In Washington , bad ideas never see to go away. Even after they are rebuffed, some of our nation's leaders simply find more creative ways to revive them. The Senate Thursday featured a perfect example of this trait.

Senators thankfully rejected a proposal by Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen., Joe Lieberman tat would have imposed and energy rationing scheme similar to that of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol, you'll recall, is the international treaty rejected by the senate in 1997 and by George Bush in his 2000 campaign. If ratified, it would make the U.S. cut energy use by 35% before 2012.

Its cost in the lost income and jobs would be enormous; its impact on controlling climate change, as all agree, would be negligible.

It is important to recall the recent history of this issue. All of the arguments advanced years ago remain. Climate science gives even less reason now to support the economically damaging actions demanded by both Kyoto and McCain-Lieberman. Six years have brought only growing uncertainty as to the existence of global warming trend and more conviction that Kyoto-like policies would have minimal impact in reducing it. The protocol was negotiated in November 1997, mainly through the personal intervention of Vice President Al Gore.

Yet on July 25, 1997 , the Senate had unanimously passed a resolution introduced by democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel that stated the president should not sign any protocol that required greenhouse gas reductions without the commitments from developing countries, or that would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

On Nov. 9, 1998 , with the signing imminent Byrd sent a letter to President Clinton, stating “Signing the Kyoto Protocol now would be contrary to the plain language (of the Senate Resolution) ….

Signing now implies commitment to the protocol that may be undermine our future leverage with the biggest emitters (of greenhouses gases) in the developing world.”

Three days later, acting Ambassador Peter Burleigh signed the protocol on behalf of the U.S. In an attempt to blunt anticipated criticism, Gore said that “signing the protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States .”

Gore reiterated the administration's pledge not to submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent “without the meaningful participation of key developing countries.”

Left unspecified was who would make such a determination. In any case, the White House argued the protocol was a “work in progress” and not ready for ratification.

Hagel disagreed, In a press release that say, he arged the resolution explicitly stated the U.S. should not be signatory to any protocol that excludes developing countries or causes serious harm to the U.S. economy.

“The Kyoto Protocol fails both of these tests ….If this treaty is good enough to be signed, it's good enough to be submitted tot e Senate for an open, honest debate.”

Additionally, five Republican House members released a statement expressing their deep disappointment over the signing.

“Signing this treaty without intending to submit it to the Senate for ratification as required by our Constitution sends conflicting messages. The interpretation by other nations will be that the U,S, intends to implement the Kyoto Protocol. But…the administration is attempting to tell the American People ho are concerned about soaring energy process and the loss of jobs: ‘Don't worry, signing this document doesn't mean anything.'”

“The Kyoto Protocol fails both of these tests….If this treaty is good enough to sign, it's good enough to be submitted to the Senate for an open, honest debate.” – Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

Democratic Rep. John Dingell was more blunt: “The administration's apparent decision to sign…is unsurprising but still unwise…The weak, pusillanimous, fatally flawed Kyoto agreement places America's industry, jobs and people at risk, and does little to address any possible threat of climate change.”

Two Years later, candidate George Bush used almost the same words in rejecting Kyoto . Interestingly, President Bush has received and avalanche of criticism for saying he'll never submit Kyoto to the Senate from many of the same senators who in essence voted to instruct his predecessor not to sign in the first place.

The McCain-Lieberman proposal is also clearly contrary to the clear mandate delivered by the Senate in 1997. In reality, McCain-Lieberman would be worse that Kyoto since it would require unilateral reduction of emissions, even if Kyoto fails to go into force- a situation that appears increasingly likely since Russia, an essential country, appears to be leaning against ratifying it.