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 Act), which provides federal payments to states and counties that contain national forests and other federal lands. It would extend payment authority through fiscal year 2026, authorize special projects on federal land through 2028–2029, and require the Treasury to issue retroactive payments for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 within 45 days of enactment. It also makes minor technical corrections to the existing law.
Who benefits
Rural counties containing national forests and other federal lands, which cannot collect property taxes on those lands. Local public schools in those counties that receive a share of the payments for operating budgets. County road departments that use funds for infrastructure maintenance. State governments that distribute payments to eligible counties. Local governments in timber-dependent communities in states such as Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Montana, and Colorado. Resource advisory committees that oversee special projects on federal land.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who bear the cost of the payments. Counties or school districts that may have structured budgets around lapsed payments and now face retroactive adjustments. Counties that already received "25-percent payments" or "50-percent payments" as a fallback during the lapse would see those amounts offset against the new SRS payments, potentially receiving less than expected. Competing federal spending priorities that may be crowded out by the extension's cost.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counties with large federal land holdings are structurally unable to generate property tax revenue from those lands, creating a chronic fiscal gap that falls hardest on rural schools and roads. They contend the SRS Act has provided a reliable, congressionally authorized mechanism since 2000 to compensate for this lost local revenue, and that allowing payments to lapse for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 has already caused budget shortfalls in affected school districts. They argue the extension restores a longstanding federal commitment to rural communities that have limited alternative revenue sources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the SRS Act has been repeatedly extended since 2000 without a permanent solution, creating a cycle of short-term patches that prevent communities from developing sustainable, diversified local economies. They contend that the retroactive payments for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 reward counties for failing to plan for a known program expiration, and that the offset provisions are complex enough to create administrative confusion and unequal treatment across counties. They further argue that the funds could be better directed toward structural economic development in timber-dependent communities rather than recurring transfer payments.