Background Care Provided in Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities Nursing homes and assisted living facilities provide important long-term care to vulnerable individuals in institutional or residential settings. Specifically, nursing homes provide care to elderly and disabled individuals, many of whom have physical and cognitive limitations requiring skilled nursing care. Assisted living facilities provide a residential alternative to nursing home care for individuals who prefer to live independently but need assistance to maintain their independence. Like nursing homes, they may provide residents with a variety of services to assist with activities of daily living, such as bathing and dressing, but the facilities are generally not licensed to provide 24-hour skilled nursing care and typically offer a more limited range of medical care. As we reported in our January 2018 report on CMS’s oversight of assisted living facilities under the Medicaid program, the demand for assisted living services, which offer the benefit of community living, is expected to increase as a result of the aging of the nation’s population, increased life expectancy, and older adults’ desire to remain in the community. Additionally, the cost of nursing home care for an individual generally exceeds the cost of assisted living facility services, further incentivizing a shift among consumers and payers to assisted living for elderly individuals, including those with increasingly complex health needs who would otherwise need nursing home care. Long-Term Care Facility Oversight Oversight of nursing homes is a shared federal-state responsibility. Federal law imposes both a comprehensive set of quality standards that nursing homes must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal and state oversight responsibilities to enforce these standards. CMS, which is charged with implementing these standards and conducting federal oversight, contracts with state survey agencies to perform both routine inspections—known as standard surveys—and conduct investigations of elder abuse incidents, including complaints and facility-reported incidents. CMS provides guidance implementing statutory and regulatory requirements to protect residents from elder abuse in its State Operations Manual, which specifies requirements for reporting, investigating, and notifying law enforcement about elder abuse in nursing homes. CMS regional offices monitor state compliance with federal requirements for nursing home oversight. Generally, states establish their own oversight requirements for assisted living facilities. These facilities are largely overseen by state agencies within, for example, the state health or aging departments; however, when assisted living facilities provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, they are also indirectly subject to CMS oversight through the agency’s oversight of state Medicaid agencies. As we have previously reported, states can provide Medicaid coverage for assisted living services under multiple authorities, but most commonly states use an HCBS waiver under section 1915(c) of the SSA. Under these waivers, CMS requires states to develop a quality assurance system that monitors beneficiary health and welfare—including tracking and responding to incidents that may cause harm to a beneficiary’s health and welfare, such as elder abuse. States must demonstrate to CMS that they are meeting these quality assurance obligations in their waiver renewal reports, typically submitted about 2 years before an HCBS waiver is scheduled to end. States must also report summary information annually to CMS on any health and welfare deficiencies occurring under their HCBS waivers. CMS regional offices oversee state compliance with waiver requirements. In addition to state survey agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and the agencies that license and regulate assisted living facilities, there are other entities charged with protecting nursing home and assisted living facility residents from elder abuse. These agencies’ roles and missions can vary by state. For example, Adult Protective Services (APS) programs in each state are generally responsible for identifying, investigating, resolving, and preventing abuse of older adults, and such programs may investigate complaints of elder abuse in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Additionally, Medicaid Fraud Control Units and local law enforcement can also play a role in investigating elder abuse. Consequently, incident management may be coordinated among multiple separate agencies. Federal Requirements Specify Elder Abuse Reporting, Investigation, and Notification in Nursing Homes and Direct States to Establish Assisted Living Facility Requirements Federal requirements include those for nursing homes and state survey agencies specific to reporting, investigating, and notifying law enforcement of elder abuse in nursing homes. For example, federal requirements specify the time frames within which nursing homes must report alleged elder abuse to state survey agencies and, similarly, specify time frames for state survey agencies to report elder abuse to CMS. In contrast, there are no similar requirements for assisted living facilities and, instead, states must establish their own policies to ensure the reporting and investigation of elder abuse in assisted living facilities covered by Medicaid. (See fig. 1 for federal requirements for reporting, investigating, and notifying law enforcement about elder abuse in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.) As illustrated in figure 1, there are key differences between federal requirements for reporting, investigating, and notifying law enforcement about elder abuse occurring in nursing homes compared to assisted living facilities. CMS officials told us that the difference in requirements between nursing homes and assisted living facilities reflects the different regulatory relationship between the agency and the two facility types. According to CMS officials, CMS has direct regulatory authority over nursing homes, but does not have direct authority over assisted living facilities. As noted, states are largely responsible for establishing their own policies for overseeing the reporting and investigation of abuse in assisted living facilities. (See app. I for profiles of selected states with HCBS waivers regarding elder abuse reporting, investigating, and notification.) Differences in federal requirements include the following: Reporting. Federal law and CMS policy define specific time frames for nursing home staff and state survey agencies to report incidents of abuse that occur in nursing homes, respectively, and CMS requires states to establish their own reporting time frames for assisted living facilities serving HCBS waiver participants. Nursing homes must ensure that allegations of elder abuse are reported to the state survey agency immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made if the incident involves serious bodily injuries and within 24 hours if it does not. In addition, state survey agencies must report to CMS all complaints and certain facility-reported incidents of abuse through a computer-based complaint and incident tracking system and immediately alert CMS regional offices when an especially significant or sensitive incident occurs that attracts public or broad media attention. In contrast, CMS requires state Medicaid agencies that pay for care in assisted living facilities through HCBS waivers to establish their own required time frames for reporting incidents. Consequently, reporting time frames and processes for assisted living facilities can vary by state. For example, Connecticut requires incidents to be reported to the state Medicaid agency and Adult Protective Services within 2 business days, while Oklahoma requires that initial incident reports are submitted within 1 business day. Investigation. CMS prescribes investigation time frames and priority categories for incidents occurring in nursing homes and requires states to establish their own time frames and priority categories for incidents in assisted living facilities. CMS requires state survey agencies to assess reports of elder abuse in nursing homes and assign a priority investigation status based on the seriousness of the allegations. The required investigation time frames are tied to the priority status. For example, if the allegation indicates that there continues to be an immediate risk of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death of a resident unless immediate corrective action is taken, the survey agency must initiate an onsite investigation within 2 business days of receiving the report. CMS also requires nursing homes to have written policies and procedures for conducting internal investigations of suspected elder abuse and to submit findings from these investigations to the state survey agency within 5 business days of the incident. In contrast, CMS does not prescribe investigation time frames or define priorities for incidents occurring in assisted living facilities; instead, CMS requires that state Medicaid agencies with HCBS waivers establish their own policies for prioritizing reports of abuse and initiating investigations in assisted living facilities. Consequently, investigation time frames and prioritization can vary by state. For example, Connecticut does not specify a process for prioritizing incident investigations in its HCBS waiver, but officials told us the state requires the Medicaid program to initiate an investigation immediately; whereas South Dakota requires face-to- face contact with a victim within 24 hours if the incident is life or health-threatening. Family or Legal Guardian Notification Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires facilities to notify a resident’s representative of a deterioration in the resident’s condition, CMS does not require nursing homes, assisted living facilities, state survey agencies, or state Medicaid agencies to notify a victim’s family or legal guardian of alleged elder abuse. However, CMS’s guidance for nursing homes notes the importance of family or legal guardian notification. Specifically, CMS guidance requires facilities to take actions