PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 119-102.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 12, 2026
Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025
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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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.
People & committees
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 119-102.
Became Public Law No: 119-102.
Sent to Archivist of the United States unsigned.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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): 368 - 19 (Roll no. 223). (text: CR H4137)
House roll call 223 · 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): 368 - 19 (Roll no. 223). (text: CR H4137)
House roll call 223 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4192)
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 S. 629.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4137-4138)
Mr. Lucas moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1565; text: CR S1565)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 31, 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 S.629 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 S.629 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 S.629 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 S.629 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.