Fred Thompson, the Global Warming President?

American Writer ^ | 11/12/07 | Alexander J. Madison

[Calpernia]

I don’t think so, it looks like $286 million was allotted to Planned Parenthood FROM Thompson’s Title X.

Let me sort this out, I have a lot of window’s open and am getting confused.

See, Fred’s X is also under the Dept. of Energy and this money got divvied up among a lot of departments. Planned Parenthood is also under the dept of energy.

[pissant]

And the scary part is, huge swaths of what they do never see media coverage. A bill could be for Peruvian Trade and have amendments and riders for Hate Crimes. It’s nuts.

[pissant]

You may be correct, but I’m guessing there are more than a few Title Xs floating around, one from each omnibus bill. I have not had time to research that.

[Calpernia]

Highlighting for later:

>>>(B) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DIFFUSION.—The expertise described in clause (i) shall include knowledge of technology transfer and technology diffusion in United States and foreign markets.<<<

[Calpernia]

President Bush has not proposed any increase in funding for abortion or planned parenthood since taking office in 2001.

But Title X has had 3 infusions of monies under Bush:

$254 million
$265 million
$280 million

This Title X co-sponsored by Thompson had incremental monies releases scheduled:

>>>(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to carry out the duties of the Department Office under this subtitle, $4,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, to remain available through September 30, 2011.<<<

The main focus of Thompson’s Title X is written on Climate Control; but it left wording open throughout the bill to refund the various Department’s of Energy. HHS is under the DOE. And they qualify for department refunding too.

There is an annual report somewhere. I’m having a hard time looking a lot of these things up. I’ll see if I can find the annual report.

[ellery]

I agree with you. Of equal concern to me is entitlement spending, which threatens to put more and more of our debt in foreign hands, will continue to shift federal spending from guns to butter (at an increasing rate as the boomers retire), and could ultimately force us to import exponentially more workers than we already do in order to pay for retirees (as is happening in Europe). I consider it both a government intrusion issue, and a grave sovreignty problem.

Sigh.

[calcowgirl]

I agree with you. Of equal concern to me is entitlement spending...

I can't argue with that! Also very high on my list. Particularly when that entitlement spending is for citizens of foreign countries. :-(

I also don't like our debt situation and have yet to be convinced by anyone that it is not a problem.

[ellery]

Yeah, I dislike a lot of spending...frankly if I didn’t disagree so firmly with Paul on foreign policy/war issues, I would be tempted to back him (and even he’s not pure where spending is concerned). I understand the concept that if if you owe the bank $100, they’re in control, but if you owe them one gazillion-quatrillion, then you’re in control. But it doesn’t seem like a smart policy to deliberately pursue.

I think this entitlement crap even for US citizens is poison...because it seems as if it’s so much harder than any other spending to roll back once it’s in place. It would be interesting to research whether there has ever been an entitlement that has been cut in any way (short of being replaced with another entitlement). Probably not many. UGH!

[calcowgirl]

Hey, in case any of you are looking at any more of this legislation, Pew has a good wrap-up of all the legislation that made it into the final Energy bill. S.517, including all the amendments we discussed upthread, ultimately became H.R.4, as passed by both the Senate and House. Below are selected items relating to Climate Change that fed into H.R.4 (there are more at the link). To find the background of the various items that ultimately became law, you can also read the committee reports of the originating legislation.

For example, S.1008 was the originating bill on Title X in the Committee on Governmental Affairs. I assume that is how Thompson came to sponsor the final Title X Climate Change amendment since he was the Ranking Member on that Committee. Here is a Committee Report on that, including comments by Thompson and other committee members--even James Hansen putting in his two cents.

---

PEW: Legislation in the 107th Congress Related to Global Climate Change

S.Amdt.2917 to S.517: The Energy Policy Act of 2002, which includes Title X, establishing a National Climate Change Policy (see S.1008 under National Climate Change Strategy) and expressing the Sense of the Congress on international climate change negotiations (see S.1401 under International Climate Change Negotiations), Title XI, establishing a National Greenhouse Gas Registry (see S.Amdt.3239 under Greenhouse Gas Reporting), and Title XIII on Climate Change Science and Technology (including carbon sequestration research).
Sponsor: Sen. Thomas A Daschle (D-SD) (1 cosponsor) – Action: 4/25/2002: Passed by the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and redesignated as H.R.4.

H.R.4: The Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act. The version of the bill passed by the House includes provisions of H.R.2587, which promotes advanced clean coal technologies by, among other things, promoting demonstration of technologies that capture, separate, reuse or dispose of carbon dioxide, and establishing carbon emission standards that clean coal facilities must meet in order to be eligible for a tax credit. Also includes provisions of H.R.2460, which requires the Department of Energy to investigate carbon and greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration technologies. For the version passed by the Senate, see S.Amdt.2917 above.
Sponsor: Rep. W.J. Tauzin (R-LA) (3 cosponsors)

S.1008: The Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act, which requires development of a U.S. Climate Change Response Strategy with the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; establishes a research and development program toward the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations; and establishes the National Office of Climate Change Response within the Executive Office of the President.
Sponsor: Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) (10 cosponsors) – Action: 8/2/2001: Reported favorably with amendments by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee by voice vote. 2/15/2002: Included in S.Amdt.2917 (the Energy Policy Act of 2002) as Title X. 4/23/2002: Title X of S.Amdt.2917 modified by S.Amdt.3232 by voice vote of the Senate. 4/25/2002: S.Amdt.2917, including the amended Title X, passed by the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and redesignated as H.R.4. (See S.Amdt.2917 and H.R.4 under Energy Policy.)

