PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 19 · Reported to House amended, Part II · Jun 1, 1995
Sikes Act Improvement Amendments of 1995 - Amends the Act of September 15, 1960, commonly referred to as the Sikes Act, to direct (current law authorizes) the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of wildlife, fish, and game conservation on each U.S. military installation. Requires an integrated natural resource management plan (plan) to be included in each program. Authorizes the Secretary to manage each military installation to provide: (1) for the conservation of fish and wildlife on such installation and sustained multipurpose uses of those resources; and (2) necessary or appropriate public access for those uses. Requires the plan to address the needs for fish and wildlife management, land management, forest management, and wildlife-oriented recreation. Requires an opportunity for public comment on each plan prepared. Requires the: (1) Secretaries of each military department to review and report to the Secretary on military installations under their jurisdiction for which a plan would be appropriate; and (2) Secretary to report to the Congress on such reviews. Sets a deadline for the establishment of such plans. Directs the Secretary to annually review the extent to which plans were prepared or in effect and implemented during the preceding year. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to report to specified congressional committees on funds expended on conservation activities conducted pursuant to such plans. Provides for the enforcement on military installations of all Federal laws relating to natural resources conservation on Federal lands. Requires the Secretary of each military department to ensure that sufficient numbers of trained natural resource management and law enforcement personnel are available and assigned to perform tasks necessary to ensure plan compliance. Entitles the Act of September 15, 1960, as the Sikes Act. Extends through FY 1998 the authorization of appropriations for natural resources conservation programs on military installations, as well as equivalent programs on other public lands.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6756)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Studds objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with up to forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6708-6712)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 57.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on National Security. H. Rept. 104-107, Part II.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on National Security. H. Rept. 104-107, Part II.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on National Security for a period ending not later than June 1, 1995.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-107, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-107, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Sep 8, 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 H.R.1141 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 H.R.1141 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 H.R.1141 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 H.R.1141 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.