PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 12, 2016
Clarifying Amendment to Provide Terrorism Victims Equity Act or the CAPTIVE Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to allow a person's court-awarded judgment against a terrorist party that is based on an act of terrorism to be satisfied with assets that the United States has seized or frozen from that terrorist party under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Under current law, assets seized or frozen under the Trading with the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are the only assets seized or frozen by the United States that may be used to satisfy such a person's judgment against a terrorist party.
The bill also narrows the categories of "persons" who may satisfy their judgments against terrorist parties with such seized or frozen assets to natural persons who, at the time the act of terrorism was committed upon which the judgment was obtained, were:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
U.S. nationals;
members of the U.S. Armed Forces; or
otherwise employees of the federal government, or of a federal contractor, acting within the scope of employment.
If a person described is deceased, the personal representative of the estate of that deceased person shall count as the person.
(Sec. 3) The bill applies retroactively to judgments entered before its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H4697)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H4697)
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H4697)
Mr. Goodlatte called up H.R. 3394 and asked unanimous consent to consider in the the House.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 531.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-685.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-685.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3394 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.3394 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.3394 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.3394 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.