To provide for justice and compensation for United States citizens taken hostage by Iran, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 4, 2009
States that: (1) it is U.S. policy to seek justice for U.S. victims of terrorism and to hold terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for their actions; and (2) U.S. law regarding victims of terrorism supersedes the Algiers Accords and any other agreement with Iran stemming from the holding of U.S. hostages in Iran from November 1979 through January 1981.
Abrogates and deems not applicable any provision of the Algiers Accords, entered into with Iran on January 19, 1981, that purports to prohibit a U.S. citizen from prosecuting any claim relating to such hostage taking in any U.S. court or to limit the jurisdiction of any U.S. court with respect to such matter.
Requires the President to direct payments as provided for by this Act to a common fund to be established and administered by certified class representatives for U.S. citizens who were hostages in Iran.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Referred to House Foreign Affairs
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 House Judiciary
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4025 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4025 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4025 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4025 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.