{ "id": "R41303", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R41303", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R41303", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "date": "2023-06-06", "typeId": "R", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/2023-06-06_R41303_e762cd8a27e91d93bc5d5aac7c3b75133bb55995.pdf", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41303/40", "sha1": "e762cd8a27e91d93bc5d5aac7c3b75133bb55995" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-06-06_R41303_e762cd8a27e91d93bc5d5aac7c3b75133bb55995.html" } ], "type": "CRS Report", "summary": null, "title": "The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues", "retrieved": "2023-07-12T04:03:13.627027", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "id": "R41303_40_2023-06-06" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 623277, "date": "2020-04-21", "retrieved": "2020-04-29T22:43:40.845864", "title": "The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues", "summary": "Under federal law, state and local governments receive payments through various programs due to the presence of federally owned land within their jurisdictions. Some of these payment programs are based on the revenue generated from specific land uses and activities. For example, Congress has authorized payments to the counties containing national forests\u2014managed by the Forest Service\u2014based on the revenue generated from those lands. In addition, Congress has authorized the 18 counties in western Oregon containing the Oregon and California (O&C) lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands\u2014managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)\u2014to also receive a payment based on the revenue generated from those lands. \nRevenue-generating activities include timber sales, recreation, grazing permits, and land use rentals, among other activities; timber sales have been the largest historical source of revenue. Starting in the 1990s, however, federal timber sales began to decline substantially, which led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. In response, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments, starting in FY2001. Congress has since extended the payments for every year except FY2016. Counties with eligible lands (national forests, O&C, and CBWR lands) can opt to receive either an SRS payment or a revenue-sharing payment, although most counties have elected to receive the SRS payment. Because a larger subset of counties are eligible, the bulk of the SRS payment goes to the lands managed by the Forest Service. \nEach county\u2019s SRS payment is determined by a formula based on historic revenues, area of eligible federal lands, and county incomes. Because they are based on historic, rather than current, revenue, the SRS payments are not affected by any annual fluctuations in the revenue streams from the specified lands. (This means that the SRS payments would not be impacted by any potential revenue fluctuations associated with COVID-19). The total SRS payment, however, declines by 5% annually. The program is funded through mandatory spending, with funds coming first from agency receipts and then from the Treasury. SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2020 SRS payment\u2014the last authorized payment\u2014are to be made in FY2021. \nThe SRS payment is divided into three parts, each named after its respective title in the authorizing law and each with different requirements for how the funds may be used. Title I payments are to be used in the same manner as the revenue-sharing payment (restricted to roads and schools purposes for the Forest Service payment but available for a broader range of governmental purposes for the BLM payment). Title II payments are retained by the agency to be used for projects on or to benefit the federal lands within the county. Title III payments are to be used for specified county purposes. There are different requirements for how a county may allocate its payment among the three titles, and those requirements vary depending on the total payment amount the county is set to receive. The bulk of the payment, however, is allocated to the Title I payment (around 80%-85% of the payment for most counties). Congress has continued the allocations of the total payment among titles set by each county in FY2013. \nWhen SRS payments temporarily expired for FY2016, county payments returned to the revenue-based system and were significantly lower than the payments received under SRS. With the pending expiration of SRS after the FY2020 payment, county payments are set to return to the revenue-based system. Congress may consider several options to address county payments, including reauthorizing SRS (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, and taking no action, among others. Congressional debates over reauthorization have considered the basis, level, and distribution of payments and interaction with other compensation programs (e.g., the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program); the authorized and required uses of the payments; the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent); and the source of funds (receipts, the Treasury, or other revenue source). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending\u2014such as SRS\u2014raises policy questions about congressional control of appropriations. Current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other spending. \nThe FY2019 SRS payment was distributed in April 2020. The total SRS payment (Titles I, II, and III) was $254.3 million ($225.8 million FS; $28.4 million BLM). The total SRS payment made to counties (Titles I and III only) was $228.7 million ($202.6 million FS; $26.0 million BLM).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41303", "sha1": "c56e3e0616da166b8147230686e391f7ee094b34", "filename": "files/20200421_R41303_c56e3e0616da166b8147230686e391f7ee094b34.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/3.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_6cefb65ef1d8d91936c018a368bd5f04f5bd3854.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/4.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_20bb478fae9ae744cc101e6c0d833518b2da5a83.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/1.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_047fd69ce879c9b7c53081f557b77387d0490a71.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/0.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_108a2e9c6318730d5ea9cde7ed1c504299dd33d0.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/5.