PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-372, Part I.
Congressional Research Service
Version 28 · Reported to House without amendment, Part I · Jan 18, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Wildlife Refuge System Conservation Semipostal Stamp Act of 2011- Directs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to issue and sell, at a premium, a Wildlife Refuge System Conservation Semipostal Stamp. Requires the use of such stamp to be voluntary on the part of postal patrons.
Requires proceeds from the sale of the semipostal stamp to be transferred to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to help fund the maintenance backlog and operational shortfall of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Prohibits such proceeds from being taken into account in any decision relating to the level of appropriations or other federal funding to be furnished to the USFWS or allocated to the System.
Requires the stamp to be made available to the public for at least two years.
People & committees
Del. Sablan, Gregorio Kilili Camacho [D-MP-At Large] · D–MP
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-372, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-372, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1140)
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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.
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: Apr 7, 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.2236 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.2236 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.2236 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.2236 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.