PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 17, 2005
Sport Fishing and Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2005 - Amends the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to provide for distribution of FY 2006 through 2020 appropriations for certain fish restoration and management projects, including for the multistate conservation grant program.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require transfer to the land and water conservation fund of the equivalent of certain motorboat fuel taxes received into the Highway Trust Fund.
Establishes the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (effectively merging the Sport Fish Restoration Account and the Boat Safety Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund). Transfers any excess motorboat fuel taxes not transferred to the land and water conservation fund into such Fund.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes for FY 2006 through 2010 certain expenditures from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, including for aid to States for fish restoration and management projects.
Amends the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, with respect to grants for State marine sanitation device pumpout station programs, to repeal the mandatory priority consideration given to grant applications that, in coastal States, propose constructing and renovating pumpout stations and waste reception facilities in accordance with a coastal State's approved plan.
Amends Federal shipping law to increase from one-half to 75 percent the maximum percentage of a State's total cost for its recreational boating safety program represented by the Federal allocation the State receives. Extends the availability of such allocation from two years to three years. Requires a reduction of such allocation if the State's expenditures for the program for the previous fiscal year is below the average expenditures for the three preceding fiscal years (failure of maintenance of effort).
People & committees
Sen. Lott, Trent [R-MS] · R–MS
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1634)
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.421 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.421 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.421 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.421 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.