PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 457.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Oct 6, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Potash Royalty Reduction Act of 2004 - States that for a five-year period 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 shall be 1.0 percent.
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 in accordance with a schedule to implement a reclamation plan for the lands.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Conditions such payment upon the following: (1) receipt of the royalties by the Secretary of the Interior; (2) approval of the reclamation plan and schedule by the Secretary of the Interior; and (3) submittal of such approved schedule to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Directs 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 continue to apply after the end of the reporting period.
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.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 457.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-739.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-739.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.4984 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.4984 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.4984 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.4984 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.