PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 4, 1997
Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 - Amends an Act of September 15, 1960, commonly referred to as the Sikes Act, to designate such Act as the Sikes Act. Directs (current law authorizes) the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. Requires the Secretary of each military department to prepare and implement an integrated natural resources management plan (plan) for each military installation under his or her jurisdiction. Authorizes such Secretaries to provide for: (1) the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on such installations and the sustainable multipurpose use of such resources; and (2) public access to such installations to facilitate their use. Directs each Secretary to: (1) review military installations under his or her jurisdiction for which the preparation of a plan is appropriate; and (2) submit such determinations to the Secretary. Requires the Secretary to report such reviews to the Congress. Provides an opportunity for public comment on such plans. Allows wildlife conservation fees collected at military installations which are subsequently closed to be transferred to another military installation and used for the same purpose. Requires annual reviews and reports by the Secretaries of Defense and the Interior with respect to the implementation of such plans. Authorizes multiyear cooperative agreements for plan implementation. Provides for the enforcement on military installations of all Federal laws relating to natural resources management 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 necessary tasks for plan compliance. Repeals existing provisions that set forth requirements for natural resource, fish, and wildlife management on military reservations. Extends through FY 2003 the authorization of appropriations for natural resources conservation programs on military installations, as well as equivalent programs on other public lands.
People & committees
Sen. Chafee, John H. [R-RI] · R–RI
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 Environment and Public Works.
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: 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 S.1363 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.1363 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.1363 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.1363 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.