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_cb0c7ae191329250c41dde67622013a22caa29a6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/2.png": "files/20200421_R41303_images_1f3c95ba5be427e10a8b41fcded50aad1e5c2128.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41303", "sha1": "32d93357e1148b7ad81878d2a6b0eb7f40291acc", "filename": "files/20200421_R41303_32d93357e1148b7ad81878d2a6b0eb7f40291acc.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 622232, "date": "2020-04-13", "retrieved": "2020-04-13T22:16:55.391587", "title": "The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues ", "summary": "Under federal law, state and local governments receive payments through various programs due to the presence of federally owned land within their jurisdictions. Some of these payment programs are based on the revenue generated from specific land uses and activities. For example, Congress has authorized payments to the counties containing national forests\u2014managed by the Forest Service\u2014based on the revenue generated from those lands. In addition, Congress has authorized the 18 counties in western Oregon containing the Oregon and California (O&C) lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands\u2014managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)\u2014to also receive a payment based on the revenue generated from those lands. \nRevenue-generating activities include timber sales, recreation, grazing permits, and land use rentals, among other activities; timber sales have been the largest historical source of revenue. Starting in the 1990s, however, federal timber sales began to decline substantially, which led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. In response, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments, starting in FY2001. Congress has since extended the payments for every year except FY2016. Counties with eligible lands (national forests, O&C, and CBWR lands) can opt to receive either an SRS payment or a revenue-sharing payment, although most counties have elected to receive the SRS payment. Because a larger subset of counties are eligible, the bulk of the SRS payment goes to the lands managed by the Forest Service. \nEach county\u2019s SRS payment is determined by a formula based on historic revenues, area of eligible federal lands, and county incomes. Because they are based on historic, rather than current, revenue, the SRS payments are not affected by any annual fluctuations in the revenue streams from the specified lands. The total SRS payment, however, declines by 5% annually. The program is funded through mandatory spending, with funds coming first from agency receipts and then from the Treasury. SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2020 SRS payment\u2014the last authorized payment\u2014are to be made in FY2021. \nThe SRS payment is divided into three parts, each named after its respective title in the authorizing law and each with different requirements for how the funds may be used. Title I payments are to be used in the same manner as the revenue-sharing payment (restricted to roads and schools purposes for the Forest Service payment but available for a broader range of governmental purposes for the BLM payment). Title II payments are retained by the agency to be used for projects on or to benefit the federal lands within the county. Title III payments are to be used for specified county purposes. There are different requirements for how a county may allocate its payment among the three titles, and those requirements vary depending on the total payment amount the county is set to receive. The bulk of the payment, however, is allocated to the Title I payment (around 80%-85% of the payment for most counties). Congress has continued the allocations of the total payment among titles set by each county in FY2013. \nWhen SRS payments temporarily expired for FY2016, county payments returned to the revenue-based system and were significantly lower than the payments received under SRS. With the pending expiration of SRS after the FY2020 payment, county payments are set to return to the revenue-based system. Congress may consider several options to address county payments, including reauthorizing SRS (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, and taking no action, among others. Congressional debates over reauthorization have considered the basis, level, and distribution of payments and interaction with other compensation programs (e.g., the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program); the authorized and required uses of the payments; the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent); and the source of funds (receipts, the Treasury, or other revenue source). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending\u2014such as SRS\u2014raises policy questions about congressional control of appropriations. Current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other spending.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41303", "sha1": "c1afa0fa3050d38ce07845c0b23e572cafb8e7a6", "filename": "files/20200413_R41303_c1afa0fa3050d38ce07845c0b23e572cafb8e7a6.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/3.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_bf7bdb2ad55881afc2f617b15a68adf11d7b09fc.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/4.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_20bb478fae9ae744cc101e6c0d833518b2da5a83.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/1.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_48e64ae18f393d70166da8e6c5d4c683a5c521fe.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/0.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_9c66b0918fefb0e007e29c57668ba5b1426f2d82.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/5.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_cb0c7ae191329250c41dde67622013a22caa29a6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/2.png": "files/20200413_R41303_images_1f3c95ba5be427e10a8b41fcded50aad1e5c2128.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41303", "sha1": "0b6501f794172dc47947c5f9b4cbba2ecd7c0410", "filename": "files/20200413_R41303_0b6501f794172dc47947c5f9b4cbba2ecd7c0410.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 586650, "date": "2017-06-06", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:27:41.348235", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": "Counties containing federal lands often receive payments from the federal government based on the presence of such lands. Counties containing National Forest System lands and certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands historically have received payments based on the revenue generated from those lands. Revenue-generating activities include recreation, grazing permits, and land use rentals, among other activities. Starting in the 1990s, federal timber sales began to decline substantially\u2014by more than 90% in some areas\u2014which led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments. SRS provided payments to counties based on historic rather than current revenues from land use activities, thus minimizing the effect of reduced revenue streams on those counties. \nThe last authorized SRS payment was distributed in FY2016. Authorization for SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but Congress extended the program through FY2015 with several reauthorizations, starting with a one-year reauthorization for FY2007 (P.L. 110-28). In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) enacted a four-year extension to SRS authorization through FY2011, with declining payments, a modified formula, and transition payments for certain areas. In 2012, Congress enacted a one-year extension through FY2012 and amended the program to slow the decline in payment levels and to tighten requirements that counties select a payment option promptly (P.L. 112-141). In 2013, Congress again enacted a one-year extension through FY2013 (P.L. 113-40). In 2014, the 114th Congress enacted a two-year extension through FY2015 (P.L. 114-10). SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2015 SRS payment\u2014the last authorized payment\u2014was made in FY2016. \nWith the expiration of SRS, county payments returned to a revenue-based system and are significantly lower than previous years\u2019 payments. The 115th Congress may consider several options to address county payments, including reauthorizing SRS (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, and taking no action, among others.\nCongressional debates over reauthorization have considered the basis and level of compensation to counties (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or other revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending, such as SRS, raises policy questions about congressional control of appropriations. Current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other spending.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41303", "sha1": "85f35481bb3f9553bd33890052f44bb6a9508733", "filename": "files/20170606_R41303_85f35481bb3f9553bd33890052f44bb6a9508733.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170606_R41303_images_05c5ea2e7979823b4f5dc27e15a7818569699904.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170606_R41303_images_88e93064b4c60329608a5364c1eef00b6a305a98.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170606_R41303_images_2cfb717d6e7a027af8f0b64a93e6f7475d006ef8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R41303_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170606_R41303_images_159347513c5644bf5007af1809d281f31fa1d533.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41303", "sha1": "efa72e24dcceb76f5df74ba8999ec7b40dd4936b", "filename": "files/20170606_R41303_efa72e24dcceb76f5df74ba8999ec7b40dd4936b.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452749, "date": "2016-05-19", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T22:12:01.635017", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": "Many counties are compensated for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands historically have received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, timber sales have declined substantially\u2014by more than 90% in some areas\u2014which had led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic rather than current revenues. \nAuthorization for SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but Congress extended the program through FY2015 with several reauthorizations, starting with a one-year reauthorization for FY2007 (P.L. 110-28). In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) enacted a four-year extension to SRS authorization through FY2011, with declining payments, a modified formula, and transition payments for certain areas. In 2012, Congress enacted a one-year extension through FY2012 and amended the program to slow the decline in payment levels and to tighten requirements that counties select a payment option promptly (P.L. 112-141). In 2013, Congress again enacted a one-year extension through FY2013 (P.L. 113-40). The 114th Congress enacted a two-year extension through FY2015 (P.L. 114-10). SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2015 SRS payment\u2014the last authorized payment\u2014was made in FY2016. \nSRS expired at the end of FY2015. Without congressional action, county payments are set to return to a revenue-based system for FY2016 and are likely to be significantly lower than previous years\u2019 payments. The 114th Congress is considering several options, including extending SRS beyond its FY2015 expiration (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, and taking no action.\nCongressional debates over reauthorization have considered the basis and level of compensation (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or other revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending, such as SRS reauthorization, raises policy questions about congressional control of spending. Current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other spending.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41303", "sha1": "0060bbbfaa665b5764db64af7499fe2f24ff79d9", "filename": "files/20160519_R41303_0060bbbfaa665b5764db64af7499fe2f24ff79d9.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41303", "sha1": "31476733aac460ddef94a157ed44bdc387709c45", "filename": "files/20160519_R41303_31476733aac460ddef94a157ed44bdc387709c45.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 444902, "date": "2015-08-31", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:29:15.073315", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nR41303\nSummary\nMany counties are compensated for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands historically have received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, timber sales have declined substantially\u2014by more than 90% in some areas\u2014which had led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic rather than current revenues. \nAuthorization for SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but Congress extended the program through FY2015 with several reauthorizations, starting with a one-year reauthorization for FY2007 (P.L. 110-28). In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) enacted a four-year extension to SRS authorization through FY2011, with declining payments, a modified formula, and transition payments for certain areas. In 2012, Congress enacted a one-year extension through FY2012 and amended the program to slow the decline in payment levels and to tighten requirements that counties select a payment option promptly (P.L. 112-141). In 2013, Congress again enacted a one-year extension through FY2013 (P.L. 113-40). The program expired at the end of FY2014, but the 114th Congress enacted a two-year extension through FY2015 (P.L. 114-10). SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2015 SRS payment\u2014the last authorized payment\u2014will be made in FY2016. \nSRS is set to expire at the end of FY2015. Without congressional action, county payments are set to return to a revenue-based system for FY2016 and are likely to be significantly lower than previous years\u2019 payments. The 114th Congress is considering several options, including extending SRS beyond its FY2015 expiration (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, and taking no action.