Skip to main content

It is well known that Rick Boucher, D-VA 9th District, has teamed up with John Dingell to prevent California from tightening its vehicle emissions standards. Here are a few things you probably didn't know about Rick Boucher. All you have to do is heed the advice of Deep Throat and "Follow the money." It also helps to look at his voting record as well.

Meet Rick Boucher, the man who wants to stop California from reducing vehicle emissions. Mr. Boucher represents the 9th Congressional District in Virginia. Boucher is chairman of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. A quick look at a map of the 9th District tells you that this is Coal Country.

So let's follow the money. In 2006 he won reelection with over 67% of the vote. He raised $1.4 million in an election campaign he won by a 2-1 margin. 65% of the money came from political action committees (PACs). 88% of the PAC money came from business political action committees. Boucher spent not thin one dime of his own on getting reelected. The numbers are very similar for the 2002 election. The conclusion is forced: Rick Boucher is mostly financed by business.

So how did he vote before becoming a one man machine to prevent the reduction of auto emissions in California? The US Chamber of Commerce rated his voting record at 53%, a reasonably mixed record. On environmental issues again we have another mixed record.  He voted no to the construction of new oil refineries. Oil refineries don't use a lot of coal. He voted yes on the Bush-Cheney energy policy. In 2001 he voted no on raising CAFE standards and no to funding to support alternative fuels. He did vote yes in 2007 on HR-6 that repealed oil company tax breaks and provided funds for alternative fuels. He voted no to drilling in ANWR. The LCV rated his environmental voting at 75%, a pretty good environmental record. According to the Washington Post Boucher votes with the Democratic Party 96% of the time.

Why would a Democratic congressman with a reasonable voting record want to lead an assault on the EPA's ability to regulate emissions? The Attorney General for the state of California termed Boucher's efforts "a death blow to California’s pioneering efforts to restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and a blatant assault on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to fight global warming."

Maybe the Washington Post is onto something when they playfully termed Boucher the D-Big Coal. Boucher's bill "would halt recent moves by states to limit the emission of greenhouse gases that cause climate change".

Maybe this whole bill was a bogus effort to begin with. Perhaps Boucher and Dingell knew all along that Pelosi would never allow their bill to make it to the floor of the House? Back in their respective congressional districts Boucher would appear as attempting to help the coal industry, while Dingell could say he was attempting to assist the automakers. Maybe the whole thing was nothing more than a legislative game. If it was it certainly is giving the Democratic Party a black eye.

What in the world is going on here?

Originally posted to EdinVA on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:19 AM PDT.


Why is Boucher trying to limit the EPA's ability to restrict greenhouse gasses?

58%21 votes
0%0 votes
41%15 votes

| 36 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    Recommend this comment if you found this diary useful.

  •  We can't afford environmental games any longer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, netguyct
  •  it's so sad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Boucher's a smart guy and does good things on internet issues.

  •  what to do about this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Coal companies are all set up for mining.  OK, fine, we also need nuclear fission in the mix for a climate-clean energy infrastructure (nuclear is also the best bet for maximizing the use of wind & solar), and thus a need for more uranium mining.  

    So let's talk to Boucher about the coal companies shifting over to uranium mining, and eventually thorium (thorium reactors are around the corner).  

    The point being, give the coal companies a chance to become good guys.  And while we're at it, funding for education & training for people working in the coal industry to switch over to various roles in nuclear, solar, and/or wind.  

    As for what Boucher has been doing promoting his horrific bill, I have to wonder if it's not all theatrics to get points from business back home.  If that's the case, then the coal-to-nuclear conversion option would be a win/win all'round.  And if the coal companies don't like it, they would only be hurting themselves.  

  •  casting doubt regardless of intent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, dotcommodity

    whenever a big pro-coal, or any anti-GHG reducing bill gets publicity, it casts doubt on the urgency of the climate situation.

    I don't care what his motivations are.  

    It wastes citizen activists' time having to make the repeated calls to representatives to ensure carbon-increasing incentives are killed.  It wastes Congress' time when they should be ENDING a war, and working very hard to incentivize the country to radically reduce GHG emissions.  The Dept of Defense only says it's one of the greatest threats to national security...

    Has he suffered an onset of dementia? that's the only acceptable excuse in my book.

    Impeach them already, for crying out loud! How many laws do they have to break?!?!

    by netguyct on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 11:22:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site