[House Report 114-236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


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. 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 state-sponsored 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 (D-CA) offered an amendment designated 001; it was 
not adopted by a roll call vote of 12 to 18, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    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:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    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:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            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 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.
    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.

                            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. Schoolchildren 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.
                                   Raul Grijalva,
                                           Ranking Member, Committee on 
                                               Natural Resources.
                                   Alan Lowenthal,
                                           Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
                                               on Energy and Mineral 
                                               Resources.
                                   Grace Napolitano.
                                   Norma Torres.

                                  [all]