Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Meet The Eight Members of Congress Who Voted Against the Iron Dome Bill

Meet The Eight Members of Congress Who Voted Against the Iron Dome Bill

Four Republicans and four Democrats voted against a bill that would fund Israel’s missile defense system, do you know who they were?

Last week, Congress expedited a bill that gave $225 million to Israel for their missile defense system known as the Iron Dome. The bill passed through the House with a vote of 395-8 and was quickly passed through the Senate.

According to CBS News:

The money will go to restocking Israel’s Iron Dome, which has been credited with shooting down dozens of incoming rockets fired by Palestinian militants over three and a half weeks of war. The vote came two days after the Pentagon announced ammunition deliveries to the Jewish state and as a planned 72-hour cease-fire between Israel and Hamas unraveled almost as quickly as it began.

Efforts in the Senate to approve the money stalled Thursday night after Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma sought cuts elsewhere in the budget to pay for the aid. Earlier, senators attempted to lump the Israel money into a broader spending bill that included border security and wildfire assistance money. That bill failed to get the necessary 60 votes on Thursday, and the House had little interest in it, anyway. Friday’s separate Israel bill passed by voice vote.

Yet not everyone voted for the bill to provide funding to Israel’s missile defense system. Eight members of Congress voted against the bill, four Republicans and four Democrats.

Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas)

Not only did he vote against the bill, he later deleted retweets that referred to Israel’s right of defense as an “atrocity.” “I could not in good conscience vote for borrowing $225 million more to send to Israel, without debate and without discussion, in the midst of a war that has cost more than a thousand civilian lives already, too many of them children,” O’Rourke told the El Paso Times.

Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota)

Rep. Ellison voted against the bill saying, “a ceasefire is what we should prioritize now.” He explained his position on Meet the Press and also co-signed a letter encouraging President Obama and Secretary Kerry to find a cease-fire agreement. Rep. Moran (D-Virginia) who co-signed the letter also voted no to fund the Iron Dome:

Justin Amash (R-Michigan)

Rep. Amash released no official statement but had this to say on Twitter:

Zoe Lofgren (D-California), Walter Jones (R-North Carolina), Thomas Massie, (R-Kentucky), and Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)

Also voted no on the bill, but did not provide a statement or explanation.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What do you not understand about the fact that the US is broke. We owe almost $18 trillion. Exactly when do you think we should stop spending money and be concerned with this? Israel is getting pounded as a result of our great presidents leadership qualities, 90% of American Jews voted for this guy, you are now getting what you wanted.

    I R A Darth Aggie in reply to david7134. | August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Unless you’re cutting the budget in increments of $500 billion or more, you’re fundamentally unserious about cutting the budget. For comparison:

    17,000,000,000,000
    500,000,000,000
    225,000,000

    17 trillion, 500 billion, 225 million. You’ll spend a very long time hunting down the small things. Time better served by chopping at big things.

    Ragspierre in reply to david7134. | August 5, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    I could be mistaken here, but I understand the Iron Dome (my kids thought that referred to my head) technology will directly benefit the U.S. anti-missile programs.

    I see that as a pretty inexpensive investment in R&D by some folks who are really good at it, and brought a working system to fruition.

    Sounds like a win-win to me.

    Observer in reply to david7134. | August 5, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Obama pays out billions of our dollars every year in food stamps to illegal aliens — despite the fact that illegal aliens are not legally eligible to receive food stamps. He also pays out billions of our dollars every year in Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits to illegal aliens. And the Obama IRS pays out billions of dollars a year to illegal aliens in so-called “tax credits” — many of which are obviously fraudulent.

    Meanwhile, our southern border is wide open and every poor and criminal foreigner on the planet is strolling across, then waving down our Border Patrol so they can get a “free” bus or plane ticket to the U.S. destination of their choice. Obama is spending billions of our dollars providing food, clothing, housing, medical care, cable t.v., immigration lawyers, and who-knows-what-other “free” benefits, to these law-breaking foreigners.

    But the spending that is really going to break our backs is the $250 million we gave Israel to defend its population from terrorist killers.

    Not the billions of dollars Obama has pissed away on “green” energy scams run by his donors, not the hundreds of billions of dollars he pisses away every year on illegal alien freebies and frauds. No, it’s that 1/4 of one billion for Israel that we really can’t afford to spend.

Amash’s response is interesting. Looks like one principle ran smack dab up against another.

david, I would agree, but 225 mil is a rounding error in congress.

It’s not terribly obvious why it’s in either America’s or Israel’s interests for the US to be paying for Israel’s defense hardware.

The US simply doesn’t have the money, and would have to borrow it. The money will be just as useful if Israel borrows it directly.

