PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 20, 2005
Stop Business With Terrorists Act of 2005 - States that, in the case of a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is prohibited from engaging in a transaction with a foreign person, such prohibition shall also apply to: (1) each subsidiary or affiliate of the person so prohibited; and (2) any other entity that is controlled in fact by that person. Prohibits such a person from controlling in fact any foreign person who is engaged in such a transaction whether or not the foreign person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Defines as a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: (1) a citizen or resident of the United States; (2) a person actually within the United States; (3) a corporation, partnership, or other organization or entity organized under the laws of the United States or any state, territory, or possession thereof; (4) a corporation, partnership, or other organization owned or controlled in fact by a person or entity described in (1) or (3).
Makes the prohibition applicable in any case in which: (1) the President takes action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or the Trading With the Enemy Act to prohibit a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from engaging in a transaction with a foreign person; or (2) the Secretary of State has determined that the government of a country that has jurisdiction over a foreign person has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Allows a subject person 90 days to divest or terminate the prohibited business with the foreign person. Requires the President to publish a list of foreign persons under sanction.
Requires the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control to notify Congress if any sanction is imposed by such Office as a result of an investigation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the sense of Congress that investors and the public should be informed of activities engaged in by a person that may threaten the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
People & committees
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 15, 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 S.1428 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 S.1428 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 S.1428 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 S.1428 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.