Passed
399 Yea5 Nay28 Not voting2/3 required
S-356-119
Became Public Law No: 119-58.
Sponsored by Mike Crapo (R-ID)
What it does
This law extends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provides federal payments to states and counties that contain federal land (such as national forests) and therefore have reduced local tax bases. It extends those payments through FY2026, provides back-payments for FY2024 and FY2025, and extends the authority for counties to initiate local projects using these funds through FY2028. It also extends the authority for resource advisory committees — local bodies that recommend land management projects — to propose projects through FY2028.
Who benefits
Rural counties containing national forests, Bureau of Land Management land, and other federal land, which cannot collect property taxes on that land. Local school districts in those counties, which historically received a share of federal timber revenues that have declined. County governments that fund roads, emergency services, and infrastructure with these payments. Residents of rural, often economically distressed communities who depend on county-funded services. Contractors and workers who carry out locally approved land management projects funded through resource advisory committees.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who fund the payments, which substitute for tax revenue the counties cannot collect. Competing budget priorities in Congress, as the extension requires continued appropriations. Counties or communities that may prefer a permanent, long-term solution rather than repeated short-term reauthorizations, which create uncertainty in local budget planning. Environmental groups that prefer reduced logging and land disturbance may object to resource advisory committee projects that involve timber harvesting or road construction on federal land.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counties containing federal land are structurally disadvantaged because they cannot tax that land, yet must still provide schools, roads, and emergency services to residents living near it. They contend that the original Secure Rural Schools Act was designed to compensate for the collapse of federal timber revenues in the 1990s, and that without these payments, rural school districts and county governments face severe budget shortfalls — a documented pattern in prior funding gaps. They also argue that extending resource advisory committee authority empowers local communities to manage federal land in ways that reflect their specific economic and ecological needs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that repeated short-term reauthorizations — rather than a permanent funding formula or structural fix — create chronic budget uncertainty for the very counties the program is meant to help, and that Congress is deferring a harder policy decision about the long-term relationship between federal land ownership and local fiscal capacity. They contend that the payments can function as a subsidy for counties to avoid diversifying their economies beyond federal land dependence, and that resource advisory committee projects, which may include timber harvesting, can conflict with federal land management goals and environmental protections without sufficient federal oversight.
Passed