And operationally, Israel would be much better off paying for its own defense, without getting Uncle Sam’s fingers stuck in things, especially when fruitcakes like Obama and Kerry are involved.

    Phillep Harding in reply to tom swift. | August 5, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    “And operationally, Israel would be much better off paying for its own defense, without getting Uncle Sam’s fingers stuck in things, especially when fruitcakes like Obama and Kerry are involved.”

    This is perhaps the strongest and best argument against Israel accepting the money and never, ever, asking for another penny.

    US Federal funds are nothing but strings. Sticky strings. That mean whatever the bureaucrats want them to mean.

    Brad Brzezinski in reply to tom swift. | August 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    America was largely responsible for getting Israel to leave Gaza and then forcing her to accept having Hamas run in elections. This resulted in Israel facing direr threats and it’s only fair for America to cough up, more so now as Obama pressures Israeli to leave Hamas in place.

      tom swift in reply to Brad Brzezinski. | August 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Israel would be facing dire threats no matter what silly policy came out of Washington.

        Brad Brzezinski in reply to tom swift. | August 6, 2014 at 9:46 am

        Of course that’s true but the US is now doubling down on the political acceptance of Hamas which is an entirely retrogressive step. This particular danger is on the US.

I can see the principle of “budget cuts to fund emergency spending” here, and I can understand how Congress gets into these pickles, but 225 million? That’s about 15 seconds of federal spending, I think.

If Congress set aside 4 billion dollars as an emergency fund, it would have a 5 billion dollar emergency before the day was out…

LukeHandCool | August 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm

We’d be crying if we were to start peeling back layers of U.N. bureaucracy for scrutiny, but the latest U.N. Onion parody has me in tears.

The United Nations’ Human Rights Council has heartburn because Israel has not shared Iron Dome technology with Hamas. Think about that.

I need to sit our daughter down for a talk. As they say, “Think global, act local.” Or is it, “loco”?

“Listen sweetheart, about that pepper spray I gave you and told you always to carry. Now, God forbid, if you were ever to be attacked by some thug, the U.N. says it just would not be cricket if you refused to share the pepper spray canister with your attacker. Let him use it, too. Please don’t embarrass your father by using it all yourself. I didn’t raise you to act in a disproportionate manner like that. Daddy was just wrong, I guess. How could Daddy’s wisdom possibly match up to the wisdom of the whole United Nations? I’m giving you a second pepper spray canister … for your attacker. Please give it to him before you start spraying, dear. I’ve raised you to share. I know this might sound unreasonable … I must admit I don’t completely understand this wisdom myself … but take comfort that no matter who wins, world opinion will smile upon you. Doesn’t that make all the difference in the world?”

Mark Sanford’s statement.

Congressman Mark Sanford
August 1
The House floor was very busy tonight, but the evening’s final vote was in fact not about the border crisis. The last vote, H. J. Res. 76, provided funding for the Iron Dome Missile system that Israel has been using to defend itself. It passed by a vote of 395-8, and I was among those who voted no. Accordingly, I wanted to explain this vote given the fact that I have always supported Israel’s unique tie to our country and I feel for the families and friends there whose very life in many instances hangs in the balance with Iron Dome. I do not take this in any way lightly, and consequently, not only have I always been a supporter of Israel, but I have also supported the Iron Dome system itself.

Here is the problem though, the bill’s cost wasn’t paid for, and as a consequence, its $225 million dollars were simply added to the tab that is represented by the national debt. Designating something as emergency funding has become near epidemic in Washington, because it is the way in which the House of Representatives gets around its own budget rules. The Budget Control Act that Congress passed only a few years ago requires that when you add new spending, you pay for it – either by cutting other parts of government or raising taxes. That’s an eminently sensible idea, but very often the things that enjoy a great deal of political support also allow representatives off the hook in subscription to their own rules. They can look the other way on their own budget rules because the votes will be there regardless, and that’s a real problem given those budget rules are there to protect the American taxpayer.

The importance of Israel as the only stable democracy in a tumultuous region cannot be overstated, which is why I’ve voted in the past for resolutions condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and sanctions against Iran. I have also voted in favor of funding the Iron Dome missile system, once last year, and also through the Department of Defense appropriations bill this past spring, which was not new spending.

All this is a long winded way of saying that I support helping our ally in defending itself, but we could have done it tonight as we had in the past and as I have supported those efforts in the past that would entail paying for this effort just as we did with the border security bill we voted on an hour earlier tonight. Doing so would ensure a win for the people of Israel threatened by rocket fire, and a win for a young person in our country who in time will have to deal with America’s great security threat – the National Debt.

