4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Dec 9, 2025)

Technical and procedural updates only. The later version, v4, reflects the bill's status after passing the House of Representatives and being received and referred to a committee in the Senate. There are no substantive policy changes to the legislative text between v3 and v4.

H.R. 1676119th CongressIntroduced Feb 27, 2025

Make SWAPs Efficient Act of 2025

Passed HousePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
Committees: Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
Last action: Dec 10, 2025

Bottom line

This bill aims to streamline the federal approval process for State Wildlife Action Plans, ensuring quicker implementation of conservation efforts and increasing accountability for federal review delays.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to mandate that the Secretary of the Interior approve State wildlife conservation and restoration programs within 180 days of their submission. It requires the Secretary to conditionally authorize program implementation and set aside funds upon submission, develop a timely review process in consultation with states, and report to Congress if the 180-day deadline is missed.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that the current federal review process for State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) can be excessively slow, delaying critical conservation work. By imposing a strict 180-day deadline and requiring conditional authorization, this bill would ensure that states can implement their conservation programs more efficiently, leading to more timely and effective wildlife restoration efforts across the nation. It also adds transparency and accountability by requiring reports on delays.

Opponents contend

Critics might contend that imposing a rigid 180-day deadline could compromise the thoroughness of federal review, potentially leading to the approval of less effective or poorly planned conservation programs. They might argue that complex plans require adequate time for detailed assessment, and rushing the process could result in misallocation of funds or unintended negative consequences for wildlife.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.

Section 2, amending 16 U.S.C. 669c(e)(3)

Mandating 180-Day Approval for State Wildlife Plans and Enhancing Accountability

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve a State's comprehensive wildlife conservation and restoration plan within 180 days of its submission. It also mandates that the Secretary conditionally authorize the plan's implementation and set aside funds immediately upon submission. If the 180-day deadline is not met, the Secretary must submit a report to relevant congressional committees explaining the delay and the plan's status.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupState wildlife agenciesImpactIncreased efficiency and certainty in federal funding and program implementation.MechanismFederal mandate for timely review and conditional authorization.ScaleApplies to all states receiving Pittman-Robertson funds for wildlife conservation.

GroupDepartment of the Interior (Secretary)ImpactIncreased administrative burden and accountability for review timelines.MechanismNew deadlines and reporting requirements.ScaleAffects the federal agency responsible for administering the Pittman-Robertson Act.

GroupWildlife conservation effortsImpactPotentially faster deployment of conservation funds and programs.MechanismReduced delays in plan approvals.ScaleNational impact on various species and habitats.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision is crucial for cutting bureaucratic red tape that often stalls vital conservation projects. By setting a firm deadline and requiring conditional authorization, states can begin implementing their plans and utilizing funds sooner, leading to more immediate and impactful results for wildlife and habitats. The reporting requirement also ensures transparency regarding any delays.

Critics contend

Opponents might argue that while efficiency is desirable, a strict 180-day deadline could force federal reviewers to rush complex evaluations, potentially overlooking critical details or deficiencies in state plans. This could lead to the approval of less effective or even detrimental projects, ultimately undermining the goals of wildlife conservation. They might suggest that some plans genuinely require more time for thorough review.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the desire for administrative efficiency and timely conservation action against the need for thorough federal oversight and quality assurance in reviewing complex state wildlife plans. It aims to prevent undue delays while still allowing for a review process.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.