House Votes To Punish Iran By Restraining Sanctions Relief
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act (HR 3662). This bill strengthens congressional oversight of U.S. economic and trade sanctions against Iran, specifically over financiers of Iranian terrorism. It prohibits the administration from lifting sanctions related to destabilizing activities, such as its ballistic missile program. This legislation comes after Iran recently test fired ballistic missiles in the last few months.
Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-14) released this statement on why he voted to punish Iran:
“Yet again, we are seeing the consequences of President Obama’s failed foreign policy,” said Rep. Graves. “In the absence of strong American leadership in the world, tyrannical regimes feel empowered to act out. They must be held accountable. While the president turns a blind eye, Congress is again taking the lead to ensure Iran pays for its actions.”
HR 3662 will block the President from offering sanctions relief to an individual or bank until it is certified that the entity has not conducted significant transactions with terrorist organizations or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that it has not supported Iran’s ballistic missile or conventional weapons programs.
It will also prohibit the U.S. from lifting Iran’s designation as a “Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern” until it is certified that the Iran government no longer supports terrorism, weapons of massdestruction, or is engaging in illicit financial activities.
Another supporter of HR 3662, Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA-07), issued the following statement:
“From the beginning, U.S. sanctions placed on the Iranian government served the necessary purpose of disrupting its state-sponsored support of terrorism – and following President Obama’s nuclear agreement offering relief from these very sanctions – it is crucial that we be absolutely certain no institution or individual involved in the sponsorship of terrorism is benefitting from this action. The bill passed by the House today gives Congress and the American people the oversight and transparency needed to monitor the process and requires the Administration demonstrate with clarity that no additional resources will be made available to any organization directly or indirectly supporting terrorism. The Iranian government has shown itself untrustworthy through its actions, and it is the responsibility of its leaders to demonstrate otherwise.”
About Author
mnh84647
I am a sophomore from Chatsworth, Georgia currently studying journalism and political science at UGA. I am interning in Washington, D.C. next year, and I hope to one day pursue a law degree.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why did they not include Saudi Arabia if this is a real concern? They funded 9/11, Issis, radical schools, human rights violations…… We actually arm Saudi Arabia and send aide?
……..Saudi Arabia should stop funding terrorism………..
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/20/exp-funding-terrorism.cnn
Because as of right now Iran is the one attempting to build a nuclear weapon and the Saudis aren’t.
The sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table and shortly after the agreement the Iranians tested medium range missiles which could carry a nuclear warhead in violation of the agreement. That alone should have been enough to cancel the agreement. The sanctions should not have been lifted in the first place.
Also, by unfreezing Iranian held accounts the U.S. government has given the Iranians a cash infusion in the hundreds of billions of dollars. A significant amount of this money will find it’s way to help kill Americans in Afghanistan. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have produced IEDs that have killed hundreds of American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we are helping fund those same programs.
The sanctions were not put on by America it was coalition of countries with China, Russia, UK……Second, because of liberal spending policies you supported like the drug prescription bill which alone will BK the country……we need money from China. At the rate we are piling up debt with China, do you really think we have that much control? Third, you are fine with Saudi funding terrorism against us and the world as long as they do not develop Nukes HUH? And you support us selling them arms and giving them money, while the Saudis funnel it to terrorist? The problem with NEOCONS like you, Hillary, Bush, McCain, Rubio, Lieberman …..no one can follow your logic? This is why most Americans have had enough of the policemen of the world foreign policy you support!
I knew we couldn’t have a reasonable discussion. You still have your panties in a wad.
Where have I ever said I support “the drug prescription bill.” What is that?
Who do you think got all of those countries to join us in the sanctions? It was the USA. Yes, our debt is out of control but people in Washington should learn to walk and chew gum. They should be able to do a few things at the same time.
You throw NECON around like that hurts my feelings. I don’t care what you call me. Some people believe that being an isolationist country will make everyone love us and the world will just get along. I don’t believe that. I really don’t want to get in a pissing contest with you………….so have a good day.
1) This was a cornerstone issue I brought up when I ran for office years ago, while you were bashing me. Once again I was right about the facts. This was the bill my opponent supported
…..Medicare Part D: Republican Budget-Busting……
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/?_r=0
2) I do not understand your point about getting someone to join a coalition, it does not mean you are in control. Obviously, China has gained way more control via us needing their money more and more.
3) I am all for free trade, dealing with the world……I am business guy! Calling me an isolationist because of I do not support ill thought out policy is rather bizarre at best.
I have told you this many times. Many, many times. You obviously have me confused with someone else.
“This was a cornerstone issue I brought up when I ran for office years ago, while you were bashing me.” In 2003, when Medicare Part D passed I was in high school. In 2006, I was going to UGA football games and no where near Cherokee County or campaigning for anyone. You have me confused with someone else. While I wish I could take credit for that defeat, sadly I can not.
Have a good day John. I hope you find the person that has made you hate me so much.
Been a while since I beat this dead horse, but here goes.
John, your 2006 opponent, Congressman Tom Price was first elected to Congress during the 2004 campaign thus took office Jan 2005. He was not in a position to support or oppose the legislation that passed in 2003. Hate to spoil your diatribe with facts, but you should be used to it by now. Cheers!
He supported the bill Bart…..
In fact Bart he voted to not allow negotiations on drug prices…..which is the major issue ie drug prices…..look it up…..
I disagree with his vote against negotiations, but that took place after he became a congressman. Show me where he voted for Medicare Part D in 2003.
He can’t because it didn’t happen. Scroll on down to Georgia’s 6th district and you’ll find Johnny Isakson on the list and not Tom Price.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332#
When I think of the concept of posting what you feel over facts I usually think Eiger, scared to say who they really are via being a paid political hack at best. Please do not let facts get in the way you feel about the issue.
……..Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D……
http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Tom_Price.htm
I apologize to everyone in assuming that I could reply to John Konop about Iran sanctions and have a rational conversation.
Clearly I am a hack for daring to point out that Tom Price did not serve in the 108th Congress. Shame on me. Again I apologize for daring to talk to John. Moving on.
The latest in gop show votes. The parliamentary equivalent of yelling Benghazi! in a crowded theater. Gopers have a ways to go to match their head-butting efforts to repeal ACA but since this is an election year you can expect them to stage a few more similar votes before November.
Neither Graves nor Woodall mentions the sanctions the administration imposed on Iran the day after the missile test. Unsurprisingly, both statements are fact free. Graves’ is funnier in that it mentions accountability and acting out, as if he would recognize either.