to prevent further harm from occurring to a victim of alleged elder abuse and cites law enforcement notification, as well as family or legal guardian notification as examples of protective measures facilities may take to comply with that requirement. In addition, CMS requires states to develop a policy for notifying participants, family, or legal guardians of the findings of any critical incident investigations under its home and community-based services waiver program. CMS officials told us family or legal guardian notification is generally a state responsibility, and state officials told us that it is largely a facility responsibility governed by the facility’s policies. Some states include family or guardian notification requirements in state guidance on mandatory reporting of elder abuse. In interviews with stakeholders representing consumers and elder abuse investigators we learned that family notification can both help but also pose some privacy challenges. Law enforcement notification. Although federal law requires nursing homes to establish policies for ensuring that law enforcement is notified of elder abuse that occurs in their facilities, and CMS policy requires state survey agencies to notify law enforcement of substantiated findings of elder abuse that occur in nursing homes, these actions are not required when a similar incident occurs in an assisted living facility. Furthermore, CMS also does not require state Medicaid agencies to establish their own law enforcement notification requirements for assisted living facilities as part of the state’s HCBS waiver agreements. CMS and state officials told us that, generally, state agencies coordinate with law enforcement regardless of where the abuse occurs. Some states also require law enforcement notification as part of their state mandatory reporter laws. (See app. I for descriptions of selected state mandatory reporter laws.) For example, Connecticut requires Medicaid waiver program staff members to inform law enforcement of all suspected crimes, including abuse. Both GAO and HHS-OIG have identified, among other things, gaps in notifying law enforcement about abuse in nursing homes and recommended that CMS make changes to help ensure that nursing homes and state survey agencies notify law enforcement. In the course of our review, we found states may align certain requirements for investigating, reporting, and notifying law enforcement about elder abuse in assisted living facilities with federal requirements for nursing homes. Officials from all three selected states in our review told us they apply certain federal nursing home requirements and time frames to assisted living facilities when overseeing reports and investigations of alleged elder abuse. For example, officials from Oklahoma and South Dakota told us they align or are in the process of aligning time frames within which assisted living facilities are required to report incidents of elder abuse to state authorities with the time frames federally required for nursing homes, and said that alignment reduces confusion, especially among facilities that offer both types of residential care. Given its attenuated role in overseeing the reporting, investigation, and law enforcement notification of elder abuse in assisted living facilities, CMS officials told us the agency is taking steps to gather and disseminate best practices to help states better manage their response to elder abuse incidents in assisted living facilities. Specifically, officials told us that CMS has initiated an effort to more closely examine how states operate their incident management systems, which are used to track reports and investigations of elder abuse in assisted living facilities covered by their HCBS waivers. In May 2018, CMS surveyed states requesting information on how those states operate an incident management system for their HCBS waiver programs to track reports and investigations of elder abuse. CMS officials said they will take information learned through the survey as well as through on-site reviews that the agency has been conducting in five states since June 2019, to develop best practices and technical guidance on collecting and reporting critical incidents. Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS noted that federal oversight of nursing homes and assisted living facilities is not directly comparable given the differences between HHS’s statutory authority to oversee both facility types. HHS noted that although CMS’s oversight of assisted living facilities is more limited, CMS works in partnership with states—through providing guidance, technical support, training, and oversight of states’ quality reporting—to ensure the safety of Medicaid beneficiaries in assisted living facilities. We recognize that CMS is operating in different statutory frameworks with respect to both nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and we have noted the distinction in our report. HHS further noted that CMS is undertaking efforts to strengthen federal oversight of nursing homes and states with HCBS programs, including through addressing our past recommendations. HHS comments are reproduced in appendix III. HHS also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The correspondence is also available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or at dickenj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Summary of Selected States’ Requirements for Reporting, Investigating, and Notifying Law Enforcement about Elder Abuse in Assisted Living Facilities We reviewed state-level requirements for reporting, investigating, and notifying law enforcement about elder abuse in three selected states that cover services in assisted living facilities under their Home and Community-based Services (HCBS) waivers—Connecticut, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. These states are collectively responsible for safeguarding as many as 16,800 assisted living residents—2,751 of whom are covered by Medicaid—from elder abuse. All three states have mandatory reporting requirements that typically require various identified health care providers and facility staff to report suspected elder abuse to adult protective services or law enforcement, regardless of the setting in which the victim was abused or whether the victim is an HCBS waiver participant who would be protected under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) program requirements. Further, the states developed guidance for their HCBS programs that establishes additional reporting, investigation, and notification requirements—beyond their mandatory reporting law requirements—that caregivers, facilities, program staff, and state agencies must follow in response to incidents that occur to residents receiving services under Medicaid waiver programs. Selected information about assisted living facilities and state- level requirements for each of the three states is summarized in figures 2 through 4. Appendix II: Summary of Selected Federal and State Audits of Oversight of the Reporting, Investigation, and Notification of Law Enforcement about Elder Abuse in Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities GAO has issued reports reviewing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) oversight of the health and welfare of residents in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. For example, selected GAO reports from approximately the past 5 years included a review of the incidence of abuse in nursing homes and a review of what is known about the incidence of abuse in assisted living facilities. Reports often included key recommendations. (See table 1.) In addition to GAO’s audits of federal oversight of nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the Office of Inspector General within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) routinely audits a broad range of both the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) and states’ oversight activities related to long-term care facilities. We identified three HHS-OIG reports issued between 2014 and 2018 that provide examples of HHS-OIG’s examinations of the reporting, investigation, and notification of law enforcement of elder abuse in nursing homes. (See table 2.) Although the specific scope of these reports varied, common findings included gaps in notifying law enforcement. For example, HHS-OIG examined Medicare claims data to identify cases where hospital staff had identified potential abuse and found that nursing homes failed to report many of these incidents to state survey agencies or notify law enforcement despite federal and state requirements and recommended that CMS provide training, clarify guidance, and track referrals to law enforcement. State auditors may also audit their states’ oversight of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. We identified nine reports issued by state auditors between 2014 and 2018 that examined their states’ oversight of elder abuse reporting and investigation across both settings. (See table 3.) Although the scope of individual reports across the states varied, state auditors identified instances of state entities not complying with state or federal requirements for a variety of reasons—including weaknesses in policies and procedures, resource constraints, and information management challenges—and recommended improvements. For example, in 2014 California state auditors found that thousands of complaint investigations—including over 300 classified as immediate jeopardy—were left open for almost a year, in part because the state did not specify time frames for completing investigations. Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health & Human Services Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact John E. Dicken, (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov. Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Karin Wallestad (Assistant Director); Jasleen Modi (Analyst-in-Charge); and Elise Pressma made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were Thomas Garloch, Cathy Hamann, Laurie Pachter, and Jennifer Whitworth.


