be passed.
L
I’ve never heard of this. Placeholder?
They can add things to a bill after it’s passed?? Anybody know procedure? That can’t be legal, can it?
Here, sign this blank check, I’ll fill in the amount later.
How is that even possible to allow a bill to be changed after the fact? If passed (and then added to later), couldn’t it be challenged in court as invalid, at least requiring a second vote?
That’s my question.
They could put ANYTHING in this bill – even stuff more Dems would vote against – and get away with it.
There has to be recourse.
Keeping in mind that Obama’s not really keen on laws or Constitutions (just ask Honduras).
I’m getting used to the gaping mouth syndrome. Starting to worry it’s a permanent feature now.
Good Lord In His Mercy, please restore some sanity to our nation.
Truly never heard of a “placeholder”.
Sounds very much like “let me insert language afterwards that you probably would hate if it were in there when you first were allowed to review this bill”.
My BS-O-Meter is blaring.
Since when do the pigs need a placeholder at the public trough? Too many pigs? Get a bigger trough!
Oh, there’s no doubt Frank a$ Co. have grand plans for those “Regulations to be determined later” sections. Expect them to write in some of the most heinous language in the bill.
And among those 8 despicable humans is Mary Bono Mack, whose district includes parts of Riverside County, CA. This is a conservative bastion (to the extent there can be one) in California. Not only that, this was one of the hardest hit areas in the Barney Frank Sub-prime Mortgage Debacle. And look how she betrays her constituents. There’s no excuse for her, or for any of these members of congress, to vote the way they did.
They are traitors.
Can someone explain to me why no one has filed a lawsuit against Obama’s czar system? How about a serious challenge of the TARP bill? Will ANY of this ever be challenged in court, or is it a foregone conclusion that the liberals on the court will torpedo any realistic challenge? If I recall correctly, FDR was denied his extra-legal executive usurpation of power. Why not Obama?
It just keeps getting scarier. Placeholder must mean the dems can now do, say, tax, spend anytime, whenever they want. Obama expresses “deep concern because Honduras tries to stop another wannabe Hugo Chavez from making himself the lifetime dictator of Honduras, and what is his input on the Global Crap Bill other than being so happy it passed? Sorry Honduras is off topic, but it really pisses me off when our illustrious leader calls it a coup.
Has Mary Bono-Mack made any public statements defending her treachery? Sent her an e-mail Friday with my opinion.
The wording of SEC. 788 has just been released:
SEC. 788: It is understood that all members of congress are entitled to one free prostitute (sex of their choosing), 30 quarts of distilled spirits, and a million dollars a month in “personal funds”. In addition, congress may order as many new corvettes and camaros as they want for their family and friends. This is to be labeled the “General Motors Congressional Sacraficial Aid Program”.
It isn’t our mouths that will be gaping… and it will take surgery to sew us all back together again.
Thank you Prendad, it is pretty much what I thought.
So I ask these morons in the Senate…. would they sign a loan agreement that had a “placeholder” in it?
Because they essentially did as much….. but we’re the borrower.
I first read the headline “place holder”, I thought you were referring to Mr Obama.
Second thought, after reading more, I thougt “double secret probation”.
Because he’s black. Sorry to be so blunt, but let’s be honest here. Any caucasian president would not be going gangbusters at this lightning speed, and would not be allowed to get away with this so swiftly.
Not sure that is what is meant. Put in a place holder now for an anticipated amendment to the bill to be actually voted on and added later? Saves the trouble of having to renumber sections and references.
I don’t think, if that were the case, it would be particularly uncommon.
Our Congressional Representative disagrees with you.
Do you seriously think that is all that hard to add an amendement number 4 AFTER amendment number 3???
PLEASE chap, thats weak coming from you
In a world based in reality, this might be an issue. However, we are now entering the wonderful world of the socialist utopia. All your needs will be provided for by our wise and kind central government. You must trust our dedicated rulers to only put vitally necessary language into the reserved sections.
