PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jul 15, 2019
United States-Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act
This bill authorizes foreign assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (the Northern Triangle), and requires the Department of State to devise strategies to address economic development, corruption, and other issues in those countries. It also requires reports on various related topics, including factors that drive migrants from those countries to the United States.
A portion of the assistance authorized for the Northern Triangle shall be conditioned upon the receiving country taking various actions, including (1) informing its citizens of the dangers of the journey to the United States, (2) fighting human and drug trafficking, and (3) combatting corruption.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The State Department shall devise strategies directed at the Northern Triangle region to (1) promote inclusive economic growth that addresses the underlying causes of poverty and inequality, (2) combat corruption, (3) strengthen democratic institutions and rule of law, and (4) improve security conditions through means such as the professionalization of security services.
The State Department shall designate a Senior Rule of Law Advisor for the Northern Triangle.
The State Department shall also devise a strategy to work with Mexico to strengthen its southern border.
The President shall impose sanctions on foreign persons determined to be involved in a significant act of corruption in a Northern Triangle country. Individuals who engage in such corruption shall be subject to property-blocking sanctions and barred from entering the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5780-5784)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5780-5784)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2615.
Considered under suspension of the rules.
Mr. Engel moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. (consideration: CR H5780-5786)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 28, 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.2615 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.2615 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.2615 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.2615 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.