What is going on with the Russia Sanctions Bill?

A Russian official said after a high-level meeting with Trump administration officials that the two countries have "almost" reached a deal for the U.S. to return two diplomatic compounds to Russian control.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had just left the meeting at the U.S. State Department early Monday evening when he responded to a shouted question about whether the two countries are close to a deal on the Russian compounds.

"Almost, almost," he said.

Ryabkov met with U.S. Under Secretary of State Tom Shannon in Washington –- the highest level meeting since the two countries' presidents, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, met at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7.

Turtleneck wrote:Treasury fines Exxon Mobil $2 million for violating Russia sanctions while Secretary of State Tillerson was CEO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/treasury-fines-exxon-mobil-2-million-for-violating-russia-sanctions-while-secretary-of-state-tillerson-was-ceo/2017/07/20/8bf8944e-6d56-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.c66de8d74ed0

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Treasury fines Exxon Mobil $2 million for violating Russia sanctions while Secretary of State Tillerson was CEO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/treasury-fines-exxon-mobil-2-million-for-violating-russia-sanctions-while-secretary-of-state-tillerson-was-ceo/2017/07/20/8bf8944e-6d56-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.c66de8d74ed0

For the record that would be like fining a guy who makes $100,000 a grand total of $25.64 since Exxon made 7.8 billion last year.

So they were given the equivalent of a parking ticket.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

For the record that would be like fining a guy who makes $100,000 a grand total of $25.64 since Exxon made 7.8 billion last year.

So they were given the equivalent of a parking ticket.

Would the more interesting part of the story be the current U.S. SOS very recently violated U.S. sanctions?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Would the more interesting part of the story be the current U.S. SOS very recently violated U.S. sanctions?

Yes, that is significantly more interesting, but at the end of the day I like doing math stuff okay? Is that fine with you?

Turtleneck wrote:Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
It's very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.
5:14 PM - 23 Jul 2017

------

I wonder what this is about?

Today, I signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia.  I favor tough measures to punish and deter bad behavior by the rogue regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang.  I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization.

That is why, since taking office, I have enacted tough new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and shored up existing sanctions on Russia.

Since this bill was first introduced, I have expressed my concerns to Congress about the many ways it improperly encroaches on Executive power, disadvantages American companies, and hurts the interests of our European allies.

My Administration has attempted to work with Congress to make this bill better.  We have made progress and improved the language to give the Treasury Department greater flexibility in granting routine licenses to American businesses, people, and companies.  The improved language also reflects feedback from our European allies – who have been steadfast partners on Russia sanctions – regarding the energy sanctions provided for in the legislation.  The new language also ensures our agencies can delay sanctions on the intelligence and defense sectors, because those sanctions could negatively affect American companies and those of our allies.

Still, the bill remains seriously flawed – particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.  Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking.  By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together.  The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President.  This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice.

Yet despite its problems, I am signing this bill for the sake of national unity.  It represents the will of the American people to see Russia take steps to improve relations with the United States.  We hope there will be cooperation between our two countries on major global issues so that these sanctions will no longer be necessary.

Further, the bill sends a clear message to Iran and North Korea that the American people will not tolerate their dangerous and destabilizing behavior.  America will continue to work closely with our friends and allies to check those countries’ malignant activities.

I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars.  That is a big part of the reason I was elected.  As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act."  While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed.

In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions.  For instance, although I share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds, in conflict with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Additionally, section 216 seeks to grant the Congress the ability to change the law outside the constitutionally required process.  The bill prescribes a review period that precludes the President from taking certain actions.  Certain provisions in section 216, however, conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, because they purport to allow the Congress to extend the review period through procedures that do not satisfy the requirements for changing the law under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution.  I nevertheless expect to honor the bill's extended waiting periods to ensure that the Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill's review procedures.

Further, certain provisions, such as sections 254 and 257, purport to direct my subordinates in the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives, in contravention of the President's exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations.  And other provisions, such as sections 104, 107, 222, 224, 227, 228, and 234, would require me to deny certain individuals entry into the United States, without an exception for the President's responsibility to receive ambassadors under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution.  My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.

Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.