PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2025
Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025
This bill 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 bill also provides additional options to receive an advance on cost-sharing payments before carrying out emergency measures.
The bill expands advance ECP payments to include payments for the rehabilitation of farmland or to repair or replace a farmland or conservation structure. Producers may receive an advance on cost-sharing payments for 75% of the cost of the replacement or rehabilitation and 50% of the cost of the repair. Current law limits advanced cost-sharing payments to 25% of the cost of the repair or replacement of fencing.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also expands eligibility for payments under ECP to include emergency measures to address damages caused by a wildfire that is not caused naturally (including a wildfire that is caused by the federal government), if the damage is caused by the spread of the wildfire due to natural causes.
Under EFRP, the bill 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. Recipients must use the funds within 180 days after the funds are disbursed. Currently, advance payments are not available under the program.
People & committees
Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
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): 395 - 10 (Roll no. 109). (text: CR H2844)
House roll call 109 · 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): 395 - 10 (Roll no. 109). (text: CR H2844)
House roll call 109 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2874)
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 H.R. 1011.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2844-2846)
Mr. Thompson (PA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 25, 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 H.R.1011 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 H.R.1011 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 H.R.1011 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 H.R.1011 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.