S.Amdt.3232 to S.Amdt.2917: An amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002, revising Title X, establishing the National Climate Change Policy, based on S.1008 (see above).
Sponsor: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) (8 cosponsors) – Action: 4/23/2002: Accepted by the Senate by voice vote. 4/25/2002: S.Amdt.2917, including S.Amdt.3232, passed by the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and redesignated as H.R.4. (See S.Amdt.2917 and H.R.4 under Energy Policy.)

S.Amdt.3209 to S.Amdt.2917: An amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002 establishing carbon storage accounting models to help landowners quantify carbon release and sequestration from various resource uses.
Sponsor: Sen. Paul David Wellstone (D-MN) – Action: 4/25/2002: Agreed to by the Senate by voice vote, and included in S.Amdt.2917 as passed by the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and redesignated as H.R.4.

S.Amdt.3239 to S.Amdt.2917: An amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002 revising Title XI, establishing the National Greenhouse Gas Registry. As amended by Sen. Brownback on 4/24/2002, the amendment allows entities to report voluntarily their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and emission reductions to a federal database and registry. If, five years after enactment, less than 60% of U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions have been reported voluntarily, reporting is required of large U.S. GHG emitters. The amendment also encourages future Congresses to consider registered reductions as applicable towards future GHG reduction requirements.
Sponsor: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) (3 cosponsors) – Action: 4/25/2002: Accepted by the Senate by voice vote as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002, which was then passed by the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and redesignated as H.R.4. (See S.Amdt.2917 and H.R.4 under Energy Policy.)

S.1401: The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, which includes a Sense of the Congress Resolution urging the U.S. to participate in international negotiations, including putting forth a proposal at the meeting of the Conference of the Parties, with the objective of securing U.S. participation in a revised Kyoto Protocol or other future binding climate change agreements.
Sponsor: Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) Action: 8/1/2001: The amendment that included the resolution was offered by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) during markup in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and agreed to by a vote of 19 - 0. The Committee then passed the bill. 2/15/2002: The Kerry resolution was included in Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (see S.Amdt.2917 under Energy Policy). 4/25/2002: The Energy Policy Act, with an amended version of the Kerry resolution, passed the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and was redesignated H.R.4.

S.Res.311: A resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate that, among other things, both at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and in other appropriate fora, the United States should re-engage in the negotiation of binding international agreements to address global climate change consistent with (A) U.S. commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change; (B) the findings of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and (C) the Sense of Congress on Climate Change approved by the Senate as part of the National Energy Policy Act of 2002 (see S.1401 above).
Sponsor: Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) (12 cosponsors)

S.Amdt.3187 to S.Amdt.2917: Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2002, which promotes greenhouse gas reduction through the increased use of recovered material in federally funded projects involving procurement of cement or concrete.
Sponsor: Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) – Action: 4/24/2002: Agreed to by the Senate by voice vote. 4/25/2001: S.Amdt.2917 passed the Senate by a vote of 88 – 11 and was redesignated as H.R.4. (See S.Amdt.2917 and H.R.4 under Energy Policy.)

[Calpernia]

Ping to me for later

[ellery]

VERY interesting research — thanks for passing it along. You may not agree, but I was actually somewhat reassured that Thompson made sure to include comments noting that the jury is still out on global warming (it’s still not great, but he doesn’t strike me as a true believer). I also liked that he called out developing countries on their malfeasance. As I said, not great, but somewhat reassuring.

I’m actually not opposed to efforts that address particulates — living in Pittsburgh, I’ve seen the real effect of black soot and particulate matter on buildings and in people’s lungs. I don’t buy that it causes global warming, of course. And it does make sense to address some air pollution on a federal level.

Here’s what I’m still not clear on: did this make it into HR 4? Did folks like Inhofe vote for this framework amendment in particular? I’ve spent a lot of time at thomas.gov, but I still find it very confusing sometimes.

[calcowgirl]

I think all the voting info can be gleaned from that Pew summary. S.Amdt.2917 was the final vote, but those pieces had already been voted on in many of the proposed Amendments to SA 2917 (all by voice vote). It looks like there were 10-13 Senators opposed (mostly Dems except for McCain and Kyl, I think). Reading through much of the record, I kept wishing a Senator, ANY Senator, would stand up and say “The Emperor has no clothes!” It seems like the locomotive is runnin’ and nuthin’ is gonna stop this thing!

I agree—Thomas is not easy to navigate, but it’s alot easier now to track legislation than when it wasn’t on the internet! LOL

As to liking the research end, I see it as a massive fraud opportunity with politicians looking for BIG appropriations to support their cronies and themselves. Check out a few of Rudy’s maneuvers, funneling it via Japan:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927630/posts?page=53#53