Oh Hell! Who are we kidding?

That money is not going to be repaid, ever! Where is the country going to magically conjure up $18 billion to repay the debt? Congress knows this – they’re going to just keep on accumulating debt because no day of reckoning will ever appear on the horizon for the debt.

More likely, I think, is that will we lord it over another country (say, China?) to influence policy decisions and if that doesn’t work….World War III. That’ll create such damage and destruction globally that repayment of debt by any country will simply be unrealistic – the world economy will be in shambles and repayment will be meaningless. What’s China going to buy for $12 billion when the world is gone?

Distopian? Sure. So what? It’s the truth.

The cost of this decades-long undying support for this little democracy isn’t measured in dollars. It is far past time to tell Israel to begin managing its affairs in ways that don’t draw the US into their conflicts, or else. Bibi’s threats aside, the influence of Israel’s supporters in the US is astounding, and their interests don’t always -usually don’t- coincide with what is best for America.

Besides, what are they gonna do- blow up hotels to get their way? Plan assassination to blame on their enemies? Try to sink American warships? Nah, our little buddy would never sink to that level of that level of deception and mendacity…

“tell Israel to begin managing its affairs in ways that don’t draw the US into their conflicts”

How about telling that to the Pali’s instead?

    Weisbrot in reply to Fen. | August 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Sure, since the Pali’s influence in American politics and culture absolutely dwarfs that of AIPAC and the ADL, right?

      LukeHandCool in reply to Weisbrot. | August 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm

      Speaking of dwarves, AIPAC and ADL are to the MSM what Sleepy and Bashful are to Snow White.

      And, speaking of Snow White, “Oh … you must be Grumpy!”

JackRussellTerrierist | August 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Maybe if we stopped spending $ on diapers, housing, travel expenses, lawyers and medical aid for illegal aliens this $ amount would be a more affordable pittance for something that actually benefits us indirectly. Because, you see, if Bibi doesn’t crush these barbaric bastards, who will? obamullah? Yeah, right.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | August 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    You have nailed it! The west needs to kill these barbarians, or step back, and let them kill each other.

    But since the barbarians are Pavlov’s dog when it comes to Israel, Israel is in the unfortunate position of doing the west a great, great service by killing them.

    I always think of the movie “Independence Day,” after the United States president, played by Bill Pullman, sees the vision of what the aliens want to do with world after they conquer it. His hesitation to engage is reversed. In his words,

    “Nuke the bastards.”

damned if you do damned if you don’t.
I say let them test weapon systems for us in lieu of cash.
it does have to stop sometime BUT this was probably not the time to do so.
one thing I have been wondering though is why we send them them money to buy a product from rafael which is an israeli company.
what am I missing there?
I have not had chance to look into it.

Erudite Mavin | August 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Amash, Jones and the other so called Republicans are actually Libertarians, most who support Ron Paul
who stated The U.S. should not have sent troops to fight Hitler to save the Jews and a number of anti Israel and pro Iran statements.

Typical of this neo left crowd. Also Amash just like Rand Paul believe a path to legal status for immigrants illegally residing in the United States.

You can see why these PaulBots vote with the left.

    tom swift in reply to Erudite Mavin. | August 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    The U.S. should not have sent troops to fight Hitler to save the Jews

    America sent troops to fight Hitler because Germany, a faithful ally of Japan, declared war on the US.

    Prior to that declaration of war the US and Germany were fighting at sea. Convoys of supplies to England were escorted half way by the USN. The USS Reuben James was sunk off Iceland by the U-552 a month before the Pearl Harbor attack.

    The plight of European Jewry didn’t come into it.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Erudite Mavin. | August 5, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    The libertarians are out of whack on illegal aliens. Ron Paul said in one debate the border fence would keep Americans in…. He could be rright about that, e.g., the Berlin Wall.

    However, as Milton Friedman observed, you CANNOT have free immigration simultaneously with a welfare state.

    I heard Steve King discuss this, and his position was, it’s better to keep the welfare state and stop illegal aliens from entering. I disagree. I think it’s better to reduce or eliminate the welfare state AND stop illegal aliens from entering.

    The welfare state is destroying American families through many mechanisms. It’s tragic and must be reversed if we are to truly earn the title “Nativist.”

Amash was able to stick to his principle about it needing to be paid for because of the overwhelming support for the bill. Politics works that way – reps are “allowed” to vote against a bill that is going to pass anyway in order to keep their record intact. The question is, how would he have voted if it was 217 for, 217 against? I would like to think he would be a yea vote.

Current Taxpayer money to Israel is over 3 billion yearly. After over sixty years, isn’t it time to take our US teat out of her mouth?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend