PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 6, 2016
No Ransom Payments Act of 2016
This bill prohibits the President from paying final judgments, awards, or compromise settlements to Iran using specified Department of Treasury funds (specified funds) until the President certifies that: (1) Iran has returned any money from such funds paid to it by the United States after January 1, 2016, (2) Iran has satisfied all outstanding judgments against it awarded to U.S. plaintiffs by U.S. courts, and (3) individuals taken hostage and held for 444 days following the U.S. Embassy seizure in Iran on November 4, 1979, have been compensated from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.
The President must certify before providing or authorizing payment of any funds to Iran that: (1) the funds will not be used to support international terrorism, and (2) Iran or Iran-supported groups are not unjustly detaining U.S. citizens.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The President, within 60 days after enactment of this bill, shall impose property transaction and U.S. entry sanctions against any Iranian person:
involved in the kidnapping or unjust detention of a U.S. citizen on or after March 9, 2007;
that engages, or attempts to engage, in an activity or transaction that materially contributes to such kidnapping or unjust detentions; and
owned or controlled by such a person, acting on behalf of such a person, or providing support for such a person.
The Director of National Intelligence shall report within 60 days on whether funds paid to Iran by the United States after January 1, 2016, have been used by Iran to support international terrorism.
The President and U.S. government officers shall not:
make a payment to a government or person to secure the release of unjustly detained U.S. citizens (a payment to assist arrested U.S. citizens is excluded from such prohibition), or
use specified funds to make any payment to a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism (a specific payment or a specific payee is excluded from such prohibition if Congress has passed a joint resolution waiving the application of such prohibition).
People & committees
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] · R–FL
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 Foreign Relations.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2026. 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.3285 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.3285 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.3285 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.3285 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.