A group of 4th graders could run this Country better.
Anything in TARP taxing or banning volcanos? I didn’t think so. No votes, money or power in that. Well, they do make for some pretty sunsets, thousands of miles away…sulfur dioxide and ash…enough to put to shame our own “pollution” like CO2.
Section 788…Sounds like the George Soros provision…allows him to get his grubby little hands on cornering the market on carbon offset derivatives and become the worlds first trillionaire. I wouldn’t put it past them.
4th graders ARE running the country.
Computers fix that all the time. Besides, these place holders are for language to be inserted into the bill BEFORE the final vote.
I question the legality of it. Why so-called Republicans didn’t do the same is beyond me. It’s simple. Repeat after me:
Errah, On the Hill this is affectionately known as the “just you bend over and squeal without the common courtesy of a decent reach around” clause.
Traitors or Idiots…I know which one I pick!
It is more than that. You also have to amend every cross reference within the text of the bill dealing with your new section and every subsequent section. Take a look at raw legislation and see how many times different sections are cross referenced. So if they KNOW a new section must be added, but it hasn’t been written AND voted upon yet, put the section in there now and save headache later.
This is hardly unprecedented, either. Take this example:
Nowhere do I get the impression that this allows bill writers to simply insert language without going through a formal amendment process.
That is not the working assumption here.
gerysonret,
There may not be a provision to limit volcanoes to their allowed co2 emmssions, but the people living near this volcano have be concerned about the co2 their county or state produces. They must be taxed!!!
In fact if you can imagine a company commander taking out his rifle and leading a charge, just picture our congressment taking out their pens and rushing forward with the deafening cry of TAX!!!
Two things: this sounds like something the “Fine Print Czar” should be on the lookout to clarify or delete, and it reminds me of Directive 10-289 in Atlas Shrugged. Either way, it’s patently ridiculous!
Energy reparations …
So, Chap, I still don’t understand how this saves time. If the section hasn’t been written, you don’t know what will be in it, right? So how can you cross-reference something before it is written — whether in the body of the bill or an amendment? Sorry, but this argument doesn’t hold.
Simply put, complete the text or remove it before the bill is voted on. To not do so is like giving a kid a genie, and him using one of his three wishes to wish for a million more wishes.
This bill STINKS.
Tell Barney the gerbil died!!
Welcome to “Find and Replace”…
The sections and references renumber automatically since they are numbered automatically in the first place. The app keeps track of all of that. Even MS Word. You stilling using WordStar for DOS Chap?
If you create these documents correctly, which I believe they do, you do not edit the references/section numbers by hand.
Errah, so on pg 866 “Public Health and Climate Change”; Does this mean I must first get a prescription from my doc for my new hawaiian shirt, sunglasses and poolside margaritas attributable to global climate change? Please help me understand this one.
People:
Have you ever read a bill that amended text?
It is not simply a matter of pulling it off microsoft word, and using the outline funcion.
Here is something quick I found:
And so on and so on and so on…
It didn’t take the people from Honduras long to figure somebody was trashing their Constitution. When in the hell are the American people going to wake up? Why worry about the fine print when these idiots in Washington don’t even read the bold print.
They know what in general will be there. They don’t know all the details.
Please someone tell me where Barney Frank says that this language will be inserted after final vote of the bill without being specifically voted on.
Well if Barney says a “good system will be in place”..how can one possibly question that? /sar.
Even if this were true, they wouldn’t have had to resort to this if they had actually given the House time to read and debate the damn bill. I mean dropping a 300 pg amendment in the hopper at 3am and voting the next day???
They rushed the vote to avoid scrutiny and so we can only conclude that they left out text with the intent of putting even worse stuff in there.
Wow. Computer programs can accurately model the climate 100 years out (so I hear, albeit less regularly now than at the zenith of the AGW scaremongering), but they can’t fix cross-references in a document. Who knew that was such a complicated task?!
