Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1997
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 273.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 6, 1997
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1997 - Amends the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 to add and revise definitions. Reestablishes the responsibilities of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and revises its responsibilities to include the development of national drug control policy, coordination and oversight of the implementation of such policy, assessment and certification of the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of such programs. Revises provisions concerning Deputy Director offices and responsibilities, including to provide for: (1) a Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy; and (2) a Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs. Establishes in the Treasury a fund for the receipt of gifts to aid or facilitate the work of the Office. Sets forth or modifies provisions regarding the responsibilities and coordination of national drug control program agencies and the drug control budget request certification process. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to annually submit an assessment of the acreage of illegal drug cultivation in the United States. Revises provisions regarding the National Drug Control Strategy to require: (1) the President to submit to the Congress by February 1, 1997, a Strategy which sets forth a comprehensive plan, covering a period of not more than ten years, for reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand for illegal drugs; and (2) annual reports on progress in implementing the Strategy. Permits the President to submit a revised Strategy that meets the requirements of this Act under specified conditions. Requires the Director of National Drug Control Policy to submit a description of the national drug control performance measurement system. Requires the inclusion of a description of any modifications made during the preceding year to the performance measurement system to be included in each annual report. Establishes in the Office a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. Revises provisions regarding the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center, which shall be directed by a Director of Technology whose duties shall include identifying demand reduction basic and applied research needs and initiatives. Requires the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services to render assistance and support to the Office and to the Director in the conduct of counter-drug technology assessment. Terminates the Office on September 30, 2001. Establishes the President's Council on Counter-Narcotics to advise and assist the President in: (1) providing direction and oversight for the national drug control strategy, including relating drug control policy to other national security interests and establishing priorities; and (2) ensuring coordination among Federal agencies concerning the implementation of the President's national drug control strategy. Requires the Director to serve as the Executive Director of the Council, the senior drug control policy official in the executive branch, and the chief drug control policy spokesman for the President. Requires the Director to work in conjunction with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Establishes the Parents Advisory Council on Youth Drug Abuse to advise the President and the Cabinet, including the Director, on drug prevention, education, and treatment and issue reports and recommendations as considered, in addition to submitting annual reports to the Director. Authorizes appropriations to the Council of such sums as may be necessary. Authorizes appropriations of such sums as may be necessary for FY 1998 through 2001. (Sec. 3) Sets forth drug interdiction reporting requirements relating to the budget process. (Sec. 4) Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should discuss with the democratically-elected governments of the Western Hemisphere the prospect of forming a multilateral alliance to address problems relating to international drug trafficking in the Western Hemisphere. Requires a specified report.
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
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 H.R.2610 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 H.R.2610 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 H.R.2610 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 H.R.2610 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.