Introduction The 116 th Congress is considering multiple proposed changes to U.S. mineral policy. Currently certain types of mineral production on federal lands provide the federal government and some states and industries with sources of revenue, while other production does not generate similar revenue. Proposed changes to federal mineral policy could impact these revenue streams, industries, and states in a variety of ways. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines the term mining to "include ore extraction, quarrying, and beneficiating (e.g., crushing, screening, washing, sizing, concentrating, and flotation), customarily done at the mine site." Mineral mining in the United States had a value added of $60.6 billion in 2018, which was about 0.3% of total U.S. value added (i.e., GDP). The value-added contribution to total economic output of minerals mined on federal lands is not known, as not all of the underlying data are recorded by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or reported by mine operators. Using available data, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimates that coal and solid minerals mined on federal lands supported $13.9 billion in value added, $24.2 billion in economic output, and 81,700 jobs in FY2018. This report offers an introduction to the framework created by federal statutes applicable to mining on federal lands. It also highlights some topics in the mining sector that may be relevant to the issue of mining on federal lands for the 116 th Congress, such as the availability of mineral production data; royalties assessed on federal minerals; federal land withdrawals; and critical minerals on federal lands. While the focus of this report is on mining on federal lands, some related topics and concepts are included within this focus. Statutory Framework for Mining on Federal Lands The statutory framework applicable to mining on federal lands is a combination of mineral laws, land laws, and laws that impact mining directly or indirectly. These combinations can be complex when discussing specific minerals and mineral topics, as the statutes applying to one situation may be different for another situation. This introduction to the statutory framework is presented in four subsections: " Laws Establishing Mineral Categories ," " Land Laws Applicable to Mining ," " Laws That Apply to Mining on Federal and Non-Federal Lands ," and " Selected Federal Laws That May Impact Mining on Federal Lands ." This section presents the statutory framework for mining on federal lands; the section " Processes Related to Mining on Federal Lands " presents more detail on the regulated processes to mine the different categories of minerals on federal lands. Laws Establishing Mineral Categories General Mining Law of 1872 The present regulatory framework applicable to mining on federal lands generally places minerals into three categories: locatable (or hardrock ), leasable , and salable . The latter two categories stem from two major changes to the General Mining Law of 1872, which encompassed all mineral deposits on federal lands that were considered valuable. The mining of leasable minerals requires lease and royalty payments; salable minerals generally only require a payment for the quantity purchased. The laws that define the leasable and salable categories are explained in the next two subsections. Locatable minerals originally included all minerals, but now this category includes only those minerals not covered by other laws: a locatable mineral is a mineral that is not leasable or salable. Locatable minerals are typically high-value minerals; some examples include gold, copper, lead, gypsum, and gemstones. An otherwise locatable mineral is a leasable mineral if it is on acquired land (see " Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands "). Locatable minerals mined on federal lands are not subject to federal royalties. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 Leasable minerals are defined by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and include minerals such as coal, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Pursuant to this act, mining of these minerals on federal land is conducted under a statutory and regulatory framework similar to that of producing oil and natural gas, including lease payments and production royalties. The leasing process may be competitive, and the resulting leases are required to obtain fair market value for the public. Materials Act of 1947 Salable minerals (or mineral materials) are defined by the Materials Act of 1947, and include low-value, common minerals and materials (i.e., not considered locatable minerals due to their low value), such as sand, gravel, and pumice. Salable minerals from federal lands are sold to the public at fair market value from community pits, common resource area, or under more formal arrangements for large quantities. Salable minerals can be obtained for free by some entities, including government entities and non-profit organizations. Unless found in unusually valuable deposits, salable minerals are no longer covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. Land Laws Applicable to Mining Federal Lands Overview The present land area of the United States, excluding territories and possessions, is approximately 2.4 billion acres, and is the culmination of land purchases, cessions, and acquisitions. As the country's land area grew, public policies were enacted to encourage settlement and private land ownership of previously federal lands. These and other policies resulted in changes to the acreage of federal lands; these changes continue, although more slowly in recent years. Four federal land management agencies include the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS) in the DOI, and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. The BLM managed 244.4 million acres of surface lands (about 10% of the total surface area) and 708.5 million acres of the federal mineral estate (about 29% of the total surface area) of the United States in 2018. The laws and regulations applicable to mining on federal lands vary for different arrangements of surface and subsurface ownership, and if the lands are part of the public domain . The following examples illustrate some of the potential complexities related to mining on federal lands for different situations. Mining may be allowed in a national forest, whose surface is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and whose subsurface is managed by the BLM. New mining claims are not allowed in national parks. Regulations for mining on acquired lands may be different from regulations for mining on other federal lands, depending on the mineral. The Department of Energy manages and leases about 25,000 acres of federal land that was withdrawn from the public domain for mining uranium, which would otherwise be a locatable mineral. Mineral production data for a given mineral may or may not be publicly available, depending on the type of federal land on which it is found. The following three subsections highlight statutes related to federal lands that directly impact mining on federal lands. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) establishes statutory guidance for DOI and BLM management of federal lands, including the federal mineral estate. FLPMA directs the BLM to manage federal lands according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield . FLPMA codifies the policy that public lands remain in federal ownership, unless the DOI determines disposal of public lands is in the national interest, and that fair market value is to be obtained for use of federal lands. Under FLPMA, the BLM prepares resource management plans (or land use plans ) through a defined process that incorporates public input, including environmental, historical, and societal values, from a variety of stakeholders. Where the BLM is not the surface management agency of a proposed mining operation, FLPMA directs the BLM to coordinate with the surface management agency. FLPMA provides authority to DOI to withdraw lands from mineral entry (i.e., no new mining is allowed). Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Acquired lands are lands that federal agencies purchased, received by donation or exchange, or acquired through eminent domain; millions of acres have been acquired by the federal government. Generally, minerals that would otherwise be considered locatable are leasable if they are on acquired lands, per the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, as amended, which became law in 1947. Specific legislation could allow for different treatment of such minerals on acquired lands. Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 The Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 allowed settlers to claim the surface rights of 640 acres of federal land, while the subsurface rights remained with the federal government. When the surface owner does not own the subsurface rights, the joint ownership is designated split estate . No new split estate lands have been created under the Stock Raising Homestead Act since 1976. The process to explore and claim mineral deposits on split estate lands requires additional steps, as the surface owner must be notified, and compensated in the case of damage to the surface resulting from the mining operation. Laws That Apply to Mining on Federal and Non-Federal Lands Two laws are discussed in this subsection. The first is applicable to all mining, including all mining on federal lands. The second is applicable to all coal mining, about 43% of which was produced on federal lands in 2018. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (FMSHA), as amended, created the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) within the Department of Labor. MSHA develops and enforces safety and health rules for all U.S. mines regardless of size, number of employees, commodity mined, method of extraction, or land ownership. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), as amended, established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) within the Department of the Interior. SMCRA applies to all coal mining operations, including those on federal and Native American lands. OSMRE's objectives "are to ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining and assures that the land is restored to beneficial use following mining, and to mitigate the effects of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of abandoned coal mines." Among other requirements, SMCRA establishes that, as a prerequisite for obtaining a coal mining permit, the applicant is required to post a reclamation bond. Selected Federal Laws That May Impact Mining on Federal Lands Other laws and statutes may apply to mining on federal lands in certain situations. Below is a selected list of such statutes with a reference for more information; a range of other federal and state laws may also apply on a case-by-case basis. Application of these laws and statutes vary widely for different mining operations; further discussion is beyond the scope of this report. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) Clean Air Act (CAA) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) Processes Related to Mining on Federal Lands The process to mine on federal lands generally begins with the interested person identifying the surface management agency (or owner, if the land is split estate) and the subsurface management agency, if different. The surface management agency can assist with the process to determine whether the area targeted for mining has been previously claimed, leased, or withdrawn from the federal mineral estate. This can occur when lands are designated as national parks, monuments, or military bases, among others. The agency can also ensure that the targeted area and mineral estate are still under federal control, as changes can occur that would give control to private entities, state governments, or Indian governments. The managing agency can also indicate whether the targeted area is acquired land, for which, in most cases, mineral leasing applies. Further, the managing agency can indicate the required information and processes to explore and potentially mine in a given area; such requirements can vary among agencies and within agency offices. Aside from special cases, the BLM is the subsurface management agency for mining on federal lands. Additional considerations and regulations may apply to Indian territories, which number more than 300 territories and cover more than 56 million acres. Indian tribes and persons retain the right to develop or allow others to develop mineral resources on their lands. The BLM may be invited to provide assistance, in which case "the BLM's authorities and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, resource evaluation, approval of drilling permits, mining and reclamation, production plans, mineral appraisals, inspection and enforcement, and production verification." The subsequent steps in the process to open a new mine on federal lands depend on the type of mineral to be mined (i.e., locatable, leasable, or salable), as the processes vary by mineral category. Locatable Minerals If the mineral of interest is locatable and on federal lands open to mineral entry not previously claimed, exploration that does not result in surface disturbances (e.g., rock-hounding or use of hand-operated tools) can begin without a permit; a permit may be required if surface disturbance is expected. Establishing or staking a claim is the statutorily defined process of physically indicating and publicly recording the specific boundaries of the area containing the mineral(s). The local field office of the applicable surface management agency can assist with this process, but the person exploring is responsible for knowing if a specific area is subject to being claimed (i.e., there is not an existing prior claim on that area, and that the area is open to mineral entry). If a reasonable quantity of a locatable mineral is found on public land that is open to mineral entry and has not yet been claimed, the area can be claimed. The two types of mineral claims defined by statute are lode claims and placer claims. Lode claims pertain to valuable minerals in an undisturbed state or location (i.e., rock in place); placer claims refer to valuable minerals that have been moved and deposited in a location different from the mineral's formation, typically due to erosion (e.g., sediment bars along streams). A lode claim cannot be longer than 1,500 feet along the main axis and wider than 300 feet on each side of the axis; an individual placer claim cannot exceed 20 acres. If the BLM is both the surface and subsurface manager, it then works with the operator to approve a required notice or a plan of operation . The mine operator is required to submit an estimate of the reclamation costs to the BLM for approval, after which the mine operator provides a financial guarantee equal to that amount to the BLM. The financial guarantee is held until operations have ceased and the site has been acceptably reclaimed, as determined by the BLM. A claimant must pay a location fee when first recording the claim. An annual maintenance fee is also required. Claim holders may be required to file annual documentation required by FLPMA. More detailed processes need to be followed if exploring on split-estate lands. Under the General Mining Law, mining claims meeting certain conditions are allowed to be patented , which typically transfers all rights to the claim holder. However, starting in 1994, Congress, through appropriations laws, has continually placed one-year moratoria on the patent process. Leasable Minerals: Other Than Coal If the mineral of interest is leasable, which generally includes otherwise locatable minerals on acquired lands, exploration requires a permit or license a pr ospecting permit is required to identify valuable deposits of leasable minerals in areas where valuable deposits have not yet been identified; an exploration license is required if additional information is desired by the prospective miner regarding a known deposit. If a valuable deposit is identified by a prospecting permit holder (and other conditions are met), the BLM may issue the holder a preference right lease . The BLM may issue a notice for a competitive lease sale on unleased, leasable parcels known to contain valuable mineral deposits. Some leasable minerals are subject to minimum royalties, including 5% of the value of gross output for sulfur and phosphate; 2% of the value of gross output for potassium and sodium; and 25 cents per ton of marketable production for asphalt. Unless otherwise indicated by the BLM, leases require the payment of rent, royalties, and the posting of a reclamation bond; reclamation includes removal of machinery and structures, in addition to required grading and re-vegetation. Many of the steps needed to obtain mining permits, leases, or licenses require the payment of cost-recovery fees to agencies and local governments. Leasable Minerals: Coal Coal is a leasable mineral and follows the general process for leasable minerals. However, coal exploration and coal leasing on federal lands are subject to specific regulations and statutes. Coal exploration begins with a designation that the land in question is suitable for coal leasing. Coal exploration requires an exploration license, an exploration bond, and conformance with various federal statutory obligations, and also includes conformance of the regulations promulgated by SMCRA. After any party expresses interest in exploring for coal, the BLM is to publish a notice of in vitation calling for other interested parties to jointly explore the indicated tract of federal land. Existing coal regions on federal lands may have tracts available for lease that do not require additional exploration. While some exceptions exist, coal leases are to be issued through the competitive process lease by application . This process begins when an interested party files an application of interest with the BLM for a tract of land previously identified as suitable for coal mining by the BLM. The BLM publishes notices of the lease sale and invites others to submit sealed bids for the lease. The lease is awarded to the highest bid that is at least equal to the fair market value of the lease (conditional on other requirements being met). Only U.S. citizens, associations, corporations, and public bodies are able to obtain coal leases. No entity is permitted to own or control coal leases on federal lands exceeding 75,000 acres in any one state or 150,000 acres in the United States. Coal leases require an annual rental payment of a minimum of $3 per acre, to be specified in the lease. Coal mining on federal lands requires the payment of royalties. The royalty for surface mined coal is a minimum of 12.5% of the gross value of coal produced, and the royalty for coal mined by underground mining methods is 8%. A coal lease also requires that the successful bidder post a lease bond to the BLM. Salable Minerals An individual planning to mine or remove salable minerals must contact the local BLM office and secure a sales contract before conducting any operations. Generally, the BLM authorizes the removal (i.e., disposition) of salable minerals on federal lands by a sales contract ; a free use permit may be available to certain government entities or non-profit organizations. If a mine operator desires to open a new deposit of a salable mineral, exploration and mining follow the general processes for leasable minerals. However, c ommon use areas or community pits may be available for immediate mineral removal, eliminating the need for exploration and other processes. The BLM is to identify the fair market value of the mineral at the specific location, required payment, and limitation on surface disturbances, among other specifications. Policy Topics and Legislative Activity Four policy areas related to mining on federal lands that have been raised in legislation in the 116 th Congress are presented and discussed below. After a brief presentation of the topic, each section presents policy concerns, options, and examples of related current legislation. Unless noted, bills discussed in this section have been introduced in the House or Senate and referred to committee, but have not seen further legislative activity. Data Availability for Locatable Minerals The BLM currently collects mineral production data for leasable and salable minerals on federal lands, but not for locatable minerals. Locatable mineral production information could be useful for some policy considerations; conversely, the