Not buying it Chap. I’m sure there is some typing involved. Even assuming what you say is reality, if they just wanted to simplify the editing process, why wouldn’t they just add the paragraph/section at the end of that portion of the document? Why did it have to be item number 4?
Or better yet, why didn’t they just write it out if they knew what it was going to say? They managed to prepare 300 pages in the middle of the night….that no one was going to bother to read anyway. What’s a few more (unread) paragraphs for a brilliant wordsmith like Barney Frank?
err.. Strike the dig ar Frank.. He wasn’t involved. This was the House.
Let’s replace that with…
What’s a few more (unread) paragraphs for a multi-talented genius like Nancy Pelosi, who has clearly demonstrated she is in touch with the price of gas.
About Mary Bono-Mack voting for this bill:
All politics is local.
Thomas P. O’Neill
A little history lesson:
And the Aftermath:
Look, people are getting wayyyy too caught up with this whole amending text argument. I still don’t understand why it is so hard to believe that, if you know an addition to a bill will be necessary (setting aside for the moment how that language makes it in), sticking a “Section Reserved” in the proper place is common sense.
The point that is relevant is whether or not, as is assumed here, the language to be inserted is done without ever having been voted upon.
Please someone show me where this is shown to be the case.
Nope, not good enough. IF this is inserted without having to go through a vote, every last one of those who voted for it should take back their vote. (Yeah, right, like that’ll happen…) At a minimum, as others have stated, this is just proof of the sloppy procedural (I use that term loosely) work (also loosely) being done by our current legislators. They don’t take the time to read anything, they can’t even seem to find it to read it, and then they leave blank spaces to be filled in at a later date. It’s garbage. Nobody who has a real job would survive long if they tried to work in this fashion.
Barney Frank is a documented liar, so it really does not matter what he says.
The point of this ‘placeholder’ is simply the ego of Frank trying to position himself as being relevant to any version of this bill comming back with regulations for this carbon trading ripp-off.
And the reason that Barney did not want to admit there is a lot of fraud in the entire concept of government controlled carbon trading was to avoid the small detail of people using that as a reason to vote against this absurd bill. It is also the reason for virtually no ammendments or debate on the floor of the house. The authors know this level of corruption cannot withstand an honest debate.
Do not forget, this is all about having the government control all people and businesses by demanding they pay for their alledged ‘carbon footprints’.
The directness of having the government dole out free carbon credits to their politicaly aligned businesses today, and establishing a ‘trading’ marketplace in order to tax people and businesses immediatly, is all about maintaining power over all.
Make no mistake, the federal government will be deciding which business should fail and which will survive. And this will have nothing to do with their alledged impact on the environment, it will be about who pays the most money to the political party running the program.
Look no farther than the EPA to see how this corruption manifests itself. The EPA is clearly a politicaly alligned organization and is NOT an IMPARTIAL entity.
This is a government grab of property rights done via the lie of man made global warming.
In a rational world managed by adults there would not be a vote until the details were present.
However, Obama’s “panic the herd” strategy that demands immediate action, because that the earth is facing more crises than it has at any point in its four billion years of existence provides the necessary mindset that allows this kind of lunacy to be considered normal conduct.
I like chapoutier have seen [section reserved] where a section gets deleted out of long contracts with lots of cross references.
Very Very few people know how to you words to link the cross references within sections of the documents (ex – ….. for purposes of this Section X.X refer to the definition found in Section Y.Y …..). It is NOT as simple as just adding a new item to a list.
That being said the much preferred way to solve this is to put something like “[Section intentionally deleted].” “[Reserved]” and “[Section Reserved]” are the old school way of doing it
I do wonder though why Barney tried to explain a purpose for the reference… but then again he was never a lawyer and lies for a living
People,
I can buy the argument that they shouldn’t vote on the bill until all the language is in there. In fact, I will agree.
But that is entirely different from saying that language will be inserted into the bill by the bill writers without being voted upon by the full body. That is what MM is implying and that is what I would like to see some proof of.
