Technical and administrative updates only. The later version (v4) includes the name of the Clerk of the House, "KEVIN F. MCCUMBER," in the attestation, which was not present in v3. There are no substantive policy changes to the bill's text or provisions.
To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 16, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 1098 extends a conservation education program's funding authorization through 2031, mandates budget neutrality, and narrows the program's geographic scope for U.S. territories.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, extending its funding authorization from fiscal years 2006-2010 to 2025-2031. It also clarifies that funds for the program must come from within existing appropriations for the Federal Duck Stamp Office, ensuring no new funds are authorized. Additionally, the bill amends the definition of 'State' within the Act, specifically removing 'any other territory or possession' from the definition, thereby limiting the program's reach to Guam and the Virgin Islands among U.S. territories.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that reauthorizing the Junior Duck Stamp program is crucial for continuing its successful conservation education efforts, which engage youth in wildlife and habitat preservation. They contend that ensuring the program's funding comes from existing Federal Duck Stamp Office appropriations demonstrates fiscal responsibility and maintains the program's self-sustaining nature, aligning with its original intent.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the narrowing of the 'State' definition, arguing that excluding 'any other territory or possession' could disadvantage students and conservation efforts in those areas without clear justification. Some might also argue that while budget neutrality is positive, it could limit the program's ability to expand or adapt to growing needs if tied strictly to existing funding levels without the possibility of additional appropriations.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick review and understanding of its core changes.
Section 1(a)
Amendment to Definition of 'State'
This provision modifies the definition of 'State' within the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994. Previously, the Act included Guam, the Virgin Islands, and 'any other territory or possession' in its definition of a State. This amendment removes 'and any other territory or possession,' meaning the program's activities and benefits would explicitly apply only to Guam and the Virgin Islands among U.S. territories, excluding others like American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands.
Supporters argue
Proponents might argue this clarification streamlines the program's administration by focusing its territorial scope, potentially due to administrative complexities or limited participation from other territories in the past. It could also be seen as aligning the program's reach with specific, identified needs or existing operational capacities.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that excluding 'any other territory or possession' is discriminatory and deprives students in those areas of valuable educational and artistic opportunities related to conservation. They might argue that conservation education should be universally accessible across all U.S. jurisdictions, and this change creates an unnecessary barrier.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances administrative simplification or targeted focus against the principle of broad inclusion and equitable access to federal programs for all U.S. territories. It creates a tension between efficiency and comprehensive reach.
Section 1(b)(1)
Reauthorization of Appropriations
This section reauthorizes the appropriation of funds for the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program. It updates the period for which funds are authorized from '2006 through 2010' to '2025 through 2031.' This ensures that the program has legal authority to receive federal funding for an additional six fiscal years, allowing it to continue its operations and educational initiatives.
This subsection adds a new clause stating that funds authorized for the Junior Duck Stamp program 'may, as provided in appropriations Acts, only come from within amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the duties of the Federal Duck Stamp Office.'
Section 1(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to ensure fiscal responsibility and prevent the reauthorization from being perceived as an open-ended spending increase. It explicitly ties the program's funding to an existing, dedicated revenue stream, which is a common strategy for programs funded by user fees or specific conservation funds.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause ensures fiscal prudence, preventing the program from becoming a drain on general taxpayer funds. It reinforces the program's connection to the Federal Duck Stamp Office, which is largely funded by stamp sales to hunters and conservationists, making it a self-sustaining model.
Case against: Critics might argue that while fiscally responsible, this limitation could hinder the program's ability to expand or innovate if the existing Federal Duck Stamp Office budget becomes constrained or if the program's needs outgrow that specific funding source. It removes flexibility for future growth or response to new educational challenges.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures the reauthorized program will not create new federal spending beyond what is already allocated to the Federal Duck Stamp Office, making its direct deficit impact neutral.