\nCongressional debates over reauthorization have considered the basis and level of compensation (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or other revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending, such as SRS reauthorization, raises policy questions about congressional control of spending. Current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other spending.\n\nContents\nBackground\t1\nPayment History: Declining Revenue-Sharing Payments Leads to Enactment of SRS\t2\nSRS and PILT\t5\nRevenue-Sharing Program Concerns and Responses\t6\nDeclining Timber Receipts\t6\nAnnually Fluctuating Payments\t7\nLinkage\t7\nLegislative History of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, as Amended\t7\nFY2007 Reauthorization Enacted in the 110th Congress\t8\nFour-Year Extension Through FY2011 Enacted in the 110th Congress\t9\nFull Funding\t9\nCalculated Payments\t9\nTransition Payments\t10\nTitle II and Title III Activities\t11\nIncome Averaging\t11\nOne-Year Extension Through FY2012 Enacted in the 112th Congress\t11\nOne-Year Extension Through FY2013 Enacted in the 113th Congress\t12\nTwo-Year Extension through FY2015 Enacted in the 114th Congress\t12\nLegislative Activity in the 114th Congress\t12\nLegislative Issues\t13\nOffsets for New Mandatory Spending\t13\nGeographic Distribution of SRS and PILT Payments\t14\nLands Covered\t14\nBasis for Compensation\t16\nSource of Funds\t17\nAuthorized and Required Uses of the Payments\t17\nDuration of the Programs\t18\n\nFigures\nFigure 1. Forest Service Cut Volume and Cut Value\t3\nFigure 2. FS Total Payments and Estimated Payments\t5\nFigure 3. PILT and Forest Service Payments, FY2013\t15\nFigure 4. Source and Distribution of FS Payments\t18\n\nTables\nTable 1. SRS Payments, FY2001-FY2014\t4\nTable 2. SRS Legislative History\t8\nTable 3. FY2014 SRS and FY2015 PILT Payments, by State\t15\n\nTable A-1. FY2006 and FY2009 FS and O&C Payments Under SRS, by State\t19\n\nAppendixes\nAppendix A. SRS Payments in FY2006 and FY2009\t19\nAppendix B. Historical Proposals to Change the Revenue-Sharing System\t21\nAppendix C. FY2013 Sequestration Issues\t22\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t24\nAcknowledgments\t24\n\nFederally owned lands cannot be taxed by state or local governments but may create demand for services from state or local entities, such as fire protection, police cooperation, or longer roads to skirt the property. Under federal law, local governments are compensated through various programs due to the presence of federal lands. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands have historically received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, timber sales have declined substantially since the historic high cut values in 1989\u2014by more than 90% in some areas\u2014which had led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS) to provide a temporary, optional system to supplant the revenue-sharing programs for the national forests managed by the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture and for certain public lands administered by the BLM in the Department of the Interior. \nThe law authorizing these payments (SRS) originally expired at the end of FY2006, but was extended an additional nine years through several reauthorizations. The 109th Congress considered the program, but did not enact reauthorizing legislation. The 110th Congress extended the payments for one year through FY2007, and then enacted legislation to reauthorize the program for four years with declining payments, and to modify the formula for allocating the payments. The 112th Congress extended the program for one more year through FY2012, and amended the program to slow the decline in payments. The 113th Congress again approved a one-year extension, reauthorizing the program through FY2013, but did not reauthorize the program for FY2014 prior to its expiration. However, after FS and BLM distributed the revenue-sharing payment for FY2014, the 114th Congress reauthorized SRS for two years through FY2015, thus requiring the agencies to issue the FY2014 SRS payment within 45 days of enactment. SRS payments are disbursed after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2015 payment will be made in FY2016. \nThis report provides background information on FS and BLM revenue-sharing and SRS payments and describes the issues that Congress has debated and may continue to debate in the 114th Congress.\nBackground\nIn 1908, the FS began paying 25% of its gross receipts to states for use on roads and schools in the counties where national forests are located. Receipts come from sales, leases, rentals, or other fees for using national forest lands or resources (e.g., timber sales, recreation fees, and communication site leases). This mandatory spending program was enacted to compensate local governments for the tax-exempt status of the national forests, but the statutory compensation rate (10% of gross receipts in 1906 and 1907; 25% of gross receipts since) was not discussed in the 1906-1908 debates. This revenue- or receipt-sharing program is called FS Payments to States (also referred to as the 1908 payment, or the 25% payment), because each state must spend the funds on road and school programs, although states have no discretion in assigning the funds to the county: FS determines the amount to be allocated to each county based on the national forest acreage in each county and provides that amount to the state. The states cannot retain any of the funds; they must be passed through to local governmental entities for use at the county level (but not necessarily to county governments themselves) for authorized road and school programs. State law sets forth how the payments are to be allocated between road and school projects, and the state laws differ widely, generally ranging from 30% to 100% for school programs, with a few states providing substantial local discretion on the split. \nCongress has also enacted numerous programs to share receipts from BLM lands for various types of resource use and from various classes of land. One program\u2014the Oregon and California (O&C) payments\u2014accounts for more than 95% of BLM receipt-sharing. The O&C payments are made to the counties in western Oregon containing the revested Oregon and California grant lands that were returned to federal ownership for failure of the states to fulfill the terms of the grant. The O&C counties receive 50% of the receipts from these lands. These mandatory payments go directly to the counties for any local governmental purposes. Concerns about, and proposals to alter, FS revenue-sharing payments also typically include the O&C payments, because both are substantial payments derived largely from timber receipts.