Vinny, my wife is Indonesian. She is very familiar with volcanoes and their destruction.
The point was it was voted on by the House. Without it’s members, our representatives, knowing what was to be added.
Yeah, there will be a senate version. But what happens when some congressman gets a look at what is added and says, I would have not voted for it had I known that.
Granted, in this case, it’s unlikely since these morons didn’t even bother to read it.
But that’s not the point.
This is no different that saying….
“Florida. You vote for president today. Candidate #2 has not revealed his position on abortion yet, but he will at a later date. But don’t worry. California has your back. They’ll know his position on that before -they- vote.”
Very Very few people know how to use MS word to link the cross references within sections of the document
stupid Iphone auto correct… long live copy paste though
I think it all comes down to one thing -TRUST – We don’t trust these shysters to put “placeholders” in any legislation. It may be, have been a normal practice but nothing is as it seems anymore. Nothing is copsetic. There is no such thing as “normal.”
pure bovine excrement….
Again, whether or not voting on a partial bill is wise is a separate issue of if the rest of the bill will just be filled in by a few or whether the additional language will be voted upon by the whole.
And that was exactly what MM was saying. She interpreted Frank’s comment to mean that he (and a select few) will just fill in the blank of their own volition. Otherwise she would not have made such a big deal about “Do you trust Barney Frank?”
Something that our overlords in D.C. are showing us day-by-day that they’re totally unworthy of. We already know they’re going to use any underhanded means they can to ram their agenda through, this latest tactic is just one small aspect. The question is, will the Republicans (and those few thinking Dems that aren’t Obama-bots) in Congress have the stones to do anything about it…
The biggest problem I have with this is that we are potentially giving them the power or at least a silent lack of dissent regarding their ability to insert pork or anything else that they may deem relevant at a later date. It could very well turn out to be something that negates many of the negatives and actually be beneficial to we the people and to the economy but that would still not change the fact that they would seemingly have this ability without consequences.
Even the Spanish Inquisition had “good intentions” but that did not help the people they converted did it? To allow them even the opportunity to believe that they can include more language without a vote, whether that is their “intention” or not, is inviting them to abuse that power. This is still the government we are talking about and not somebody with a really good record regarding trust or even popularity among the people lately. (Last time I saw, Congressional Approval ratings were still really low no?)
It is not whether or not the bully will beat you up today but whether he thinks that he can do it at will … when he believes that, be it today or tomorrow he will be coming after you … and very likely more than once.
Fixed it for you.
Which you would have to do ANYWAY!!!
On July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:On July 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm, ajmontana said:
A group of 4th graders could run this Country better.
4th graders ARE running the country.
I think it is safe to assume that a “place holder” in a bill that has passed equates to theft of public funds by the democrap controlled congress. The 111th Congress will be remembered by history as not only irresponsible but dishonest as well.
Don Young (AK) once changed a bill after it was passed and before it was signed. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003904.php
Nobody cared then, either.
For your perusal, here is the reply I got from Cong. Mary Bono Mack on my request for an explanation as to why she voted for the bill. She did not reply to my very specific question as to why she did so without reading the whole bill. I also requested a copy of the same from her. As you can see, she mouthed off the same old WRONG arguments about environmental concerns that are supposed to be righted with the bill! What a disappointment!
July 1, 2009
Ms. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
xxxxx xxth Avenue
Cathedral City, CA 92234-5828
Dear Ms. Urzurriaga:
Thank you for writing regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454. This legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, and now awaits action in the U. S. Senate.
I voted in support of this legislation to move the process forward and help our region realize the benefits of advancing clean energy technology, while at the same time recognizing that areas for improvement still exist. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views, as it will help guide our debate and facilitate important changes to H.R. 2454 as it moves to the Senate.
There are several reasons why we must take the issue of regulating greenhouse gases very seriously, and why we should grapple with this issue within Congress as opposed to leaving this to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.
