Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
This bill reauthorizes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 through fiscal years 2025–2031 and amends the Act's definition of “State” to adjust territorial language (including explicit mention of Guam). It also adds a provision that no additional funds are authorized; any funding must come from amounts already authorized to the Secretary for the Federal Duck Stamp Office.
All sides generally support reauthorization but differ on funding concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a narrow administrative reauthorization: it specifies precise statutory text changes to extend authorization years, updates the definition of 'State' to include additional territories as shown in the amendments, and adds a funding limitation tying program funds to existing Federal Duck Stamp Office appropriations.
This bill reauthorizes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 through fiscal years 2025–2031 and amends the Act's definition of “State” to adjust territorial language (including explicit mention of Guam).
It also adds a provision that no additional funds are authorized; any funding must come from amounts already authorized to the Secretary for the Federal Duck Stamp Office.
The bill passed the House on December 15, 2025.
Narrow, non-ideological reauthorization with no new spending is historically likely to clear both chambers and be enacted absent unusual procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a narrow administrative reauthorization: it specifies precise statutory text changes to extend authorization years, updates the definition of 'State' to include additional territories as shown in the amendments, and adds a funding limitation tying program funds to existing Federal Duck Stamp Office appropriations.
All sides generally support reauthorization but differ on funding concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
All sides generally support reauthorization but differ on funding concerns.
Generally favorable: sees the bill as a modest conservation and environmental-education win for youth.
Appreciates inclusion of territories and continued program authorization.
Might worry that the "no additional funds" language could limit program effectiveness.
Overall supportive but pragmatic: values continuity and low fiscal impact.
Likes inclusion of territories and that no new mandatory spending is created.
Wants clarity on funding mechanics and expects routine congressional oversight in appropriations.
Cautiously supportive: favors modest, low-cost conservation and youth programs and notes this bill does not create new mandatory spending.
Some skepticism about additional federal involvement in education, but limited scope reduces opposition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, non-ideological reauthorization with no new spending is historically likely to clear both chambers and be enacted absent unusual procedural obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
All sides generally support reauthorization but differ on funding concerns.
Narrow, non-ideological reauthorization with no new spending is historically likely to clear both chambers and be enacted absent unusual pr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a narrow administrative reauthorization: it specifies precise statutory text changes to extend authorization years, updates the definition of 'State' to…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.