Greenwire reports (password required) that our hand-wringng or, one might suppose, uninformed, even hyper-politicized — you decide — Senators are preparing to grandstand on a “post-Kyoto” resolution, the Biden-Lugar resolution which, as we know, demanding that President Bush or his people go do a better job of negotiating a global warming treaty than Al Gore. (Memo to These People: Bush just did. Again.)

Though proffered under the “poor us, Bush is blocking Kyoto” smokescreen, its proponents have been allowed to lay down, absolving themselves of their constitutional duty by hiding that the Senate may vote on whatever it chooses to vote on, this also is a clear if implicit admission that the Senate chooses to not vote on Kyoto. Ah. Which is to say that the Senate chooses to not commit the United States to Kyoto. Mmmm. Which is also to say that adoption of Biden-Lugar (finally) constitutes Senate rejection of Kyoto. If in a cowardly fashion for our alarmist/posturing Senate friends pushing it.

As such, it is incumbent upon someone, anyone with the ability to do so to call on the Senate to acknowledge this. Senator Inhofe apparently is considering a filibuster, according to the same Greenwire story, which the Democrats believe they have 60 votes to break. Here’s a better call: Offer an amendment to this cynical resolution calling for the Senate to spell out its Kyoto stance; even one as simple as a “Whereas, the United States chooses to not become Party to the Kyoto Protocol agreed in Japan on December 11, 1997 and signed on November 12, 1998…” would throw the chamber into an uproar. But it would be a productively illustrative one. Industry folks to whom I raised this (and, I fear certain Republican Senate aides, some of whom insist their bosses are convinced that the Senate has already voted on Kyoto…sigh) cowered in the corner at the thought as it too closely resembled offering the Kyoto Protocol for ratification.

Relax. Not only are there not more than maybe two votes for ratification — though I guess we’ll never know, thanks to the free pass — but this amendment carries no such, ahem, risk, anyhow. Only upside.

Besides, it is only the responsible course, as purported Senate treatyphiles demand a new offer, that they exercise their constitutional duty and assert the US position on that offer which is still on the table thanks to President Clinton signing it, what with the (also signed-but-not-ratfied) Vienna Convention and customary “international law” demanding that we not “violate (Kyoto’s) object and purpose” until such a stance is communicated. In short, every reason compelling Bush to “unsign ” the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applies to every signed treaty to which we know we do not actually wish to join.

Will anyone answer duty’s call?