While some have debated the causes and even the validity of global climate change, few debate the need for our nation to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and other traditional carbon-based energy sources, and also develop more American alternative energy production so that our nation may become more energy independent. This is not just a matter of economic and energy security but truly a matter of our future national security as well.
If Congress does not take action to address regulating greenhouse gases, it is clear that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already taking steps to implement new regulations on all domestic industries with little input from Congress or affected residents.
On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, creating the authority for the EPA to directly regulate these emissions. This decision instructed the EPA to look at these gases and determine if, as pollutants, they do in fact cause harm to humans and contribute to global climate change.
Shortly after President Obama was elected, it became clear his Administration would further examine this issue, as the guidance from the Supreme Court was clear in stating that if climate change threatens human health, they must consider actions to cut the gases they find to be explicitly harmful. Following this ruling, the EPA announced on April 17, 2009, that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act of 1990, which was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. This decision is commonly called the “Endangerment Finding,” and is the first signal that, in my estimation, the EPA was very serious about taking action to regulate our domestic businesses emitting greenhouse gases, even without Congressional input.
It is crucial, especially for our agriculture communities, that we do not stand idly by while a mechanism that results in the EPA regulating everything from major industries to small businesses, and even taking the right to regulate methane from livestock can occur. It is very important to note that H.R. 2454 actually removes the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions unilaterally under the Clean Air Act. This is vital, as our domestic businesses cannot and should not be forced to operate under the fear of the uncertainty that can come from the bureaucratic red tape created when EPA mandates aggressive and stringent regulations. Ensuring the EPA is not allowed to regulate these substances under the Clean Air Act, as they are currently empowered to do, is one of the primary reasons why this legislation was necessary. Without Congressional direction, new burdensome regulations will leave small businesses vulnerable to new emissions controls from the EPA that will go too far.
President Obama, in my opinion, sought the wrong approach to addressing this issue, an approach that was truly a “cap and tax” regime. Earlier this year, the President pressed for an auction of 100% of the emissions credits that the government would create and force domestic companies to purchase if they had emissions that exceeded certain levels. These payments would then revert back to the Federal Government’s General Fund at the Treasury Department to pay for a series of other items including a government-run health care regime and expansion of other federal government programs.
H.R. 2454 does not use this approach, which would have significantly increased the price of energy for consumers. This approach was included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget proposal and is a component with which I strongly disagree. In fact, I opposed the Budget when it came to the Floor of the House on April 29, 2009. This Budget included tax increases of over $1.5 trillion that would hurt workers, families, and small businesses.
The proper legislative approach was never to raise federal revenues, but instead provide incentives directly to the companies that are interested in taking on the challenges of cleaning up their current emissions levels or implementing new technologies to make themselves more efficient – in effect reducing costs and improving their output.
Further compounding the complexity of this issue, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a greenhouse gases cap regulation to lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The emissions targets in H.R. 2454 are actually less stringent than those within California’s A.B. 32. It is even more important to note that the more reasonable approach in H.R. 2454 pre-empts the California State law on the cap and trade portion so that, if properly addressed, the entire U.S. can more efficiently work to clean up our greenhouse gas emissions nation-wide over the next few years.
The fact is, California already utilizes generally cleaner energy resource inputs for its electricity production. In recognition of the current economic challenges we face, the House bill does not take effect until 2012. This legislation ensures that California is rewarded for taking those early actions, as we should not be penalized for our role as an innovator in new technologies, especially in alternative energy industries with the potential to create jobs.
It is that forward-thinking approach to our nation’s energy future that brought major U.S.- based companies like Johnson & Johnson, DuPont, and Conoco Phillips to support legislation like this over the years. Such legislation provides the certainty that companies need to invest in new clean energy solutions and bring us closer to realizing the benefits, including job creation, from these new technologies. These are the companies that will help provide new jobs in our own region as we begin to push to revive our economy. Investors and entrepreneurs will clearly see the opportunities for leading the world in new energy technology manufacturing and ideas that can be exported around the globe.