lack of such information could limit policy discussion for those considerations. Concern regarding the collection of these data is not new. In 2008 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported, "according to officials with BLM and the Forest Service, they do not have the authority to collect information from mine operators on the amount of hardrock minerals produced on federal land, or the amount remaining." The GAO also highlighted the limitations of the data collected and reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by noting, "it is not possible to determine hardrock mineral production on federal lands from the USGS data." The DOI reports production of some hardrock minerals from federal lands, but notes those values are estimates based on state data. This lack of locatable mineral production data for federal lands can impact multiple policy areas, including issues discussed in the following sections. Some related policy topics include Royalties: Potential changes to existing mining laws to extend royalties to all locatable minerals face the challenge that current production and value of these minerals is not collected. Without this information, analysis of such policy changes may be limited. For example, it may be difficult to estimate increased royalty collection or increased costs to producers. Reclamation Bonds: Knowledge of production data could assist the BLM in determining if the posted reclamation bond continues to be adequate, is excessive, or is inadequate for an ongoing locatable mineral operation on federal lands. Critical Minerals: Executive Order (E.O.) 13817 tasked the DOI with coordinating with other executive branch agencies to publish a list of critical minerals. One criterion used to define a critical mineral is net import reliance , the calculation of which includes domestic production of the critical mineral commodity. It is unclear how locatable mineral production, which is not required to be reported, is incorporated into the calculation of net import reliance. Congress could address this question of data availability by requiring the collection of mineral production data from federal lands. For example, Congress could authorize and require a government agency to collect mineral production and production value data, among other operations data. While the BLM could be the agency tasked with this data collection due to its role in managing the federal mineral estate, other agencies could also receive consideration. For example, MSHA currently collects and publicly provides data on all mining operations; the USGS tracks and distributes mineral production from sources around the country; and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers or oversees certain permits for most domestic mining operations. H.R. 2579 , the Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act of 2019 (ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on October 23, 2019), among other provisions, would establish the requirement that mining operations on federal lands report production volumes and values, and it includes the requirement that these and other data are to be made public. Royalties Locatable minerals remain regulated by the General Mining Law and are not subject to federal royalties, unlike leasable minerals. Although the federal government does not assess royalties on locatable minerals, some states assess royalties (i.e., severance taxes) on some minerals mined on federal lands. Congress might consider establishing a royalty policy for locatable minerals. As viewed by some, locatable minerals represent public assets, and the public should be compensated if any of these assets are removed for private gain. Royalties on locatable minerals could capture this change in ownership, and the revenue streams could be used to fund national priorities. Others view royalty-free access to locatable minerals as a public benefit, given associated mining employment and mining-related economic activity. If set too high, mineral royalties could restrict mining activity and force marginal operations to cease. Congress could also recognize additional complexities stemming from the different types of royalties and their associated characteristics. Three common royalties are unit-based royalties, ad valorem royalties, and profit-based royalties. Unit-based royalties are assessed on units of volume or weight and ensure that some revenue is collected in exchange for the removal of the mineral. Ad valorem royalties are assessed on the sale of the mineral and are subject to fluctuations in mineral prices. Profit-based royalties are assessed on operator profits, allowing deductions for certain costs. Further complexities can include whether to assign different royalty rates to different minerals and how to treat minerals that are byproducts of other minerals. As noted above, Congress is currently considering H.R. 2579 , the Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act of 2019 (ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on October 23, 2019), which, among other provisions, would close federal lands to new mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 and create a hardrock mine reclamation fund. This bill would establish a federal royalty of 12.5% and a displaced materials reclamation fee of 7 cents per ton of displaced materials for all new hardrock mineral mining operations on federal lands. These fees and other revenue generated by provisions in the bill would be deposited into a newly created fund, the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund. The reclamation fund would target reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines and other environmental conservation activities on lands and waters affected by past hardrock mining activity, independent of land owner. The bill would require the collection and public dissemination of data regarding mine production and royalties paid, and regular inspection of all hardrock mines on federal lands. Federal Land Withdrawals New mining operations on federal lands require that the federal lands are open for mineral entry. Some federal lands have undergone withdrawal , which generally means those lands are closed to or withdrawn from mining and other activities. FLPMA defines withdrawal as withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than "property" ... from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. As indicated in this definition, a withdrawal does not necessarily close land to mining, and a withdrawal that closes land to mining may not restrict other land uses. A land withdrawal can occur through legislation, executive order, or agency action, and a withdrawal is usually for a specified period of time. In the event a withdrawal impacts existing mining claims or leases, the DOI and the involved agencies may allow the claims or leases to continue, or they may offer other federal land in exchange for the existing claims or leases. Many federal land withdrawals close the land to mining, including NPS lands, which are closed to new mining claims. The mining industry generally advocates for limited withdrawals from the mineral estate, as access to public lands for mining represents opportunities for ongoing and future operations. Advocates for a specific land withdrawal (with closure to mineral entry) generally see the proposed use (e.g., military base, national park, national monument, wilderness area) as superseding the potential use of the public land by other interests (e.g., for mining). One example of a withdrawal affecting mining on federal lands occurred in 2012 when the Secretary of the Interior withdrew about one million acres of federal land surrounding the Grand Canyon National Park from new mineral development for 20 years. The withdrawn area contained active uranium mining operations and about 3,200 mining claims. H.R. 1373 , among other provisions, would permanently withdraw this area from new mineral entry. H.R. 1373 passed the House; a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate as S. 3127 . Another example of a withdrawal with closure to mineral entry is for the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), which is currently comprised of over 2.9 million acres of federal land withdrawn until 2021. The Department of the Air Force is requesting that this land withdrawal be renewed and an additional 300,000 acres be withdrawn to expand the area. The State of Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources has produced a map of the existing and proposed expansion areas, including affected active mining claims. H.R. 5606 and S. 3145 , among other provisions, would expand and renew the withdrawn federal land. A third example involves a planned mine by Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) in the Superior Nation Forest, near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Superior National Forest was withdrawn from mineral entry in 1930, but it was reopened to mineral entry in 1950. TMM holds two leases issued in 1966 (renewed twice); no mineral production has occurred under these leases. TMM applied to renew these leases for a third time in 2012, ahead of their 2016 expiration. In 2016, DOI found that TMM does not have a non-discretionary right to renewal, and the FS did not consent to renewing the leases; DOI canceled the leases. In 2017, the DOI found that TMM has a non-discretionary right to renewal, and it renewed the leases. H.R. 5598 , among other provisions, would withdraw 234,328 acres of federal lands in the Superior National Forest, which include the lands covered by the TMM leases. Critical Minerals Affordable and reliable access to critical minerals, and materials or products containing critical minerals, has been an issue since before the Great Depression, with the first official list of critical minerals dating to 1921. One recent definition of a critical mineral is (i) a non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the economic and national security of the United States, (ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption, and (iii) that serves an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for our economy or our national security. Numerous lists of critical minerals and materials exist, and