\nPayment History: Declining Revenue-Sharing Payments Leads to Enactment of SRS\nFS revenue\u2014and consequently, revenue-sharing payments\u2014peaked in the late 1980s. The FY1989 FS 25% payments totaled $362 million, while O&C payments totaled $110 million. FS and O&C receipts have declined substantially since FY1989, largely because of declines in federal timber sales (see Figure 1), but also due to a variety of factors. The decline began in the Pacific Northwest, owing to a combination of forest management policies and practice, efforts to protect northern spotted owl habitat, increased planning and procedural requirements, changing public preferences, economic and industry factors, and other values. Provisions in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 authorized FS payments for 17 national forests in Washington, Oregon, and California and BLM payments to the O&C counties at a declining percentage of the average payments for FY1986-FY1990. Declining federal timber sales in other regions led to the nationwide SRS program replacing these \u201csafety net\u201d or \u201cowl\u201d payments in 2000.\nSimilar to the owl payments for the Pacific Northwest, the SRS program was an optional payment that counties could elect to receive instead of receiving the 25% receipt-sharing payment. As originally enacted, the SRS payment was calculated as an average of the three highest payments between FY1986 and FY1999. With the extension in FY2008, the SRS payment calculation was modified to also consider county population and per capita income, and it established an annually declining payment level.\nFigure 1. Forest Service Cut Volume and Cut Value\n(2013 dollars)\n\nSources: FY1977-FY2014 data: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Cut and Sold Reports, http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml, accessed December 17, 2014. FY1940-FY1976 data: U.S. Forest Service legislative affairs office. \nNote: mmbf = million board feet.\nPayments under SRS (see Table 1) are substantial and significantly greater than the receipt-sharing payments currently would be. The FS payment rose from $194 million in FY2000 (all figures in nominal dollars) to a $346 million SRS payment in FY2001. For the initial six years SRS was authorized, the average FS SRS payment was $360 million annually, more than $130 million above the average annual FS payment for the six years prior to the enactment of SRS (FY1995-FY2000). Over the life of the program, the FS SRS payments have averaged $348 million and the BLM SRS payments have averaged $82 million. \nFigure 2 shows a comparison of the FS actual payments to estimates of what the payments would have been had SRS not been enacted. For example, FS receipts (for revenue-sharing purposes) in FY2012 totaled $230 million. If revenue-sharing had been used rather than SRS payments, then the payments would have been around $58 million. However, the payments under SRS actually totaled $274 million. Similarly, BLM timber receipts from western Oregon (which includes some non-O&C lands) totaled $28 million in FY2012. If 50% payments had been used, then approximately $14 million would have been transferred to the counties, compared to SRS payments of $34 million. If SRS had not been reauthorized for FY2013, FS estimated that the revenue-sharing payment would have been approximately $54 million. In contrast, the FS SRS payment for FY2013 was $289 million. BLM estimated the O&C revenue-sharing payment for FY2013 would have been $12 million; however, the BLM SRS payment was $40 million. \nSRS expired\u2014temporarily\u2014on October 1, 2014. With the expiration of SRS, the FY2014 payments were again to be based on a percentage of agency receipts (the rolling seven-year average of 25% for national forest lands and of 50% for O&C lands). As nonexempt, nondefense mandatory spending, the payments were subject to the annual sequestration of budgetary authority, which was set at 7.3% for FY2015. The post-sequester revenue-sharing payment for FS was $50 million, and it was $18 million for BLM. These payments were distributed in February 2015.\nP.L. 114-10 was enacted on April 16, 2015. It included provisions for a \u201cmake-up\u201d FY2014 SRS payment, and it authorized an FY2015 SRS payment. The FY2014 payment was set at 95% of the FY2013 payment level, but for counties that opted to receive an SRS payment, the FY2014 payment was offset by the revenue-sharing payment already distributed. In effect, the counties received their FY2014 SRS payment in two installments. The total FS SRS payment for FY2014 was $274 million; for BLM it was $38 million. Because the payments were authorized after the sequestration amount was calculated for FY2015, the payments were not subject to sequestration.\nTable 1. SRS Payments, FY2001-FY2014\n(nominal dollars in millions)\n\nFS Payment\nBLM Payment\nTotal SRS Payment\n\n\nTitle I and Title III\nTitle II\nFS Total\nTitle I and Title III\nTitle II\nBLM Total\n\n\nFY2001\n$346.2\n$24.9\n$371.1\n$102.0\n$7.7\n$109.7\n$480.8\n\nFY2002\n$343.5\n$30.4\n$373.9\n$102.3\n$8.3\n$110.6\n$484.5\n\nFY2003\n$356.2\n$32.6\n$388.8\n$103.3\n$8.6\n$111.9\n$500.7\n\nFY2004\n$360.8\n$33.0\n$393.9\n$104.5\n$8.8\n$113.3\n$507.2\n\nFY2005\n$371.3\n$33.6\n$404.9\n$107.1\n$8.9\n$115.9\n$520.9\n\nFY2006\n$376.7\n$32.3\n$409.0\n$108.9\n$8.3\n$117.1\n$526.1\n\nFY2007\n$381.6\n$26.5\n$408.1\n$111.9\n$5.0\n$116.9\n$525.0\n\nFY2008\n$422.5\n$45.1\n$467.6\n$96.7\n$8.7\n$105.4\n$573.0\n\nFY2009\n$466.1\n$51.8\n$517.9\n$87.2\n$7.7\n$94.9\n$612.8\n\nFY2010\n$373.8\n$42.0\n$415.8\n$78.0\n$7.5\n$85.5\n$501.3\n\nFY2011\n$291.2\n$30.7\n$321.9\n$36.3\n$3.7\n$40.0\n$361.9\n\nFY2012\n$274.0\n$31.9\n$305.9\n$34.3\n$3.7\n$38.0\n$343.9\n\nFY2013\n$259.0\n$30.0\n$289.0\n$36.3\n$3.3\n$39.6\n$328.6\n\nFY2014\n$245.6\n$28.3\n$273.9\n$35.1\n$3.2\n$38.3\n$312.2\n\nSources: FS FY2001-FY2005, FY2007 data: FS legislative affairs office. FS FY2006, FY2008-FY2014 data: annual Forest Service report, All Service Receipts: Title I, II, and III Region Summary (ASR-18-3), available from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/home. BLM data from annual Official Payments Made to Counties reports, available from http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypaypayments.php. \nNotes: SRS Title I and Title III payments are disbursed to the counties for specified purposes, while SRS Title II payments are retained by the agency to be used for projects in the counties. Data do not include FS revenue-sharing payments or other miscellaneous county payments authorized through various FS payment programs not discussed in this report, such as payments from land utilization projects.