As expected, the Senate today shot down two competing plans to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, leaving lawmakers without a clear path to accord amid a raging debate over how deeply to cut federal energy and environmental programs.

Eleven Democrats broke with their leaders to oppose a bill that cuts about $6 billion from current spending over the next six-plus months. The 42-58 vote saw Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado, Bill Nelson of Florida, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Jim Webb of Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan, as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, lining up against the legislation.

The continuing resolution (CR) passed by the House on Feb. 19, which slashes $3 billion from U.S. EPA and more than $1 billion from Energy Department renewables and efficiency accounts, also fell short, 44-56. Democrats united in opposition to the bill, while three Republicans -- Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- opposed the plan because it failed to go far enough in cutting federal spending.

Several of the Democrats who voted against both alternative spending plans, including McCaskill and Manchin, telegraphed their intentions in advance in public pleas to the White House and party elders for more engagement on long-term deficit reduction talks.

"Who would pay attention to either one of these bills when they're not serious?" Nelson of Nebraska told reporters after the vote. "The Republicans did nothing with their bill to attract Democrats. The Democrats did nothing with their bill to attract Republicans. And if you're looking for consensus, you're looking for solution, you've got to do what they haven't done."

Yet a few other Democrats who did not broadcast their frustrations with the $6 billion in cuts offered Friday by the Senate Appropriations Committee raised eyebrows today by voting "no."

One member of that group, Udall, said he cast his lot according to the "Goldilocks rule."

"One's too hot, one's too cold -- we need to find the right temperature," he said of the alternative bills that failed today. "The House is going to spend all of its time on social issues and ignore the fact that we have to focus on the economy and jobs," he added, "and the president is biding his time. Then the Senate ought to lead."

Still more Democratic caucus members opposed to the Appropriations panel's plan, including Harkin and Sanders, viewed it as going too far in slicing federal programs.

That Democratic alternative would cut about 8 percent from EPA's environmental programs and management account while also trimming its Great Lakes restoration and science accounts. DOE's science and advanced research programs would see cuts of about 10 percent in the bill, which nonetheless restores about half of the funding cut by the House's CR (E&ENews PM, March 4).

In the wake of the vote, House Republican leaders sought to put the onus back on the president's party to strengthen its offer for cuts. The Senate Democratic bill, combined with $4 billion in cuts that the GOP won support for last week in a two-week stopgap CR, remains $50 billion below the lower chamber's already-passed bill.

"It's time for Washington Democrats to present a serious plan to cut spending," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "In the meantime, Republicans will continue to keep our pledge to focus on the American people's priorities: cutting spending and creating jobs."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) countered with the same entreaty to Boehner's party, using a popular tactic of measuring cuts by the never-passed White House budget request to contend that his party had proposed more than $50 billion in cuts. "[S]o far Republicans have refused to abandon even the most extreme of their reckless proposals," Reid said in a statement.

Meanwhile, one Republican senator who voted with her party -- while facing a difficult re-election battle next year -- released a statement framing her vote as a strike for deficit reduction but lamenting senators' lack of ability to weigh in on the controversial House-side cuts.

Some of the programs slated for slashing by the House, including environmental spending, "should have received the benefit of full debate and consideration of amendments on the Senate floor," said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in a statement.

Reporters Sarah Abruzzese and Katie Howell contributed.