PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2025
Make SWAPs Efficient Act of 2025 or the Make State Wildlife Action Plans Efficient Act of 2025
This bill modifies the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWGP) to establish a deadline for the Department of the Interior to approve state wildlife conservation and restoration programs. Under the SWGP, Interior provides funding to state wildlife agencies to implement their comprehensive plans (commonly known as state wildlife action plans or SWAPs) for state wildlife conservation and restoration programs.
The bill directs Interior to approve a state wildlife conservation and restoration program within 180 days after the date on which the state submitted its SWAP if Interior finds that the SWAP complies with the requirements of the SWGP. If Interior misses the deadline, the bill requires (1) the SWAP to be automatically approved, and (2) Interior to set aside amounts under the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account for the state.
People & committees
Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 400 - 0 (Roll no. 316). (text: CR H5079)
House roll call 316 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 400 - 0 (Roll no. 316). (text: CR H5079)
House roll call 316 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5101)
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. 1676.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5078-5080)
Mr. Crank moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 238.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-282.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-282.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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 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 H.R.1676 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.1676 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.1676 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.1676 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.