\nFigure 2. FS Total Payments and Estimated Payments\n\nSources: CRS. FS total payments are from the annual Forest Service report, All Service Receipts: Final Payment Summary Report PNF (ASR-10-01), available from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/home. The estimated FS payments if SRS had not been enacted for FY2001-FY2007 are from an unpublished spreadsheet received from Rick Alexander, Secure Rural Schools Act National Program Manager, U.S. Forest Service, on November 30, 2011. The estimated payments for FY2008-FY2013 are from an FS spreadsheet available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/home. \nNotes: The data presented include payments under the 25% Payments to States and SRS programs (all three titles) but do not include miscellaneous county payments authorized through various other FS payment programs not discussed in this report, such as payments from land utilization projects.\nSRS and PILT\nIn addition to the FS and BLM receipt-sharing programs, Congress has enacted other programs to compensate for the presence of federal land. The most widely applicable program, administered by the Department of the Interior, is the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program. PILT payments to counties are calculated in dollars per acre and are based on eligible federal lands, as specified in statute. The eligible lands include national forests and O&C lands in each county (but total amounts are restricted in counties with very low populations). PILT payments are reduced (to a minimum payment per acre) by other payment programs\u2014including FS Payments to States but not including BLM\u2019s O&C payments\u2014so increases in FS payments may decrease a county\u2019s payments under PILT (and vice versa). This helps to explain why FY2012 PILT payments to Colorado were double the PILT payments to Oregon, even though there is more federal land in Oregon (32.6 million acres) than in Colorado (23.8 million acres).\nBefore 2008, annual appropriations were necessary to fund PILT. When the appropriations were less than the authorized total payments, each county received its calculated pro rata share of the appropriation. However, the 2008 and 2012 SRS amendments also made PILT payments mandatory spending for FY2008-FY2012. P.L. 112-141 extended mandatory spending to FY2013 and P.L. 113-79 extended payments to FY2014. Thus, for those fiscal years, each county received 100% of its authorized PILT payment.\nFor FY2015 and FY2016, P.L. 113-291 (Section 3096 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), FY2015) appropriated $70 million in mandatory spending for PILT. Of this amount, $33 million will be made available in FY2015; the remaining $37 million will be made available after the start of FY2016 on October 1, 2015. In addition, P.L. 113-235 (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015) provided $372 million in discretionary spending. Together, the two provisions provided $405 million for the payment delivered in June 2015. This amount represents 89.6% of full funding in FY2015. It is unclear whether the additional $37 million made available after October 1, 2015, by the NDAA will be issued to counties as a supplemental check in October or whether it will form part of the FY2016 payment that will be issued in 2016.\nRevenue-Sharing Program Concerns and Responses\nCongress, the affected counties, and other observers have raised three principal concerns about FS and O&C revenue-sharing programs. These are the decline in FS and O&C receipts due to the decline in timber sales, the annual uncertainty about payment amounts, and the linkage between timber revenue and county payments. \nDeclining Timber Receipts\nA primary concern about the revenue-sharing programs is the impact of declining revenue on counties. National forest receipts (subject to sharing) declined from their peak of $1.44 billion in FY1989 to $230 million in FY2012\u2014a drop of 84%. In some areas, the decline was even greater; for example, payments to the eastern Oregon counties containing the Ochoco National Forest fell from $10 million in FY1991 to $309,000 in FY1998\u2014a decline of 97% in seven years. The impact of these declining revenues to individual counties is varied, ranging from minimal to substantial. Some counties in Oregon, for example, have begun exploring alternative options to generating revenue to replace the loss of timber receipts and declining SRS payments.\nAnnually Fluctuating Payments\nAnother concern has been annual fluctuations in the payments based on revenue generated. Even in areas with modest declines or increases in recent decades, payments have varied widely from year to year. From FY1985 to FY2000, the payments from each national forest fluctuated an average of nearly 30% annually\u2014that is, on average, a county\u2019s payment in any year was likely to be nearly 30% higher or lower than its payment the preceding year. Such wide annual fluctuations have imposed serious budgeting uncertainties on the counties.\nLinkage\nA third, longer-term concern is referred to as linkage. Some observers have noted that, because the counties receive a portion of receipts, they are rewarded for advocating receipt-generating activities (principally timber sales) and for opposing management decisions that might reduce or constrain such activities (e.g., designating wilderness areas or protecting commercial, tribal, or sport fish harvests). County governments have thus often been allied with the timber industry, and opposed to efforts of environmental and other interest groups to reduce timber harvests, in debates over FS management and budget decisions. This source of funds was deemed appropriate when the FS program was created (albeit, prior to creation of federal income taxes). Some interests support retaining the linkage between county compensation and agency receipts; local support for receipt-generating activities is seen as appropriate by these constituencies, because such activities usually also provide local employment and income, especially in rural areas where unemployment is often high. Others assert that ending the linkage is important so that local government officials can be independent in supporting whatever management decisions benefit their locality, rather than having financial incentives to support particular decisions.