The vote<\/a> was 399 to 5, with all nay votes cast by Republicans. The bill, approved unanimously<\/a> by the Senate in June, now awaits President Trump\u2019s signature. <\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve got Republicans and Democrats holding hands, passing this freaking bill, finally,\u201d Green said. \u201cWe stayed positive. The option to quit was, what, layofffs and kids not getting educated? We kept telling them the same story, and they kept listening.\u201d <\/p>\n Green, who until that 2023 trip had never traveled east of Texas, wound up flying to Washington 14 times. He was in the House audience Tuesday as the bill was passed.<\/p>\n In an interview Tuesday, Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents a vast swath of Northern California and helped lead the push for reauthorization, said Congress never should have let the program lapse in the first place. <\/p>\n The Secure Rural Schools Act, he said, was a victim of a Congress in which \u201cit\u2019s still an eternal fight over anything fiscal.\u201d It is \u201cannoying,\u201d LaMalfa said, \u201chow hard it is to get basic things done around here.\u201d <\/p>\n Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), greets Supts. Jaime Green, of Weaverville, and Anmarie Swanstrom, of Hayfork, on Capitol Hill in February 2023.<\/p>\n (Kent Nishimura \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not proud of the situation taking this long and putting these folks in this much stress,\u201d he said of rural communities that rely upon the funding. \u201cI\u2019m not going to break my arm patting myself on the back.\u201d <\/p>\n Despite broad bipartisan support, the Secure Rural Schools Act, run by the U.S. Forest Service, expired in the fall of 2023, with final payouts made in 2024. That year, the program distributed<\/a> more than $232 million to more than 700 counties across the United States and Puerto Rico, with nearly $34 million going to California.<\/p>\n In 2024, reauthorization stalled in the House<\/a>. This year, it was included in a House draft of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act but was ultimately dropped<\/a> from the final package. <\/p>\n While public school budgets are largely supported by local property taxes, districts surrounded by untaxed federal forest land have depended upon modest payments from the U.S. Forest Service<\/a> to stay afloat. <\/p>\n Historically, that money mostly came from logging<\/a>. Under a 1908 law, counties with national forests \u2014 primarily in the rural West \u2014 received 25% of what the federal government made from timber sales off that land. The money was split between schools, roads and other critical services.<\/p>\n But by the early 1990s, the once-thriving logging industry cratered. So did the school funding<\/a>. <\/p>\n In 2000, Congress enacted what was supposed to be a short-term, six-year solution: the Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act, with funding based on a complex formula involving historical timber revenues and other factors.<\/p>\n Congress never made the program permanent, instead reauthorizing versions of it by tucking it into other bills. Once, it was included in a bill to shore up the nation\u2019s helium supply<\/a>. Another time, it was funded in part by a tax on<\/a> roll-your-own-cigarette machines.<\/p>\n The program extension passed Tuesday was a standalone bill. <\/p>\n \u201cFor rural school districts, it\u2019s critically important, and it means stability from a financial perspective,\u201d said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Sacramento-based Small School Districts\u2019 Assn.<\/p>\n Calderon said he had heard from numerous school districts across the state that had been dipping into reserve funds to avoid layoffs and cutbacks since the Secure Rural Schools Act expired.<\/p>\n Calderon said the program wasn\u2019t \u201ca handout; it\u2019s basically a mitigation payment\u201d from the federal government, which owns and manages about 45% of California\u2019s land<\/a>. <\/p>\n Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) meets with a group of superintendents from rural Northern California in February 2023. <\/p>\n (Kent Nishimura \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n