49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–236 

AMERICAN SODA ASH COMPETITIVENESS ACT 

JULY 29, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1992] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1992) to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be 

paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1992 is to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Soda ash (sodium carbonate) is primarily used for glass-making, 

which consumes about half of soda ash output. Another quarter is 

used by the chemical industry. Other uses include soap, paper 

manufacturing and water treatment. In the United States, soda 

ash is refined from trona, a naturally occurring mineral, or from 

naturally occurring sodium-carbonate bearing brines. China makes 

a synthetic soda ash that requires more energy and uses a less environmentally-friendly process. 

Soda ash is regulated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 

under which a royalty is assessed on refined soda ash and trona. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

The Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 was included in the 

National Heritage Areas Act of 2006, Public Law 109–338. The 

Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act reduced the royalty on soda ash 

to 2 percent, the minimum required in the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920. 

Prior to the 2006 royalty relief legislation being enacted, the U.S. 

soda ash industry was experiencing increased pressure from statesponsored Chinese companies (state owned) operating under lax environmental standards, coupled with high domestic royalty rates 

that ranged between 5 and 8 percent. 

Between 1997 (the year after BLM raised royalty rates on soda 

ash) and 2000, China overtook the United States as the worlds 

largest exporter of soda ash. By 2003, the growth in domestic exports had grown by only a few percentage points since 1997, and 

approximately 1000 jobs in the domestic soda ash mining industry 

had been lost. Between October 2006 and September 2011, when 

the 2 percent royalty rate was in place, the soda ash industry was 

able to reverse the downward trend in exports, and was able to add 

jobs, including during the recession. 

During fiscal years 2003–2006 when the rate was 6 percent, the federal government collected $74.4 million in royalties on soda ash 

and trona. In fiscal years 2007–2011 when the royalty rate was reduced to 2 percent, the federal government took in $82 million in 

royalties. This includes the five-month period following the 2008 

market crash where demand for mineral commodities fell sharply. 

In the four years prior to the October 2006 royalty rate reduction, the average sale of soda ash was 4,186,172 tons per year. During that time period the price per ton averaged $81.82. During the 

royalty reduction period, the average sale of soda ash was 

6,713,202 tons per year, and the price per ton averaged $128.86. 

Maximum sales of soda ash occurred in fiscal year 2008 and 

reached 7,596,799 tons. The economic downturn that began on September 29, 2008, affected commodity prices for more than a five 

month period and is reflected in the sales for fiscal year 2009, 

which totaled 6,193,071 tons. 

In October 2011, BLM reinstated the 6 percent royalty—this was 

a discretionary decision. In fiscal year 2012 sales of soda ash fell 

to 5,480,816 tons; however, with the 6 percent royalty rate and increase in the average price of the commodity to $151.04, royalty 

revenue doubled from the previous year. Sales increased by more 

than 700,000 tons in fiscal year 2013 and fell back again in fiscal 

year 2014. Figures for fiscal year 2015 are not available. 

Domestic production of soda ash dropped an average of 13 percent in the two years following the royalty rate increases in fiscal 

year 2012. Congress included a royalty reduction of 4 percent in 

the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–40, section 

10) that expires at the end of the current fiscal year. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1992 was introduced on April 23, 2015, by Congressman 

Paul Cook (R–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources. On June 10, 2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was 

discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Alan S. Lowenthal 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

(D–CA) offered an amendment designated 001; it was not adopted 

by a roll call vote of 12 to 18, as follows: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 4 here HR236.002
4 

Congresswoman Norma J. Torres (D–CA) offered an amendment 

designated 002; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14 to 20, 

as follows: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 6 here HR236.001
5 

No additional amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered 

favorably reported to the House of Representatives on June 11, 

2015, by a bipartisan roll call vote of 22 to 12, as follows: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 8 here HR236.003
6 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1992—American Soda Ash Competitiveness Act 

Summary: H.R. 1992 would require the Department of the Interior to charge a 2 percent royalty on the value of soda ash and related sodium compounds produced on federal lands for a five-year 

period following enactment of the bill. Under current law, CBO expects the average royalty rate to be about 6 percent, beginning in 

2016. About half of the royalties collected by the federal government are paid to the states where the minerals are produced. Thus, 

enacting the bill would reduce both offsetting receipts (a credit 

against direct spending) and the subsequent payments to states 

stemming from those royalties. 

As a result, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1992 would increase net direct spending by $80 million over the 2016–2020 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting H.R. 1992 

would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 1992 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1992 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016– 

2020 

2020– 

2025 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ...................... 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 80 80 

Estimated Outlays ..................................... 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 80 80 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2016. 

