PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 12, 2011
County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011 - Amends the Secure Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 to establish, for FY2012 and each following fiscal year, an amount that is equal to 95% of the full funding amount used for the previous fiscal year to make secure payments to eligible states and counties that contain certain lands.
Permits a resource advisory committee under the Act to propose using up to 10% of certain project funds of an eligible county for administrative expenses associated with that committee's operations.
Keeps the annual percentage for FY2010-FY2011 in place under the merchantable timber contracting pilot program for the implementation of approved projects in participating counties involving the sale of merchantable timber using separate contracts through FY2016.
Extends the Act's provisions through FY2016.
Entitles counties or other eligible units of local government in which U.S.-owned entitlement land is located to certain payments under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program through FY2017.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6465-6466)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1692 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1692 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1692 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1692 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.