\nLegislative History of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, as Amended\nIn 2000, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) after extensive debates and several different bill versions. (See Appendix B for an overview of historic proposals to change the revenue-sharing system prior to the enactment of SRS.)\nThe act established an optional alternative payment system for FY2001-FY2006. At each county\u2019s discretion, the states with FS land and counties with O&C land received either the regular receipt-sharing payments or 100% of the average of the three highest payments between FY1986 and FY1999. Title I of the act directed that counties receiving less than $100,000 under the alternative system could distribute the entire payment to roads and schools in the same manner as the 25% payments. However, counties receiving over $100,000 under the alternative system were required to spend 15%-20% of the payment on either (1) federal land projects proposed by local resource advisory committees and approved by the appropriate Secretary (Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Agriculture) if the projects met specified criteria, including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and with resource management and other plans (identified in Title II of the act) or (2) certain county programs (specified in Title III of the act). Funds needed to achieve the full payment were mandatory spending, and came first from agency receipts (excluding deposits to special accounts and trust funds) and then from \u201cany funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.\u201d \nSRS was originally enacted as a temporary program, expiring after payments were made for FY2006. However, SRS has been reauthorized five times, extending the payments an additional nine years (see Table 2). The following sections describe each reauthorization process and any program modifications. \nTable 2. SRS Legislative History\nStatute\nDuration\nAuthorized Payment Level\nMajor Changes\n\nP.L. 106-393FY2001-FY2006 Determined by formula; average annual payment was $500 million nationallyEstablished program\nP.L. 110-28FY2007$525 million$425 million was paid from discretionary appropriations\nP.L. 110-343FY2008-FY2011$500 million FY2008; FY2009-FY2011, 90% of previous year fundinga\nEstablished a declining full funding amount; modified payment calculation formula; phased out transition payments; modified payment allocations; 25% payment based on rolling 7-year average\n\nP.L. 112-141FY201295% of FY2011 level ($344 million)Modified the declining full funding amount\nP.L. 113-40FY201395% of FY2012 level ($329 million)None\nP.L. 114-10FY2014-FY201595% of previous year funding ($312 million for FY2014, ~$297 million for FY2015)None\nSource: CRS.\nNotes: Except for the FY2007 payment, the payments were authorized as mandatory spending, with a portion of the payment derived from agency revenue and the balance from the General Treasury.\nThe transition payments for specific states authorized in P.L. 110-343 for FY2008-FY2010 resulted in the total payment amount exceeding the \u201cfull funding\u201d amount defined in the act. \nFY2007 Reauthorization Enacted in the 110th Congress\nSRS expired at the end of FY2006, with final payments made in FY2007. Legislation to extend the program was considered in the 110th Congress; various bills would have extended the program for one or seven years. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2007 extended SRS for one year, but the bill was vetoed by President George W. Bush. However, Congress passed a new version of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2007 which included a one-year extension of SRS payments. P.L. 110-28 authorized payments of $100 million from receipts and of $425 million from discretionary appropriations, to \u201cbe made, to the maximum extent practicable, in the same amounts, for the same purposes, and in the same manner as were made to States and counties in 2006 under that Act.\u201d Thus, preliminary FY2007 payments were made at the end of September 2007, with final payments made at the end of December 2007.\nFour-Year Extension Through FY2011 Enacted in the 110th Congress\nIn October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which extended SRS payments for four years and made several changes to the program, including providing \u201cfull funding\u201d that declined over four years; altering the basis for calculating payments; providing transition payments for certain states; and modifying the use of SRS funds for Title II and Title III activities. In addition, Section 601(b) modified the original FS 25% payment program by basing the payment on the average revenue generated over the preceding seven years. These provisions are discussed in more detail below. \nThe act also provided five years of mandatory spending for the PILT program, FY2008-FY2012. This meant that eligible counties received the full calculated PILT payment for those five years\u2014a significant increase in PILT payments, since appropriations averaged less than two-thirds of the calculated payments over the past decade. PILT was further extended in subsequent bills through the FY2015 payment (and a supplemental payment for FY2016).\nFull Funding\nThe act defined full funding for SRS in Section 3(11). For FY2008, full funding was defined as $500 million; for FY2009-FY2011, full funding was 90% of the previous year\u2019s funding. However, total payments exceeded the full funding amount in the first two years: payments under SRS totaled $572.9 million in FY2008 and $612.8 million in FY2009. This occurred because the calculated payments (discussed below) are based on full funding, as defined in the bill, but the act also authorized transition payments (discussed below) in lieu of the calculated payments in eight states. Since the transition payments exceeded the calculated payments for those states, the total payments were higher than the full funding amount.