PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 6, 2011
Judgment Evading Foreign States Accountability Act of 2011 - States the policy of the United States regarding: (1) advocacy within the governing bodies of international organizations and other foreign policy settings for the full compensation and fair treatment of persons in whose favor judgments have been awarded by U.S. courts; (2) protection of economic interests of persons and nations that benefit from a reliable flow of foreign capital by restricting the access to U.S. capital markets of judgment evading foreign states (foreign states that fail to fully satisfy a final judgment exceeding a certain amount for more than two years) and their state-owned corporations, warning of the dangers of dealing financially with such states and state-owned corporations, and calling upon international financial institutions to vote against providing funding or foreign capital to judgment evading foreign states; and (3) further solidification of the authority of the U.S. courts by preventing such states from willfully flouting the judgments of those courts.
Directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to: (1) deny a judgment evading foreign state access to U.S. capital markets; and (2) require all periodic filings made by such a state with the SEC to bear prominently a warning describing its failure to satisfy outstanding judgments. Imposes similar restrictions on state-owned corporations of such states.
Requires: (1) a proposal to extend bilateral or multilateral assistance to a judgment evading state to bear notice that such state is a judgment evading state; and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury to notify Congress promptly of the proposal.
People & committees
Rep. Mack, Connie [R-FL-14] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1798 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1798 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1798 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1798 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.