That seemed unlikely, judging from Reid's cautiously worded statement. "The bill is not perfect," it said, but rather "a good product" for the Senate to begin working on.
And there was plenty to work on in a House-passed measure that pointed toward higher electricity bills for the middle class, particularly in the Midwest and South, as well as steps to ease the way for construction of new nuclear reactors, the first to be built since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.
The bill's controversy was on display in the House, where only eight Republicans joined 211 Democrats in favor, while 44 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition. And within an hour of the vote, both party campaign committees had begun attacking lawmakers for their votes.
One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade — money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold, a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House — and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.
Supporters and opponents agreed the bill's result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.
It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.
- Photo gallery: Tornado rips Oklahoma suburb
- Tornado relief spurs LDS Church, Layton's...
- Fire chief says search almost complete in...
- Teachers saved many lives during Oklahoma...
- Former IRS chief to Congress: Can't say how...
- Salt Lake City has highest rate of same-sex...
- Should we let wunderkinds drop out of high...
- Man being questioned in Boston bombing probe...
- Mitt Romney talks IRS, AP records,...
65 - Journalists criticize Obama...
38 - Associated Press CEO calls records...
23 - White House insists Obama was not...
22 - More Obama aides knew IRS targeted...
19 - Former IRS chief to Congress: Can't say...
19 - Supreme Court to weigh in on...
17 - Fire chief says search almost complete...
15



For the love of freedom and this great country, urge your elected representatives to vote down this massive tax measure. It will not affect global temps and it will not create "millions" of jobs. Al Gore and his cronies stand to reap a "windfall" More..
it's not about "love of freedom for this great country", it's just about changing our habits of energy use and production. save your flag waving for real issues like the bill of rights. you can change your thermostat, drive more economically, and More..
If this passes you can expect to pay more than $2500 a year per household in energy costs. Can you afford this? Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite in history and I don't know how he has snowed people this long. The man simply is not good for America.