PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 3, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 16, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with state management agencies, to conduct a three-year pilot program under which up to 15 states may issue electronic migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps.
Prohibits a state's participation in the program unless the Secretary approves an application which includes: (1) a description of the format of the electronic stamp to be issued and any fee to be charged for it; and (2) procedures for transmitting electronic stamp customer data to the Secretary and for delivery of such stamps. Requires the Secretary to publish eligibility requirements and selection criteria.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to require participating states to: (1) provide an actual (paper) stamp to each individual to whom the state sells an electronic stamp by the date on which the electronic stamp expires; and (2) collect and transmit to the Secretary electronic stamp revenue and customer information.
Allows states to charge a reasonable fee to cover program costs and to issue duplicate electronic stamps for lost or damaged stamps. Prohibits states from requiring a state hunting license as a condition of issuing an electronic stamp.
Sets forth standards for the issuance and recognition of electronic stamps.
Authorizes termination of a state's participation in the program by the Secretary for violating the terms of its application or by a state upon providing written notice to the Secretary.
Directs the Secretary, in consultation with state fish and wildlife management agencies and stakeholders with expertise in the electronic duck stamp program, to evaluate and report to Congress on the pilot program.
Revises and makes technical amendments to provisions popularly known as the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (or Duck Stamp Act of 1934), including: (1) reassigning authority for issuing stamps from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior; (2) incorporating current administrative practices for issuing stamps; and (3) establishing as the short title for such provisions the "Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act."
People & committees
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-266.
Became Public Law No: 109-266.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 358 - 4 (Roll no. 394). (text: CR H5587-5590)
House roll call 394 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 358 - 4 (Roll no. 394).(text: CR H5587-5590)
House roll call 394 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5647-5648)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1496.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5587-5591)
Mr. Walden (OR) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 312.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-556.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-556.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13939-13941; text as passed Senate: CR S13939-13941)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13939-13941; text as passed Senate: CR S13939-13941)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 305.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with amendments. With written report No. 109-187.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with amendments. With written report No. 109-187.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
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.
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.1496 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.1496 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.1496 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.1496 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.