"The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.

Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it.

Opponents said the legislation would be too costly for businesses and would force manufacturers to move operations and jobs overseas. Some also disputed the conclusions of most scientists who have linked greenhouse gas emissions with global warming.

"My first priority is protecting our families and workers," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). The amendment, he added, "will hurt our families, hurt our nation's energy security, drive jobs overseas. I don't want to be imposing this pain when there is no assurance that it will make any significant difference."

Lawmakers then passed by voice vote a nonbinding resolution calling for Congress to approve mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not "significantly harm the . . . economy." The resolution also acknowledges the "growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere." Some environmentalists said the resolution -- while lacking any teeth -- marked a turning point in the debate and indicated a willingness to take action."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200465_pf.html

So if passed this would cost the tax payers 300 billion and it was mini-Kyoto. And Kyoto even if fully implemented would not much affect on global temperature- something like it would affect it by .01 C or some other immeasurable much. But costing trillions. So the Senate majority wasn't interested in starting down that pointless path.

Of course dependably the lefty environmentalist try to spin it as good news. And mention their growing consenus [10 going to 11, I suppose]. Nevermind that the US is already spending billions per year studying this issue. And there isn't anything resembling a consenus.