Late last week, when the nation's attention was focused on the death of Michael Jackson and the strange saga of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a massive energy-related bill known as cap-and-trade, a key provision of the measure designed to impose costs on emissions of greenhouse gases.

Few, if any, House members could have read the 1,200 pages of legislation before passing it 219-212. Likewise, few Americans really understand the potential impact of such a bill.

Sadly, most Americans know more about Jackson's plastic surgeries and Sanford's extramarital love affair than they do about the impact of a massive cap-and-trade program on carbon emissions.

Though the bill has the laudable goal of reducing greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, it has many flaws. Among them is the potential for politicization of the government's awarding of initial pollution permits, hard-to-monitor offset provisions that allow tree planting and forest protection around the world, and the failure to address increased pollution from China, India and other global competitors.

To their credit, the two members of Congress representing parts of Butler County voted against the cap- and-trade bill, officially named the American Clean Energy and Security Act (House Resolution 2454).

Jason Altmire, D-4th, says he does not agree with the cap-and-trade program, adding that he opposed H.R. 2454 because it will raise energy prices for families in Western Pennsylvania.

That criticism cannot be refuted. The only disagreement is over how much energy prices will increase, not if they will increase. Supporters of the bill say the increased costs are worth the price if a cleaner environment is the result.

President Barack Obama, who supports the bill, says the price to every American will amount only to the price of a postage stamp per day. Regarding the higher costs, he says, "It is paid by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions."

But does the president really believe the power companies will absorb the higher costs rather than pass those costs on to residential and business consumers? It's hard to imagine energy producers and large manufacturers absorbing the higher costs; they will be passed on to consumers.

Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-3rd, also voted against the measure because of its expected impact on industry and families. Dahlkemper says she views global warming as a serious issue, but does not support H.R. 2454 because it would place a disproportionate economic burden on northwestern Pennsylvania.

She also noted that the bill passed by the House would hurt manufacturing and steel production, while shifting more competitive advantages to companies with facilities, and jobs, in China or India.

While votes against the bill by Altmire and Dahlkemper are worth noting, it's also likely that Democratic leaders in the House made sure they had enough votes for passage, while allowing legislators in competitive re-election situations to vote with public sentiment, and against the bill.

Dahlkemper is a freshman lawmaker, and both the Erie Democrat and Altmire represent fairly conservative districts. Therefore, House leaders appear to have allowed them (and just 42 other Democrats) to vote no as a calculated move to help maintain continued Democratic control of Congress.

Beyond the calculated vote machinations, the public has to question how such a complex and controversial bill can be passed so quickly and without any significant public discussion. Few, if any, House members could have read or understood the contents of the 1,200-page piece of legislation that they passed. How many lawmakers understood what was in the 310-page amendment added at 3 a.m., hours before the vote?

Did the 219 representatives who voted for the bill understand how the government would award pollution permits? Did any of them worry that politically connected utilities or influential manufacturers might receive favored treatment in the issuance of pollution permits?

The New York Times reported that the bill "grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win votes." The article also explained that "billions of dollars in promises" were doled out to resistant lawmakers.

Did any of the 219 House members realize what Times columnist David Brooks noted in his column this week — "A few years ago, the European Union passed a cap-and-trade system, but because it was so shot through with special-interest caveats, emissions actually rose"?

The Times article noted that big utilities "received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion."

Did the House Democrats who passed this cap-and-trade bill understand how the government would monitor the bill's so-called pollution offsets, which allow companies to compensate for pollution by paying someone else to reduce carbon dioxide by planting trees or protecting forests, either in the United States or in some other part of the world? Quantifying the value and effectiveness of those offsets probably is impossible. And the entire mechanism of a national exchange, a special new stock exchange for Wall Street profits, to handle trading of pollution credits is extremely complex and could be subject to manipulation.

By the time the Senate considers this bill, Americans need to do some research so they understand the full impact of this cap-and-trade bill, including costs passed on to business and consumers. Quick passage of cap-and-trade by the House and little public discussion should make most Americans nervous, because it looks as though special interests are being served while average Americans are being taxed.