Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-102.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Passed House 368–19
- To President
- Became Law
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
The Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025 amends the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. This bill aims to remove barriers for agricultural producers trying to access funds for emergency conservation measures. It expands the types of emergency measures covered to include the replacement or restoration of farmland or conservation structures requiring an immediate response. Additionally, the act modifies payment structures and timelines for these programs. It also updates definitions regarding wildfires to include those not caused naturally or those caused by the Federal Government. Finally, it introduces advance payment options for owners of nonindustrial private forest land.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +6
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill expands the types of eligible wildfire damage and allows producers to access up to 75 percent of costs upfront.
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Agricultural producers benefit from the option of receiving advance payments for emergency repairs and replacements.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill improves the ability to restore farmland and conservation structures after emergencies like wildfires.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 368 yes · 19 no
06/23/2026 · Roll call 223 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased flexibility for agricultural producers: The bill allows for funds to be used for "other emergency measures to replace or restore farmland or conservation structures requiring an immediate response" (Section 2). This helps producers address urgent needs.
-
Faster access to funds: The act changes the timeline from a "60-day" period to a "180-day" period (Section 2).
-
Upfront financial support for replacements: Agricultural producers can now have the option of receiving "75 percent of the cost of the replacement" before they carry out the work (Section 2).
-
Upfront financial support for repairs: Agricultural producers can have the option of receiving "50 percent of the cost of the repair or restoration" before carrying out the work (Section 2).
-
Expanded wildfire coverage: The definition of a wildfire that causes eligible damage now includes "a wildfire that is not caused naturally, if the damage is caused by the spread of the wildfire due to natural causes" and "a wildfire that is caused by the Federal Government" (Section 2 and Section 3).
-
Advance payments for forest land owners: Owners of nonindustrial private forest land may be given the option of receiving "not more than 75 percent of the cost of the emergency measures" before carrying out the work (Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Requirement to return unused advance funds: If funds provided for emergency measures under the forest restoration program are not used within a "180-day period," the owner must return the funds within a timeframe determined by the Secretary (Section 3).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill expands the types of eligible wildfire damage and allows producers to access up to 75 percent of costs upfront. Would business owners be better off under this? — Agricultural producers benefit from the option of receiving advance payments for emergency repairs and replacements. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill provides more flexible and faster emergency assistance for agricultural lands and forest land.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill improves the ability to restore farmland and conservation structures after emergencies like wildfires. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill provides better financial support and faster access to emergency funds for agricultural producers.
- Public Law (7/13/2026)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
- 7/12/2026
- Sent to Archivist of the United States unsigned.
- Became Public Law No: 119-102.
- 6/30/2026
- Presented to President.
- 6/23/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/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)
- 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)
- Considered 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.
- 3/24/2026
- Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1565; text: CR S1565)
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 2/19/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California