PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Apr 27, 2022
Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act
This bill establishes a working group to determine the legal mechanisms that may be used to seize assets belonging to certain foreign persons (i.e., individuals and entities) affiliated with Russia's political leadership and addresses related issues.
The interagency working group must determine the constitutional mechanisms by which the President may take steps to seize and confiscate assets belonging to any sanctioned foreign person whose wealth is derived through support for or corruption related to the regime of Russian president Vladimir Putin. The working group must report to Congress on certain issues including (1) recommendations to impose additional energy-related sanctions on Russia's government, and (2) any additional authorities the President needs to take steps to seize and confiscate the assets.
The President must report to Congress a determination as to whether to expand existing sanctions related to certain Russian government activities to cover additional persons.
People & committees
Rep. Malinowski, Tom [D-NJ-7] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 8 (Roll no. 130). (text: CR H4530-4531)
House roll call 130 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 8 (Roll no. 130).
House roll call 130 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4554-4555)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6930.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4530-4532)
Mr. Phillips moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 28, 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.6930 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.6930 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.6930 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.6930 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.