U.S. cutbacks was in trouble in the Senate. SEN. CHARLES HAGEL, (R) Nebraska: It is the developing nations which will be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases during the next 25 years. It is complete folly to exclude them from legally binding emission mandates. How could any treaty aimed at reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases be at all effective when it excludes these 130 nations? NARRATOR: Remarkably, even liberal Senators concerned about global warming had concluded that voting for Kyoto was political suicide. SEN. RON WYDEN, (D) Oregon: The fact is, our country can control global warming without causing an economic meltdown! Now, there are really three approaches- RICHARD BERKE, The New York Times: You can't underestimate that power of interests on Capitol Hill that are opposed to this, between the business interests and the labor interests and so forth. Even Republicans these days are much more apt to call themselves green and to say they're fighting for environmental issues, but they'll only go so far because you don't want to run into danger with the business groups that are crucial to funding a lot of these campaigns. NARRATOR: In a rare display of unity, the Senate voted 95 to nothing declaring their opposition to Kyoto. SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM: The yeas are 95, and the nays are 0, and the resolution is approved. NARRATOR: Climate scientists, who had seen the treaty as a small first step, were stunned. MICHAEL B. McELROY, Harvard University: I can't imagine that 95