PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 11, 1999
No Federal Benefits for Drug Traffickers Act of 1999 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide for mandatory suspension of Federal benefits: (1) for not less than one year, and in the court's discretion, for up to five years, to any individual convicted of a first Federal or State controlled substances distribution offense; and (2) for not less than three years, and in the court's discretion, for up to ten years, for a second conviction. Provides for mandatory suspension of such benefits for not less than one year for a second or subsequent conviction of a Federal or State controlled substances possession offense. Authorizes the court to require the offender to successfully complete an approved drug treatment program which includes periodic testing to insure that the individual remains drug free, or to perform community service, upon a second or subsequent conviction.
People & committees
Sen. Ashcroft, John [R-MO] · R–MO
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 Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2577)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.