house Bill H.R. 430
Does Congress Need More Time to Review a Country’s Removal From the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism?
Argument in favor
Congress needs to be able to check and potentially overturn a president’s plan to take a country off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and this bill would ensure that lawmakers have that opportunity.
01/25/2017
At this point, the phrase "the president's discretion" doesn't hold any weight for me, so I'm all for as many checks and balances for the executive branch as possible.
···
01/25/2017
Yes. They need time to review Trump decisions. We need the check and balance and they need time to do it right.
Argument opposed
The president should have as much as discretion as possible in removing countries from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, so Congress’ review period shouldn’t be extended.
01/26/2017
Are we going to add the United States to this list?? Because we've been the largest contributor to terrorism in the past 240 years.
01/26/2017
There doesn't need to be additional time for removal. But where's the bill to prevent rapid fire addition of countries to the list?
···
01/25/2017
This is merely congress' attempt to block the Iran deal by being able to extend sanctions on Iran that much longer, it's not about terrorism at all.
At this point, the phrase "the president's discretion" doesn't hold any weight for me, so I'm all for as many checks and balances for the executive branch as possible.
Are we going to add the United States to this list?? Because we've been the largest contributor to terrorism in the past 240 years.
There doesn't need to be additional time for removal. But where's the bill to prevent rapid fire addition of countries to the list?
Yes. They need time to review Trump decisions. We need the check and balance and they need time to do it right.
This is merely congress' attempt to block the Iran deal by being able to extend sanctions on Iran that much longer, it's not about terrorism at all.
Six months isn't a long enough time-frame to establish a pattern of good behavior. It is also clear that congress should be reviewing every move from the President that it possibly can.
Checks and balances are what run our country. The president shouldn't have the privilege of deciding these things on his own.
By increasing the amount of time for a state to show they are not engaged in terrorism and increasing congressional oversight and scrutiny, we will force countries to prove they are not bad actors.
There are only 3 countries currently on this list. They've all been on it for a while. It's not difficult to keep them on the list, why add more hoops and regulations to something that has been simple and maintainable for over a decade?
I support the idea of checks and balances, especially during this presidency. However, this policy has the potential to derail the diplomatic process by making it that much harder to establish peace. Congressional review period in this instance should be adequate.
I feel that changing these sanctions from 6 months to 24 months is far too dramatic and slightly dangerous to the safety of citizens within these states that "sponsor terrorism". If a significant power change occurred in any of the three countries currently on the list, this new power would have to wait 24 months to stop being sanctioned by America even if this new power completely forbade "terrorist behavior". The potential of not being able to assist an up and coming power that is, in essence, the opposite of its predecessor is too great. We should not be sanctioning these types of people. 6 months is enough time to assess a situation if executed appropriately. Added time is just another unnecessary sanction. However, I do like the idea of allowing Congress 90 days instead of 45, especially considering who the president currently is. But, the 24 month piece is too significant for me to support. Please vote no on this.
My trust in the executive branch of our county is at an all time low. I support as many checks and balances as possible.
The president does not need any more discretion than he already has.
I would say yes but I no longer have any confidence in Congress to do the right thing. The Muslim ban is against everything our country stands for and anyone who isn't passionately opposed to it should be ashamed!
Yay we are a nation of immigrants!!! Yeah but we all assimilated. Muslims don't assimilate. Have you ever read the Quran? I have there is a lot of bad verses in there about killing non believers. Have you ever read Sharia law? The woman who was in charge of the woman's March believed that it should be placed in the constitution. The whole thing is about inequality. It says that a woman cannot prosecute her rapist. It also says that you should lie for the benefit of Islam. Islam is the only religion that is currently growing and in 2050 it will catch up with or maybe even surpass Christianity in numbers. This is a very scary thing. You know why? Because in Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism you have a choice if you want to join or leave in Islam if you leave it is "punishable by DEATH" as said in Sharia Law. Islam you are forced to join (in areas where Islam has enough numbers to enforce it) and can't leave without dying. There is no way to stop this. They already are taking over Europe with the rape rings in the U.K. And the Muslim mobs beating up people and rapping girls at New Year's Day in Germany. No one is willing to stand up and speak out against them expect trump. You people need to do your research. As of now with you idiots there is no possible way to stop Islam from taking over the world that is exactly what they want to do. Have you ever seen Iran in the 70s before the Islamic revolution??? It used to look like the US in the 70. But then Islam took over the government and input Sharia Law and then every woman what required to wear a burqa (which is a form of suppression btw. I mean they are forced to wear a black polyester burqa in the Middle East that is basically a scratchy oven) and now they are stoning rape victims and hanging people because it's all in the Quran. If you are a Muslim and don't believe in sharia law or follow the Quran to the fullest than you aren't a real Muslim. People might claim that that is a real Muslim but Isis are the actual Muslims they are following the prophet Muhammad (who was a warlord) they are trying to create a caliphate and take over the world for Allah. If we don't stop them from coming in and there is enough of them they will start to spread and take over the US as they probably will Europe. Just look at Europe they are having numerous terror attacks and rape cases because they let so many refugees in. Sure the refugees want to escape the war but they grew up and were raised in a violent society and worship and violent religion. The real refugees are the Christians who are being persecuted and burned alive in the Middle East and can't go into the refugee camp because they will be beaten there and can't flee over on a boat because the Muslims always drown and rape the Christians on the way over. they are coming whether or not you believe they are peaceful and sure there is a slight chance I might be wrong but I doubt it and I don't want to find out. KNOW YOUR FACTS PEOPLE.
"Under current law, to de-list a state-sponsor, the administration only needs to certify that the country has refrained from supporting terrorism for a mere six months. We shouldn’t be giving terrorist regimes a clean bill of health in such a short time. Period.” Exactly. Terrorists and their supporters need MORE punishment, not less.
Let lawmakers make decisions based on pertinent facts specific to the country, not arbitrary time tables.
Congress needs to review everything this wannabe king does.