Our region is in a unique position: we have vast potential for more wind, solar, and geothermal energy production facilities to be built in Riverside County. Due to the state of the economy, it is crucial that those who are seeking new employment opportunities have options that include jobs created from more green energy production in the area.
I fully appreciate that H.R. 2454 needs continued improvements. That is why during the debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I voted in favor of the Rep. Forbes (R-VA) substitute amendment, based on the text of the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, H.R. 513. The Manhattan bill set a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in 10 years and 100% in 20 years. The bill pushes incentives for renewable energy, clean coal, and other low emissions energy sources. It enhances research, especially in fusion, bio-fuels, carbon-capture systems and efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated by a vote of 172 to 256.
There is no reason why we cannot advance our domestic energy production and incorporate them into this legislation, from streamlining energy industry permitting processes, opening up drilling for oil in ANWR, aggressively pursuing clean coal, and removing government red tape that prevents us from using more oil resources like the oil shale reserves throughout the western United States.
Nuclear energy also plays a crucial role in our domestic energy future, as it is highly-efficient and emissions free. H.R. 2454 recognizes this by creating the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which will provide loans and loan guarantees for large nuclear power development projects. The nuclear energy industry will see serious growth in a model where we seek to reduce carbon emissions in the electric sector. Studies have shown this legislation’s goals will require 30-40 additional nuclear plants by 2030, and an additional 86 new plants by 2040. This is vital, as the last new reactor to come on-line was in 1996, and we actually have fewer generating units in our country today then were operating in 1994.
As someone who chose not to cosponsor this bill, I look forward to further debate in the Senate, as there is clearly more work ahead to refine and improve this legislation. That is why I so deeply value your continued input. California is recognized as a world leader in technological advancements and must continue to be a leader on this front, as we have an obligation to make a cleaner energy economy a reality in the decades ahead.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 45th District at http://www.bonomack.house.gov/emailsignup. Please feel free to contact me on other matters of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
MARY BONO MACK
Member of Congress
M
MBM/jb
Sincerely,
MARY BONO
Member of Congress
Oh come on people. What’s the problem? This is just so the corrupt democrats (I know that’s redundant) can slip in $50 billion for acorn so they can keep right on stealing elections like they just did in MN.
I don’t give a rat’s rear end whether “placeholders” are legal or ethical or whatever!
The entire bill stinks and will utterly destroy our economy and a LOT of our freedom.
Don’t get caught up in the trap liberals use of arguing the “details” of a pile of excrement. It is still a pile of “you know what”!
Agree 100%, chapoutier.
You should be thanked for helping to moderate this thread.
I’m sure the new section will require a vote, and I doubt it will be more controversial than the bill itself. In other words, the new section (which will probably pass) will suck just as bad. I’m quite sure Barney Frank wouldn’t understand a financial derivative if it bit him in the butt.
Someone please write her back and ask why she’s stupid enough to think that;
Reducing CO2 = Energy Independence.
Tell her staff that we need representatives smart enough to understand the danger of linking the two issues.
So, thoretically we can sue Congress ?
Hmmmm…Want to bet any federal judge will decide we don’t have standing to sue? BTW nice to hear from you again, Chapoutier. It’s been awhile since I saw you post. Welcome back.
The whole system has turned into nothing but a gang of white collar gangster thugs.
” Chicago-style “
Well I think I mucked up my argument in the Amtrak thread and end up contradicting myself in a very fundamental way, so lets just call it even.
Nah it’s reserved for repeal of the 22nd amendment.
I would be willing to bet that the missing Section 788 is to be written by Al Gore with Barney Frank’s input and approval.
I’m also sure that we will find Chris Dodd’s and Chuck Schumer’s fine handwriting in there somewhere.
Derivative really turn this group on!
