PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 16, 2005
Title I: Potash Royalty Reduction - Potash Royalty Reduction Act of 2005 - (Sec. 102) Sets at 1.0 percent the royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the output from Federal lands of potassium and potassium compounds from the mineral sylvite at the point of shipment to market in the five-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Prescribes implementation guidelines under which fifty percent of such royalties, together with interest earned from the date of payment, shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury to the payor of the royalties to be used solely for land reclamation purposes.
Instructs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the effects of the royalty reduction, including a recommendation on whether the reduced royalty rate for potassium from sylvite should apply after the end of the five-year period.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Title II: Soda Ash Royalty Reduction - Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Sets at 2.0 percent the royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market from Federal land in the five-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Instructs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the effects of the royalty reduction, including: (1) the amount of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market from Federal land at the end of the four-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; (2) the number of jobs created or maintained during the royalty reduction period; (3) the total amount of royalty paid to the United States on the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market produced during that four year period, and the portion of such royalty paid to States; and (4) a recommendation of whether the reduced royalty rate should apply after the end of the five-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2] · R–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3276)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3276)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 485.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3276-3277)
Mr. Renzi moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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 H.R.485 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 H.R.485 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 H.R.485 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 H.R.485 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.