Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 1997
National Park Service Administrative Amendment of 1997 -Title I: New Area Establishment - Amends Federal law to repeal provisions which require the Secretary of the Interior to report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate on areas of national significance that have been studied for potential inclusion in the National Park System (NPS) and requiring, within such report, a listing of not less than 12 such areas. Directs the Secretary to submit to the Committee on Resources of the House and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, along with the annual budget, a list of areas recommended for study for potential inclusion in the NPS. Requires the Secretary to give: (1) consideration to those areas that have the greatest potential to meet the established criteria of national significance, suitability, and feasibility; and (2) special consideration to themes, sites, and resources not already adequately represented in the NPS as identified in the NPS Plan to be developed under the National Park System Reform Act of 1995. Prohibits studies of potential areas for inclusion in the NPS from being initiated after the enactment of this Act, except as specifically authorized by an Act of Congress. Provides that nothing in this Act shall: (1) limit the authority of the National Park Service to conduct preliminary resource assessments, gather data on potential study areas, provide technical and planning assistance, prepare or process nominations for administrative designations, update previous studies, or complete reconnaissance surveys of individual areas requiring a total expenditure of less than $25,000; or (2) be construed to apply to the study of any river segment or any trail for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system or the national trails system. Directs the Secretary to complete the study for each area for potential inclusion in the NPS within three complete fiscal years following the date of enactment of specific legislation providing for the study. Requires: (1) each study to consider specified factors, including similar resources already protected, costs, public support, and alternatives for protecting the area; (2) each study to be completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and (3) the letter transmitting each completed study to the Congress to contain a recommendation regarding the Secretary's preferred management option for the area. Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a single office to be assigned to prepare all new area studies and to implement other new area functions; and (2) submit to such Committees, along with the annual budget, a list of areas which have been previously studied which contain primarily historical resources, and a list of areas which have been previously studied which contain primarily natural resources, in numerical order of priority for addition to the NPS. (Sec. 102) Authorizes appropriations.
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
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.1728 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.1728 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.1728 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.1728 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.