PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
Sikes Act Improvement Amendments of 1997 - 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 2000 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.
For Further Action See H.R.1119.
Joint Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans and by the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Referred to House National Security
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Resources
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E17, E19)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. 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.374 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.374 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.374 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.374 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.