Dumb question about Kyoto Protocol status

[garybeck]

I was reading an article that stated:


The United States has signed, but the Senate has not ratified, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement for climate change. If the treaty is not ratified, it is not legally binding. Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol commit to fighting global warming by reducing and maintaining their emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

My dumb question--

Is it still in the Senate's hands to ratify it? And if so why hasn't the Democratically controlled Senate ratified it? Don't tell me... international treaties require a super majority...?

so are we to assume if there was a vote that it would fail? Would some Dems cave in to their corporate influence or would it be strictly partyline vote?

[papau]

1. Anything other than the budget can be stopped by 41 votes

[cloudythescribbler]

2. Yes, among other issues vis-a-vis Kyoto, treaties require 2/3 Senate approval

[garybeck]

3. has it ever come to a vote?

are we to assume that it would be voted on strictly by party line? or would some Dems cave in to their corporate influence?

[patch1234]

4. the Clinton Administration never sent the treaty to the Senate

nothing to vote on.