Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 279.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 2, 2017
Leverage to Enhance Effective Diplomacy Act of 2017 or the LEED Act
This bill directs the President to: (1) impose property-blocking sanctions against the North Korean government, business entities that trade with North Korea, including specified Chinese entities, and affiliated persons or entities; (2) prohibit the opening, and strictly control the maintaining in the United States, of correspondent or payable-through accounts by a foreign financial institution that assisted in the importation, sale, or transfer of North Korean goods or services; and (3) impose specified sanctions against a person that imports, purchases, or transfers goods or services from the North Korean government or from such entities or affiliates.
The North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004 is amended to extend assistance for human rights and democracy programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
The bill prescribes reporting requirements with respect to North Korea's ballistic missile and missile fuel program. The Department of State shall: (1) brief Congress on the status of U.S. diplomatic engagement with North Korea and of detained U.S. citizens, and (2) develop a diplomatic strategy to end the transfer of rocket fuels and chemical precursors to North Korea.
The State Department may reduce its diplomatic presence in, and terminate or reduce foreign assistance to, countries that are not cooperating with diplomatic and economic efforts to isolate North Korea.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 279.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Corker with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Corker with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. 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
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 10, 2026. 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.1901 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.1901 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.1901 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.1901 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.