A bill to amend section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish an additional certification with respect to major drug-producing and drug-transit countries, and for other purposes.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 12, 1998
Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to revise certification standards for waiver of the requirements that: (1) bilateral assistance be withheld from a major illicit drug producing country or major drug-transit country; and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury instruct the U.S. Executive Director of each multilateral development bank to vote against the provision of assistance to such countries under the international narcotic control program. Allows waiver of such requirements, in addition to other certification standards, if during the previous year such a country has cooperated with the United States, or has taken steps on its own, to achieve compliance with the goals and objectives established by the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, but has not made adequate progress toward meeting certain plans, programs, or timetables (including any relating to the Convention) identified in a specified report of the President to the Congress. Declares that, with respect to such a country, a high-level contact group should be convened consisting of, but not limited to, specified U.S. officials and their counterparts from the country. Requires each high-level group to establish specific, achievable benchmarks for the country for each plan, program, and timetable for which inadequate progress has been made. Directs the President to place the greatest emphasis on the progress made by the country with respect to such benchmarks in making certifications for such country in the following year. Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) a high-level contact group should be convened with respect to Mexico in 1998; and (2) any benchmarks the group establishes should be used in its certification in 1999.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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 S.1750 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 S.1750 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 S.1750 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 S.1750 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.