PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 55 · Passed Senate · Dec 19, 2019
This bill requires the Department of State to develop a program to combat corruption in countries that receive U.S. aid.
The State Department shall annually report to Congress a tiered list of all countries that receive certain U.S. foreign assistance. The first tier shall contain countries that meet minimum standards for combatting public corruption, while the second tier shall contain countries that do not comply but are making significant efforts to do so. Third-tier countries do not meet the minimum anti-corruption standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.
For each second- and third-tier ranked country, the State Department shall (1) include a corruption risk assessment and mitigation strategy in each country's integrated country strategy, and (2) use appropriate anti-corruption mechanisms. Such mechanisms include requiring the disclosure of the beneficial ownership of contractors and partners involved in State Department programs and requiring claw-back provisions to recover misappropriated funds.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The State Department shall designate an anti-corruption point of contact in the U.S. diplomatic post in each second- or third-tier country and where the State Department determines that such a point of contact is necessary. The point of contact shall be responsible for coordinating a whole-of-government approach to enhancing the ability of foreign countries to combat public corruption.
People & committees
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S7234-7236)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 144.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Risch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Risch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
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, 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 S.1309 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.1309 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.1309 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.1309 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.