H.R. 1992 would reduce the royalty rate on the value of soda ash 

and certain related minerals produced on federal lands to 2 percent 

for a five-year period following enactment of the bill. Under current 

law, the royalty rate on soda ash is expected to increase from 4 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

percent to 6 percent near the beginning of 2016. Because royalty 

rates charged on state and private lands will probably be higher 

than 2 percent, CBO expects that, under the bill, the amount of 

soda ash and other affected minerals produced on federal lands 

would be greater over the next five years than it would be under 

current law. However, any increase in production on federal land 

would not generate enough additional royalty revenue to offset the 

loss of receipts due to the lower royalty rate through 2020, CBO 

estimates. 

In 2011, the last year in which the royalty rate was set at 2 percent, firms produced about 9 million tons of soda ash and related 

products on federal lands and the federal government received net 

royalties totaling $11 million. (About half of all federal royalties 

collected on the affected minerals are paid to states where those 

minerals are produced.) Over the 2012–2013 period, the Bureau of 

Land Management assessed an average royalty rate of about 6 percent. Production of soda ash and related products decreased to 

about 7.5 million tons in those years; however, net royalty collections increased to an average of about $27 million a year. When the 

royalty rate on soda ash and related products was reduced to about 

4 percent in 2014, production on federal land increased slightly, 

while net royalty collections decreased by about $6 million from the 

previous year. 

Based on information from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, CBO estimates that, under current law, the federal government’s net royalty receipts from soda ash and related minerals will 

total between $25 million and $30 million a year over the next five 

years. Under the bill, CBO estimates that net royalties would total 

roughly $10 million annually over that period. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1992 would reduce net offsetting receipts 

by about $16 million a year over the 2016–2020 period. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1992 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON JUNE 11, 2015 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2015– 

2020 

2015– 

2025 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact .... 0 16 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 80 80 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1992 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The royalty reduction required by the bill would reduce 

federal payments to Arizona, California, Louisiana, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming by about $80 million over the 2016– 

2020 period. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave and Ben Christopher; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; 

Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. The 

Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 1992 

would increase net direct spending by $80 million over 2016–2020. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid 

for sodium produced on Federal lands. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(9) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

This bill is an entirely unnecessary giveaway to a healthy industry that will cost American taxpayers tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, while doing nothing to achieve the positive benefits that the supporters of this legislation claim it will 

bring. 

Similar royalty relief for the soda ash industry was enacted in 

2006, and after five years of the lower royalty the Department of 

the Interior concluded that the royalty rate reduction, ‘‘does not appear to have contributed in a significant way to the creation of new 

jobs within the industry, to increased exports, or to a notable increase in capital expenditures to enhance production.’’ The report 

further concluded that the loss in royalties was over $150 million, 

roughly five times the initial estimate of the cost. 

Furthermore, in the two years after the previous royalty relief 

expired, under every relevant metric, the soda ash industry performed better than it did with that relief in place. During the royalty relief period production dropped, U.S. market share dropped, 

employment went down, and the average rate of export growth was 

3.4 percent. In the two years after royalty relief expired, production 

went up, U.S. market share went up, employment increased, and 

the average rate of export growth was 8.8 percent. 

The Majority claims that the royalty relief did not cost taxpayers 

much because royalty collections from 2007–2011 were only $2 million below the collections from 2002–2006. However, the price of 

soda ash more than doubled between 2004 and 2009, which is the 

only reason that total collections were able to keep pace. 

None of the reasons the Majority provides for supporting this bill 

are substantiated by the facts. Vague arguments about the need to 

remain competitive and increase employment could be made for 

every extractive resource industry in the nation, yet lowering royalty rates for no reason simply cheats the American people of their 

fair share of revenues from the development of public resources on 

public land. The situation is even worse for the States: the Interior 

Department found that one of the main consequences of the previous royalty relief was that companies would move their operations from state lands, where states receive all the royalties, to 

federal lands, where states only receive half. 

During markup on H.R. 1992, the Majority rejected an amendment by Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Lowenthal that would have protected taxpayers by ending 

the royalty relief after two years if that relief was not having a 

measurable positive impact on soda ash production on employment. 

The Majority also rejected an amendment by Ms. Torres that would 

have made royalty relief contingent on a determination that the relief would not result in less revenue going to schools. SchoolVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:18 Jul 30, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR236.XXX HR236

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
10 

children should not be harmed in order to provide handouts to soda 

ash mining companies. 

H.R. 1992 has no redeeming benefits for the American public, is 

completely unsupported by our previous experience with soda ash 

royalty relief, and is nothing more than an $80 million giveaway 

of taxpayer money. 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources. 

GRACE NAPOLITANO. 

NORMA TORRES. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE