S-5607-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Ron Wyden (D-OR)
What it does
The bill would amend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 by striking the "50-percent" limit from the definition of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revenue-based payment, with the stated aim of restoring the full 75-percent county payment from the Oregon and California land-grant fund. It would also rename and renumber several definitions (for example, "25-percent payment" becomes "Forest Service revenue-based payment"), update statutory citations, and list the combinations of payments a county may elect to receive. Other limits apply, including the Act's existing payment formulas and election rules.
Who benefits
Counties in western Oregon that receive revenue from the Oregon and California (O&C) railroad grant lands, which may receive larger payments if the 50-percent cap is removed. Residents who rely on county-funded services such as schools, roads, and law enforcement in those counties. County officials, who would get clearer election options among payment types under the Act.
Who is hurt
Federal budget accounts, which may bear higher costs if county payments rise from 50 to 75 percent of the relevant revenue. Programs that currently receive the retained share of O&C revenue, such as BLM land management activities, could see less funding. Counties in other regions get no direct gain, and some may face more competition for federal rural-payment attention. Taxpayers generally could bear indirect costs if the change is not offset.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that O&C counties were promised a 75-percent share of revenue from the railroad grant lands, and that the cap on county payments has left rural counties short of funds for schools, roads, and sheriffs. They contend the bill also tidies confusing definitions and election options, giving counties clearer rules for choosing among payment types.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that raising the county share from 50 to 75 percent would divert federal revenue away from land management and the Treasury, and may require offsets or add to the deficit. They contend the extensive renumbering and renaming of definitions risks drafting errors and confusion, and that payments tied to timber revenue could reward harvest levels over conservation priorities.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives it broad power over federal lands, and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Cases such as Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) confirm that the Property Clause power over federal land is broad; the bill raises no other significant constitutional question.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the payment share and formulas, while the Interior Department (BLM) and Agriculture Department (Forest Service) administer payments; appropriations and oversight remain with Congress.
Historical precedent
Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools Act in 2000 and has repeatedly reauthorized or extended it, and it has long adjusted payments to counties tied to the O&C lands since the 1937 O&C Act.