S. 629Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawAgriculture and Food

Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025

Sponsored byDeb FischerR-NEIntroduced Feb 19, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 12, 2026) No: 119-102.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jul 12, 2026

This act revises the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) to expand eligibility for payments to agricultural producers and owners of forest land impacted by natural disasters. The act also provides additional options to receive an advance on cost-sharing payments before carrying out emergency measures.

The act expands advance ECP payments to include the replacement, repair, or restoration of farmland or conservation structures requiring an immediate response. Producers may receive an advance on cost-sharing payments for 75% of the cost of the replacement and 50% of the cost of the repair or restoration. Current law limits advance payments to 25% of the cost of the repair or replacement of fencing.

Under EFRP, the act allows owners of nonindustrial private forest land impacted by a natural disaster to receive an advance on cost-sharing payments for up to 75% of the cost of the emergency measures. Currently, advance payments are not available under the program.

ECP and EFRP recipients must use the funds within 180 days after the funds are disbursed. This provides additional time to ECP recipients who currently must use the funds within 60 days.

The act also expands eligibility for payments under the programs to include emergency measures to address damages caused by (1) a wildfire that is not caused naturally, if the damage is caused by the spread of the wildfire due to natural causes; and (2) a wildfire that is caused by the federal government.

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On decisive vote

    House · Jun 23, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    36819

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

8 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay18d ago
Has this been introduced in a previous Congress? Feels familiar, and if it died before, I'd like to know why.
5
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Yea23d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
5
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Yea24d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
9
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Yea21d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
2
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea23d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
19
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea25d ago
Reading the summary, this looks like it mostly codifies what agencies are already doing informally. That's worth doing — informal practice evaporates when administrations change.
3
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay19d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
9
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay20d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
Your position on S. 62960% Yea · 5 VoteWire users