PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 2013
Justice for Former American Hostages in Iran Act of 2013 - Establishes in the Treasury the American Hostages in Iran Compensation Fund for the purpose of making payments to: (1) the Americans held hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, and in other locations in Iran, from November 3, 1979, to January 20, 1981; and (2) certain family members.
Imposes a surcharge, to be deposited into the Fund, of 30% on any fine or penalty imposed, or settlement entered into, for a violation of any law or regulation for any economic activity regarding Iran that is administered by specified federal departments.
Requires Fund payments of: (1) $150,000 plus $10,000 for each day of captivity first to each living former hostage and then to the estate of each deceased former hostage, and (2) $5,000 to each eligible spouse or child of a former hostage for each day of the such hostage's captivity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a payment recipient to waive and forever release all existing claims against Iran and the United States arising out of the hostage events.
Directs the Secretary of State to notify each individual qualified to receive a payment of the individual's claim status.
States that: (1) if a claim is denied or approved for less than the full amount, the individual shall be entitled to submit additional information; (2) the Secretary may affirm, modify, or revise the former action; and (3) the Secretary's actions in identifying claimants and in disbursing Fund amounts shall be final on all questions of law and fact, and shall not be subject to review by any other U.S. official, agency, or court.
People & committees
Rep. Braley, Bruce L. [D-IA-1] · D–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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 12, 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.3200 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.3200 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.3200 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.3200 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.