PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 15, 2017
Judgment Fund Transparency and Terrorism Financing Prevention Act of 2017
This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to disclose details after payments are made from the Judgment Fund. (The Judgment Fund is a permanent and indefinite appropriation to pay judgments against the United States.)
Unless the disclosure is prohibited by law or a court order, Treasury must disclose to the public on a website:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or judgment,
the plaintiff or claimant,
the counsel for the plaintiff or claimant,
the amount paid,
a description of the facts that gave rise to the claim,
the agency that submitted the claim, and
any information available on reports generated by the Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by Treasury.
If the payment is made to a foreign state, Treasury must also disclose:
the method of payment;
the currency denomination used for the payment; and
the name and location of each financial institution owned or controlled by a foreign state or an agent of a foreign state through which the payment passed, from which the payment was withdrawn, or that is holding the payment.
No payments from the fund may be made to a state sponsor of terrorism.
People & committees
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] · R–OK
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 the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.386 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.386 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.386 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.386 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.