\nCalculated Payments\nSRS payments to each state (for FS lands) or county (for O&C lands) differed significantly from the payments made under the original SRS; Table A-1 shows the dollars and share of total SRS payments in each state in FY2006 and FY2009. Payments under Section 102 were based on historic revenue-sharing payments (like SRS), but modified based on each county\u2019s share of federal land and relative income level. The payment calculations required multiple steps:\nStep 1. Determine the three highest revenue-sharing payments between FY1986 and FY1999 for each eligible county, and calculate the average of the three.\nStep 2. Calculate the proportion of these payments in each county (divide each county\u2019s three-highest average [Step 1] by the total of three-highest average in all eligible counties, with separate calculations for FS lands and O&C lands).\nStep 3. Calculate the proportion of FS and O&C lands in each eligible county (divide each county\u2019s FS and O&C acreage by the total FS and O&C acreage in all eligible counties, with separate calculations for FS lands and O&C lands).\nStep 4. Average these two proportions (add the payment proportion [Step 2] and the acreage proportion [Step 3] and divide by 2, with separate calculations for FS lands and O&C lands). This is the base share for counties with FS lands and the 50% base share for counties with O&C lands.\nStep 5. Calculate each county\u2019s income adjustment by dividing the per capita personal income in each county by the median per capita personal income in all eligible counties.\nStep 6. Adjust each county\u2019s base share [Step 4] by its relative income (divide each county\u2019s base share or 50% base share by its income adjustment [Step 5]).\nStep 7. Calculate each county\u2019s adjusted share or 50% adjusted share as the county\u2019s proportion of its base share adjusted by its relative income [Step 6] from the total adjusted shares in all eligible counties (divide each county\u2019s result from Step 6 by the total for all eligible counties [FS and O&C combined]).\nIn essence, the new formula differed from the original SRS by basing half the payments on historic revenues and half on proportion of FS and O&C land, with an adjustment based on relative county income. This was done because of the concentration of payments under the original SRS to Oregon, Washington, and California (more than 75% of payments in FY2006; see Table A-1). Several counties opted out of the amended SRS system, while others opted in, because of the altered allocation. For example, in FY2006 100% of the payments to Pennsylvania were under SRS, but in FY2009 only 54% of the payments to Pennsylvania were under SRS. Conversely, in FY2006 none of the payments to New Hampshire were under SRS, but in FY2009, 44% of the payments to New Hampshire were under SRS. \nIn addition, the act set a full payment amount allocated among all counties that chose to participate in the program (eligible counties). Thus, the fewer counties that participated (i.e., the more that opted for the original, revenue-sharing payment programs), the more each participating county received.\nTransition Payments\nIn lieu of the calculated payments under Section 102, counties in eight states\u2014California, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington\u2014received transition payments for three fiscal years, FY2008-FY2010. These counties were included in the calculations, but received payments of a fixed percentage of the FY2006 payments under SRS, instead of their calculated payments. The schedule in the act specified FY2008 payments equaling 90% of FY2006 payments, FY2009 payments at 81% of FY2006 payments, and FY2010 payments at 73% of FY2006 payments. Because the transition payments were higher than the calculated payments (using the multi-step formula, above), total payments have been greater than the \u201cfull funding\u201d defined in the act. \nTitle II and Title III Activities\nAs with the original SRS, the amended version allowed counties with less than $100,000 in annual payments to use 100% of the payments for roads and schools (or any governmental purpose for O&C counties). However, it modified the requirement that counties with \u201cmodest distributions\u201d (annual payments over $100,000 but less than $350,000) use 15%-20% of the funds for Title II projects (reinvestment in federal lands). Instead, these counties could use the required 15%-20% either for Title II projects or for Title III projects (county projects). Counties with payments of more tha", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41303", "sha1": "b7a445045b19e1460886cd7cbde0fcca4fb788e7", "filename": "files/20150831_R41303_b7a445045b19e1460886cd7cbde0fcca4fb788e7.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41303", "sha1": "2640794489ae2ed92bb161b63ce8a61a2f22b724", "filename": "files/20150831_R41303_2640794489ae2ed92bb161b63ce8a61a2f22b724.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2346, "name": "Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies' Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 314, "name": "Federal Lands" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806742/", "id": "R41303_2015Mar31", "date": "2015-03-31", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150331_R41303_a7e2a5e60dd36a582c18727b36d46d29e1138d46.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150331_R41303_a7e2a5e60dd36a582c18727b36d46d29e1138d46.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501965/", "id": "R41303_2015Jan21", "date": "2015-01-21", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": "This report discusses the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) enacted by Congress as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic rather than current revenues.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150121_R41303_d19faa3c2c57fed05d7006f0d106161b2fa311ca.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150121_R41303_d19faa3c2c57fed05d7006f0d106161b2fa311ca.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Rural economic development", "name": "Rural economic development" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Rural education", "name": "Rural education" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elementary and secondary education", "name": "Elementary and secondary education" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Education", "name": "Education" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc807692/", "id": "R41303_2013Feb26", "date": "2013-02-26", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130226_R41303_33e7bd8aa444566bc88f5fadd23db044fea2bf45.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130226_R41303_33e7bd8aa444566bc88f5fadd23db044fea2bf45.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Energy Policy" ] }