HR-6535-119
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Joe Neguse (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS), a federal program that provides payments to counties and local governments that contain national forests and other federal lands. Because federal land cannot be taxed, SRS payments compensate these communities for lost property tax revenue. The payments are used to fund local schools and road maintenance. The bill text does not specify a new expiration date or funding level, as those details would be determined through the legislative process.
Who benefits
Rural counties in 41 states that contain national forests and other federal public lands — particularly in the American West, Appalachia, and the Pacific Northwest. Local public school districts that receive SRS funding for operating budgets. County road departments that use SRS funds for road and bridge maintenance. Students and teachers in rural schools that depend on SRS payments to supplement limited local tax bases. Timber-dependent communities that lost revenue when federal timber harvests declined in the 1990s, which originally prompted the SRS program.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who fund the program broadly. Counties that do not contain federal lands and receive no SRS payments, creating a disparity in federal support for local governments. Advocates for reducing the federal deficit, as the extension would continue mandatory spending. Timber industry interests who argue SRS payments reduce pressure on Congress to increase federal timber harvests as an alternative revenue source for counties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counties containing national forests are structurally disadvantaged because federal land — which can comprise the majority of a county's total area — generates no property tax revenue, yet still requires local services like roads and emergency response. They contend SRS payments are not a subsidy but a fair compensation mechanism, noting that the original 1908 Weeks Act established this principle over a century ago, and that without an extension, rural school districts in states like Oregon, California, and Idaho could face immediate budget shortfalls affecting thousands of students.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that SRS payments have become a permanent federal subsidy that insulates rural counties from the fiscal consequences of land-use decisions made at the federal level, reducing local incentives to pursue economic diversification or support increased resource extraction on federal lands. They contend that the program has been repeatedly extended without comprehensive reform since 2000, and that a clean extension without restructuring perpetuates a cycle of short-term fixes rather than a durable, long-term solution to the underlying revenue gap in federal land counties.