PC is Thought Control
LEE
Methinks I hear the next Supreme Court case in this “bill”. (and I use that term loosely)
Could you imagine our beloved 1970’s Saturday morning public service cartoon signing:
“I’m just a bill with a reserved place holder on Capitol hill!”
At least now, with Al Frankin being the Senator from Goofy Gopher Land (Go Hawks!), the Senate, and Congress as a whole, has a true amd full representation of the mindless, worthless, self-indulgent wastes of life they really are.
Not a seperate issue. It is the issue.
I’ve read many a bill. I’ve even read your example bills for amendments, although no one who is affected by said bills reads the actual language, but they view the changes in the Federal Register.
Here’s the problems:
-Laws are complex
-Incomplete laws, by whatever method, passed with whatever intent, are insidious; since the calculus needed to keep a watchful eye on Congress is too onerous for the American public
Who cares is the bill is filled in by a rogue after passage, by a few members in a committee without the full vote, or even by full vote? The purpose of the Congressional leadership is clear-KEEP THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN PERPETUAL MUSHROOM SYNDROME: ALWAYS IN THE DARK, AND KEEP THE MANURE COMING!
Doing a search in the Federal Register on “Section Reserved”, I returned 40 hits for 2009. I limited my further research to the top 15, for brevity. Ten of those bills had conspicuous Reserved sections.
The following bills are the results of my search, amd have been passed by this Congress with undefined “Reserved Sections”:
———-
40 CFR Part 55
[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0238; FRL-8896-1]
Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for
Delaware
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
———-
26 CFR Parts 1 and 602
[TD 9446]
RIN 1545-BG09
Gain Recognition Agreements With Respect to Certain Transfers of
Stock or Securities by United States Persons to Foreign Corporations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
———
10 CFR Parts 50, 52, 72, and 73
[NRC-2008-0019]
RIN 3150-AG63
Power Reactor Security Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
———
26 CFR Parts 1 and 602
[TD 9452]
RIN 1545-BB28
Application of Separate Limitations to Dividends From Noncontrolled Section 902 Corporations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
———
26 CFR Part 1
[REG-143686-07]
RIN 1545-BH35
The Allocation of Consideration and Allocation and Recovery of
Basis in Transactions Involving Corporate Stock or Securities
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
———
26 CFR Parts 1, 301, and 602
[TD 9441]
RIN 1545-BI46
Section 482: Methods To Determine Taxable Income in Connection
With a Cost Sharing Arrangement
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
———
26 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 25
[TD 9448]
RIN 1545-BH96; RIN 1545-BI56
Use of Actuarial Tables in Valuing Annuities, Interests for Life
or Terms of Years, and Remainder or Reversionary Interests
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
———
12 CFR Part 706
RIN 3133-AD47
Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
AGENCIES: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board);
Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS); and National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA)
———
7 CFR Part 2
RIN 0503-AA37
Revision of Delegations of Authority
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.
———
[[pp. 5394-5443]] Truth in Lending
So I ask you, are you sure you want to place your trust, your future, and the hopes of the Nation on the intentions of a Congress that seams hell-bent on hiding as much as they can from the constituents? Do you feel that we, as the bill payers, do not have a right to know what exactly is in the entire bill, and to voice our grievances to those representatives we elected, before the law is passed?
Or are you just another ZERO-LIABILITY VOTER?
crashemt,
You are totally missing my point. MM is claiming that the rest of the bill will be simply filled in by a select few without vote from the whole House. I want to know where she gets this impression. Do you not see how this is fundamentally different from arguing that it is a bad idea for the House to vote on a bill in a piecemeal fashion (which I would actually agree with)? It is absolutely not the same thing. I don’t understand how one could not grasp and appreciate that distinction.
But I do thank you for doing the legwork and proving that rep. Joe Barton has no idea what he is talking about when he claims that such a tactic is unprecedented.
I find seeing the words “Section Reserved” VERY uneasing. Sort of a blank check, sign it and work out the details and fill in later, kind of scarey.