Where The Rubber Meets The Road (2/16/07)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week.

(Light-to-moderate activity again, though Iraq looms large in the background, as it should...)

House

Alternative fuels. The House passed, 400-3, and sent to the Senate a bill to promote technologies for transporting alternative fuels through a U.S. pipeline system designed for petroleum. The bill (H.R. 547) also would explore ways to help service stations convert tanks and pumps to handle alternative fuels.

All Philadelphia-area representatives voted for the bill.

Liquefied coal. The House defeated, 207-200, a bid by Republicans to define liquefied coal as an alternative fuel that would benefit from research and development funding in H.R. 547 (above).

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), H. James Saxton (R., N.J.) and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.) and Joe Sestak (D., Pa.).

As nearly as I can figure out on this issue, funding liquefied coal for development as an alternative energy source would require a price in excess of about $35 a barrel for it to be feasible for the manufacturers (we’re at about $60 now, I believe). Something tells me, though, that were we to pursue this, the per-barrel cost would stay as high as it is now, and quite probably higher, for years upon years, so you could probably throw that $35 figure out the window (and I’m sure people more knowledgeable on this than me will jump in with “swords drawn” if I’m wrong).

Senate

Iraq war debate. In a 49-47 vote, the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed to open debate on a bill (S.B. 470) opposing the deployment of 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

A yes vote was to begin debating the bill.

Voting yes: Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.), Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey Jr. (D., Pa.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Arlen Specter (R., Pa.).

Since Arlen Specter voted against debating the Iraq war (though that is a futile vote, Senator “Two-Step” - shake it to the left, then shake it to the right - you and your fellow Repugs along with some chicken Dems will be held accountable), I wish to present the following editorial that appeared in the New York Times yesterday to give you some idea of how little regard the supporters of the Iraq carnage like Specter actually have for our men and women in uniform (under the heading, “Not Supporting Our Troops”)…

How do you explain to the thousands of American troops now being poured into Baghdad that they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?

It’s bad enough that these soldiers are being asked to risk their lives without President Bush demanding that Iraq’s leaders take any political risks that might give the military mission at least an outside chance of success. But according to an article in the Washington Post this week, at least some of the troops will be sent out in Humvees not yet equipped with FRAG Kit 5 armor. That’s an advanced version designed to reduce deaths from roadside bombs, which now account for about 70 percent of United States casualties in Iraq.

The more flexible materials used in the FRAG Kit 5 make it particularly helpful in containing the damage done by the especially deadly weapon the Bush administration is now most concerned about: those explosively formed penetrators that Washington accuses Iran of supplying to Shiite militias for use against American troops.

And, as noted here, there’s evidence that some of them are being manufactured in Iraq (swell).

Older versions of Humvee armor are shattered by these penetrators, showering additional shrapnel in the direction of a Humvee’s occupants. The FRAG Kit 5 helps slow the incoming projectile and contains some of the shrapnel, giving the soldiers a better chance of survival.

Armor upgrades like this have become a feature of the Iraq war, as the Pentagon struggles to keep up with the constantly more powerful weapons and sophisticated tactics of the various militia and insurgent forces attacking American troops. But the Army, the National Guard and the Marine Corps have been caught constantly behind the curve.

Unglamorous and relatively inexpensive staples of ground combat, like armor, have never really captured the imagination and attention of military contractors and Pentagon budget-makers the way that “Top Gun” fighter jets, stealthy warships and “Star Wars” missile interceptors generally do.

The Army says it is now accelerating its production of FRAG Kit 5 armor and handing it out to Baghdad-bound units on a priority basis. But it acknowledges that the armor upgrading project will not be completed until summer. Right now, it’s February, and the new American drive in Baghdad has already begun.

That’s a shame, if not an outright scandal, because up-to-date armor is essential for saving American lives.

Specter’s vote against a debate on the war, along with every other “no” vote, is a vote against bringing attention to this scandal (rightly labeled as such by the Times) perpetrated against our service people (and Flavia Colgan at Citizen Hunter has more here on how to “Support Our Troops” for real, and no cheesy yellow ribbon car stickers are involved).

This week, the House spent three days debating troop buildups in Iraq prior to voting on the policy. The Senate debated a House-passed bill providing $463.5 billion in fiscal 2007 appropriations.