the creation of such lists is inherently subjective, as the definition of "critical" includes notions of access to markets and costs of possible supply interruptions. Potentially adding further confusion, some agencies and studies conflate or do not clarify distinctions between the related terms critical minerals, critical materials, strategic minerals, and strategic materials. Discussions of critical minerals often note that the United States has few known locations of critical minerals that could be economically produced, and the United States does not presently have refining capabilities to process those critical minerals into commodities. The United States imports critical minerals (the USGS calculates net import reliance as part of the process to define a critical mineral) or products containing them, resulting in what is sometimes considered vulnerable dependencies. The limitations of using net import reliance to define a critical mineral or critical material are not fully defined, as manufactured products can contain critical minerals of domestic or foreign origin that have been previously imported or exported. Some known critical mineral deposits lie on federal lands. One example is the Idaho Cobalt Operation, which is a cobalt reserve on federal lands. Another example is the Twin Metals Minnesota mining project, which would mine copper, nickel, platinum group metals, and cobalt in the Superior National Forest. To provide more information on the likely locations of critical mineral resources, the USGS has begun the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI). This program has produced a map and dataset covering numerous focus areas for one group of critical minerals: the rare-earth elements. Many of these focus areas occur in the western region and presumably lie on federal lands. As the Earth MRI program continues, it plans to focus on other critical minerals. Policy options to address concerns related to critical minerals typically intend to create or increase access to secure quantities of critical minerals. Expanding mineral production on federal and non-federal lands is one option to create increased access to secure quantities of critical minerals. Other policy options can include non-mining options; two such options are mentioned below. One option that could increase access to critical minerals on federal lands includes creating mapping and mineral exploration programs, such as Earth MRI. Such programs can facilitate and lower the private costs of locating critical mineral reserves. While general knowledge of the likelihood of a deposit can assist new mineral developments, policies supporting such programs may have limited impacts on production from known critical mineral deposits. A policy option not focused on increasing domestic mineral production would focus on reducing potential negative effects of supply shocks by stockpiling additional critical minerals at the National Defense Stockpile. Given the number of critical minerals and the higher number of manufacturing input materials made from critical minerals, the costs and complexity of maintaining substantial supplies could limit the effectiveness of this option. An additional complication is that "the National Defense Stockpile is not to be used for economic or budgetary purposes," and much demand for critical minerals stems from private consumption, such as motors and batteries for electric vehicles. A third option, also not focused on increasing domestic mineral production, would be to secure more access to critical minerals by supporting a domestic supply chain based on critical minerals captured through recycling consumer products. Such support could include funding research to develop technology that would reduce the costs of recycling critical minerals to a competitive level. Other support could include tariffs or quotas on imported critical minerals, thus allowing recycled domestic sources to be more cost competitive. Congress is presently considering bills related to critical minerals and materials, with some containing provisions related to the federal mineral estate. These include An amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 2657 was introduced on February 27, 2020 (including the new title "American Energy Innovation Act of 2020"), and incorporated language from several energy and mineral bills reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Cloture was invoked on March 2. This bill includes text from S. 1317 and S. 1052 (discussed below). S. 1317 , among other provisions, would instruct the USGS to publish information regarding known and unknown domestic critical mineral resources. The USGS may conduct geological surveys to increase this information. This bill would also establish a research and development program in the Department of Energy (DOE) to increase efficiencies in the critical mineral supply chain, to identify substitutes for critical minerals, and to promote the use of recycling as a source of critical minerals. This research also includes producing forecasts related to critical minerals for a 10-year period, including expected demand, market conditions, and possible substitutes for critical minerals. This bill would repeal the National Critical Materials Act of 1984 and authorize $50 million per year for 10 years to fund its activities. This bill also includes identical language to S. 1052 (discussed below). H.R. 4410 , among other provisions, would establish a federal cooperative and a federal corporation related to rare-earth minerals and thorium; both federal charters would be privately funded and operated. The cooperative would process domestic and international sources of rare-earth minerals and materials into products for sale. The corporation would accept all radioactive material (e.g., thorium) produced by the cooperative, sell any valuable materials, and could conduct research on new uses of such materials. S. 1052 , among other provisions, would direct the DOE to authorize an ongoing program to develop technologies for the extraction of rare-earth elements (REE) from coal and coal byproducts. The bill would authorize $23 million per year for eight years to fund this program. According the committee report accompanying this bill, "Congress appropriated funding in 2014 for [the National Energy Technology Lab] to develop extraction technologies for REEs from coal byproducts. S. 1052 formally authorizes the program." H.R. 2531 , among other provisions, would treat mineral exploration and mining projects related to critical minerals as high-priority infrastructure projects, as defined by E.O. 13807, and would attempt to reduce the time to issue permits to 30 months by allowing the lead agency to determine that NEPA requirements have been met or do not apply to the project. H.R. 3405 , among other provisions, would instruct the Secretary of the Interior to remove uranium from the list of critical minerals, as prepared by the USGS pursuant to E.O. 13817. A previous version of this bill, introduced on June 21, 2019, finds that the United States has reserves of uranium, and that 52% of uranium is imported from stable trading partners. H.R. 3567 , among other provisions, would direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with others, to establish guidance for the acquisition of items containing rare-earth materials and the supply chain of rare-earth materials from countries that are not U.S. adversaries. The bill would also direct the National Defense Stockpile Manager to dispose of an additional three million pounds of tungsten and to use available funds to acquire approximately $37 million of critical materials over five years; tantalum would be added to the list of critical materials. S. 3356 , among other provisions, would require the DOE to award grants to encourage battery recycling research, development, and demonstration projects. Separately, grants would be awarded to state and local governments and battery retailers to enhance battery recycling collection programs. The bill would authorize $10 million for one year for the existing Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Prize competition at the DOE, and would authorize to be appropriated $30 million per year for five years.


Introduction The 2017 tax revision, P.L. 115-97 , often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and referred to subsequently as the Act, was estimated to reduce taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Act permanently reduced the corporate tax rate to 21%, made a number of revisions in business tax deductions (including limits on interest deductions), and provided a major revision in the international tax rules. It also substantially revised individual income taxes, including an increase in the standard deduction and child credit largely offset by eliminating personal exemptions, along with rate cuts, limits on itemized deductions (primarily a dollar cap on the state and local tax deduction), and a 20% deduction for pass-through businesses (businesses taxed under the individual rather than the corporate tax, such as partnerships). These individual provisions are temporary and are scheduled to expire after 2025. The Act also adopted temporary provisions allowing the immediate deduction for equipment investment and an increase in the exemption for estate and gift taxes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April of 2018 that the Act would result in a $65 billion reduction in individual income taxes, a $94 billion reduction in corporate taxes, and a $3 billion reduction in other taxes, for a total of $163 billion (after rounding) for FY2018. Numerous effects of the Act were projected during consideration of the law and shortly after, including an increase in output and investment; an increase in the debt to GDP ratio; possible benefits for workers from tax cuts for businesses; the repatriation of income held abroad by U.S. subsidiaries in the form of dividends; and a decreased likelihood of inversions (U.S. companies moving their headquarters abroad). Some claimed that business investment would increase because of (1) the flow of investment from abroad due to the lower corporate tax rate and (2) no longer imposing a tax penalty on paying dividends from foreign subsidiaries would free up resources. This analysis examines the preliminary effects of the Act during the first year, 2018. In some cases it is difficult to determine the effects of the tax cuts (e.g., on economic growth) given the other factors that affect outcomes. In other cases, such as the level of repatriation and use of repatriated funds, the evidence is more compelling. This report discusses these potential consequences in light of the data available after the first year. Effects on Output and Investment Projections of Output Effects During consideration of the Act and subsequently, various claims were made about the growth effects of the tax change. A variety of organizations, including private and government forecasters, projected economic growth rates that tended to be modest. In its April 2018 report on the budget outlook, CBO projected the tax change to increase GDP by 0.3% in calendar year 2018. Prorating the FY2019 revenue loss estimate indicated that the tax cut in calendar year 2018 accounted for about 1.2% of GDP. Assuming a tax rate on marginal output of around 20%, this projection would imply a feedback effect of 5%. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) also projected the economic effects of the proposal, and while it did not report year-by-year estimates, its revenue feedback effect for calendar year 2018 was larger than that suggested by the CBO numbers—around 20%, which in turn indicates a projected increase in GDP four times larger, 1.2%. Given the baseline prior to the Act, that effect would have suggested a growth rate of 4.2% in 2018. The CBO output estimate (i.e., the amount of GDP growth attributed to the tax change) was compared with projections by other forecasters and organizations. Of the seven other forecasts projecting the effects of the Act for 2018, five ranged from 0.3% to 0.5%, one was for 0.1%, and another for 0.8%. CBO also disaggregated its output effect into an increase in potential GDP of 0.2%, with the remaining 0.1% reducing the gap between output with and without full employment. The increase in potential output reflects increases in investment and in the labor supply. The 0.1% increase might be characterized as a demand-side effect and the remainder as a supply-side effect. Because the economy was at full employment and most of the tax cut went to businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend the increases, a small demand-side effect would be expected. Demand-side effects are transitory, whereas supply-side effects are permanent. CBO and other organizations also produced longer-term forecasts. CBO projected output effects rising to 0.6% in 2019, then rising slightly and peaking in 2022, and finally declining, with an estimated 0.5% effect in 2028, the last year reported. The decline in later years might be partially traced to the expiration of some provisions. Compared with other forecasts for the average over the 10-year period 2018-2027, CBO's 0.7% effect was similar to other forecasts. For the 10 th year, 2027, CBO projected an effect of 0.6%; there was considerably more divergence in the estimates for this year, with one organization projecting a negative effect by that time. This divergence presumably reflected competing views of the effects on capital formation due to lower tax rates on returns to investment and crowding out of private investment due to accumulating debt. During the debate, some argued for much larger growth effects, including arguments that the tax cuts would produce so much growth that they would largely or entirely pay for themselves, or even raise revenues. These statements, however, were not supported by most of the published analysis. Output Growth in 2018 In April 2018, CBO projected real GDP growth for the calendar year 2018 of 3.3% (indicating a projected 3% growth rate without the tax cut). According to the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), actual growth rate was 2.9%, which is consistent with a small effect of the tax revision, perhaps even smaller than projected by most analysts. Quarterly growth rates are shown in Figure 1 . The revenue loss from the tax cut without incorporated growth effects was estimated at about 1.2% of GBP in 2018. The 2.9% annual growth rate for 2018 was higher than the 2.2% growth rate in 2017 and the 1.6% growth rate in 2016. In previous years, output grew by 2.9% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2014, thus the increase in growth is in line with the trend in growth over the period examined in Figure 1 . Forecasters had already projected an increase in growth rates in most cases that was similar to CBO's. In addition to the effect from the tax cuts, there was also some stimulus due to the increase in spending enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ). Growth may have also been negatively affected by tariffs. The high rate of growth in the second quarter of 2018 shown in Figure 1 may have been due to the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts, which began to be reflected in withholding beginning in the first quarter, as well as the possibly delayed receipt of tax refunds. On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although examining the growth rates cannot indicate the effects of the tax cut on GDP, it does tend to rule out very large effects in the near term. The data appear to indicate that not enough growth occurred in the first year to cause the tax cut to pay for itself. Assuming a tax rate of 18% (based on CBO estimates), and estimating the tax cut to reduce revenue in calendar year 2018 by about 1.2% of GDP, a 6.7% GDP increase due to the tax cuts alone would be required. Rather, the combination of projections and observed effects for 2018 suggests a feedback effect of 0.3% of GDP or less—5% or less of the growth needed to fully offset the revenue loss from the Act. Contribution of Consumption Growth Consumption grew at 2.6% in 2018 in real terms, as shown in Figure 2 , about the same as 2017 (which was 2.5%) and below 2014-2016 (although higher than 2013). As shown in Figure 2 , there was a drop in the first quarter followed by a rise in the second quarter that was unexpected by most forecasters and may have reflected a delay in tax refunds. The initial effect of a demand side is likely to be reflected in increased consumption and the data indicate little growth in consumption in 2018. Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend. Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment. Contribution of Investment Growth Although it is difficult to determine the Act's overall first-year impact on GDP, other than to confirm that the evidence is consistent with a small projected first-year effect, it is possible to discuss supply-side effects on investment in more detail. CBO estimated that the 0.3% increase in growth from the Act is the result of a 0.4% increase in GDP due to private consumption and a 0.2% increase due to nonresidential fixed investment (with a negligible effect on residential investment and government consumption and investment). This 0.6% increase was projected to be offset by a decrease in net exports of 0.3% of GDP (from both a decline in imports and an increase in exports). This decrease is expected as a consequence of net capital flowing in from abroad to finance the deficit or due to capital inflows used for investment in response to tax changes. Given the shares of GDP that went to consumption (70%) and investment in nonresidential fixed investment (14%) in 2017, these growth contributions indicated an additional growth in consumption of 0.7% and in fixed nonresidential investment of 1.5%. In 2018, consumption grew at 2.6% and nonresidential investment grew at 7%. Such numbers might suggest a supply-side effect. There are reasons, however, not to necessarily view that growth as a supply-side effect of the tax change. First, the growth rates of investment and its subcomponents are much more volatile than the growth rates of GDP, as shown in Figure 3 , making it hard to assign causation. Second, the largest effects occurred in the first and second quarters of 2018, which allowed very little time to be the result of investments that must be planned in advance (even if the tax cut was anticipated in late 2017). Furthermore, structures growth rates were negative in the last two quarters. Third, real growth in the subcategories of equipment, structures, and intellectual property products is inconsistent with the incentive effects of the tax change. Over the entire year, intellectual property products grew at the fastest rate (7.7%), equipment at a slightly lower rate (7.5%), and structures at 5.0%. To assess the incentive effects of the tax changes (which included a lower tax rate and faster depreciation for equipment), consider the change in the user cost of capital (or rental price of capital). It is the equivalent of the "price" of capital as an input (just as the wage is the price of labor input). It includes two costs of using capital: the opportunity cost of using funds (i.e., the required pretax rate of return on the asset) and depreciation (i.e., the cost of using up the asset). The user cost reflects the required rate of return at the margin (i.e., for an investment that earns just enough to be worth making). Estimates indicate that the user cost of capital for equipment declined by 2.7% and the user cost of structures declined by 11.7%, but the user cost of R&D (intellectual property products) increased by 3.4%. (See the Appendix for details on the derivation of these results.) The user cost of capital for equipment declined by less than that of structures primarily because more of the cost for equipment is for depreciation. The decline in the required rate of return was somewhat smaller for equipment as well because it was already favorably treated (eligible for expensing half of the cost). The benefits of lower rates are also moderated by the use of debt-financed capital, where a lower tax rate reduces the subsidy (or negative tax rate) that applies to debt-financed investment because of the deduction of nominal interest by businesses. Thus, while it is possible that the Act increased the investment due to supply-side effects, it would be premature to conclude that the higher rate of growth of nonresidential fixed investment was due to the tax changes. Looking at changes in the user cost of capital, effects of investments in structures would be expected to be largest, with small (or negative) effects on intellectual property. To date this pattern has not been observed. Effects on Revenues Overall revenue changes were close to projections, with revenues only $9 billion smaller than projected, due to a $45 billion increase in individual income tax revenues, but a $7 billion decrease in payroll taxes, along with a $40 billion decline in corporate revenues. As noted above, data on GDP are not consistent with a large growth effect in 2018, and thus the tax cut is unlikely to provide enough growth to significantly offset revenue losses in 2018. Data from FY2018 suggest that the tax cut for corporations may have been larger than the $94 billion CBO projected in its April 2018 baseline. That baseline projected corporate revenues of $243 billion, but actual corporate revenues were $38 billion lower at $205 billion, 16% lower than projected. CBO's January 2019 report on the budget and economic outlook indicated that these lower corporate tax revenues could not be explained by economic conditions and stated that the causes will not be apparent until information from tax returns becomes available over the next two years. CBO also expected this decline in revenues to dissipate over time. With little evidence of whether the decline will actually be temporary or permanent, CBO may have relied on the historical tendency of unexplained changes to dissipate over time. It is also possible that estimated revenue losses from the corporate tax changes were too low in their earlier estimates. The overall revenues were close to those projected as the lower corporate revenues were offset by gains from other taxes: a $45 billion increase in individual income tax revenues and a $7 billion decrease in payroll taxes. These differences, particularly for payroll taxes, are much smaller as a percentage of revenue, and CBO does not indicate any need for an explanation of these changes outside of economic forces. Effects on Effective Tax Rates Effective tax rates fell, with corporate effective tax rates declining significantly and individual effective income tax rates by a small amount. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Much of the tax revision was focused on corporations. Although the statutory corporate tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21%, the average effective tax rate decline (taxes divided by profits) would be smaller because of existing tax benefits (which lead to a smaller initial effective tax rate) and base-broadening effects. Such an effective tax rate can be calculated using aggregate data from the national income and products accounts, which attempt to measure economic income. The effective average tax rate for corporations was 17.2% in calendar year 2017, and fell to 8.8% in calendar year 2018. This estimate includes worldwide income, but not worldwide taxes. Although actual data on the division of domestic and worldwide income are not available for 2018, using the ratios projected by CBO to eliminate foreign-source income from the measure results in an average effective tax rate of 23.4% in 2017, falling to 12.1% in 2018. Either scenario suggests that the ratio of effective to statutory tax rate dropped following the tax revision. The statutory tax rate dropped by 40%, but the effective rate dropped by 48% (although the percentage point drop was smaller for the effective tax rate). Another measure of effective rate is the marginal effective tax rate on income, a tax rate that is a component of the user cost of capital. These tax rates are prospective and capture the main elements of the tax code: tax rates, depreciation, and research credits. They also apply to domestic investment. Using a weighted average of equipment, structures, and intangibles, the effective marginal tax rate on equity investment was estimated to fall from 15.6% to 3.2% from 2017 to 2018. If the effects of reducing subsidies for debt-financed investment are accounted for, marginal tax rates are lower (actually slightly negative) and change less, from a -0.3% rate in 2017 to a -6.6% rate in 2018. Marginal tax rates are likely to be below average tax rates because they capture timing benefits (e.g., accelerated depreciation). Marginal effective tax rates are relevant to economic growth effects because they measure the incentive effects for investment. Effective Individual Income Tax Rates The individual income tax changes for 2018 were smaller than the corporate tax changes in absolute size and substantially smaller as a percentage of income. The effective individual tax rate for federal income taxes as a percentage of personal income is estimated at 9.6% in 2017 and 9.2% in 2018, based on data in the National Income and Product Accounts. This change constitutes a reduction in effective tax rate of 4%. The Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis estimates a larger reduction in effective tax rate as a percentage of adjusted family cash income, with the rate falling from 10.1% in 2017 to 8.9% in 2019, although this estimate is based on projected rather than actual data. Both of these declines are smaller than the corporate tax rate decline. As noted earlier, the increase in the standard deduction and child and dependent credit was roughly offset by the elimination of the personal exemption. Statutory rate reductions for individuals were relatively small compared with the corporate rate reduction (the top rate of 39.6% was reduced by 2.6 percentage points, compared with 14 percentage points for the corporate rate), and the benefits of rate reductions were offset by restrictions on itemized deductions. Business income was in some cases eligible for a 20% reduction, which was more significant (an additional 20% deduction at the 37% rate is 7.4 percentage points), but not all business income qualified. There are also effective marginal tax rates, although these are generally divided into rates on labor income and capital income. The marginal tax rate for labor income is typically above the average tax rates because of graduated tax rates and lack of timing benefits. CBO estimates that marginal tax rates on labor income fell from 29.4% to 27.2%. CBO also estimates the marginal tax rate for all capital income (which would include unincorporated businesses, owner-occupied housing, and taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, as well as corporate taxes). This value is estimated to fall from 16.5% to 14.7%. Although different from the marginal rates reported above for corporations, both estimated measures find small changes in marginal tax rates, which is consistent with an expected small behavioral response. Effects on Wages Distributional analyses of the tax change suggested that the tax revision favored higher-income taxpayers, in part because most of the tax cut benefited corporations and in part because the individual income tax cut largely went to higher-income individuals. During the debate about taxes, however, arguments were made that these corporate tax cuts would benefit workers due to growth in investment and the capital stock. After enactment, CBO projected these effects to be relatively small, with increases in labor productivity (which should affect the wage rate) negligible in 2018 and growing to 0.3% of GDP after 10 years. CBO projected that the total wage bill would grow because of the increase in employment and hours per worker of 0.2% in 2018. The labor supply response would rise through 2024, peaking at 0.8% and then decline as the individual tax cuts expired. A Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) October 2017 study suggested a corporate rate reduction from 35% to 20%, if enacted, would eventually increase the average household's income by a conservative $4,000 a year. This was a longer-run estimate, but the study also estimated that workers would immediately get a significant share (30%) of the profits repatriated from abroad due to tax changes. Another CEA October 2017 report suggested wages could increase by up to $9,000 with such a corporate rate change using more optimistic assumptions. While the CEA study with respect to the $4,000 to $9,000 amounts referred to a long-term effect, the study was portrayed by the Administration as indicating an immediate effect. The amounts associated with repatriation were short term. A $4,000 to $9,000 effect per household, given the 126 million households that were estimated at that time, would produce a total effect ranging from $504 billion to $1,134 billion, or between 2.5% and 5.7% of GDP in 2018. The corporate rate cut from 35% to 21% cost about $125 billion over a full year, and it would cost about $133 billion with the additional percentage point rate reduction (to 20%) considered at that time. Thus, in these scenarios, the effects of the tax cuts would be many times (3.8 to 8.5) larger than the costs. The projections for long-run growth in the CEA study relied on a range of empirical economics literature, including the effects of changes in user cost on investment cost and corporate tax incidence. The econometric estimates of corporate tax incidence are problematic for a number of reasons, and the effects on investment considering user cost did not appear to take into account the direct effect of the tax rate change on the interest. In the absence of the tax cuts, wages should grow with the economy and wage rates should grow as the capital stock grows. In addition, tight labor markets resulting from the approach to full employment should have put upward pressure on wage rates in any case. Evidence from 2018 indicated that labor compensation, adjusted to real values by the price indices for personal consumption expenditures, grew slower than output in general, at a 2.3% rate compared with a 2.9% growth rate overall. If adjusted by the GDP deflator, labor compensation grew by 2.0%. With labor representing 53% of GDP, that implies that the other components grew at 3.8%. Thus, pretax profits and economic depreciation (the price of capital) grew faster than wages. Figure 4 shows the growth rate of real wages compared with the growth rate of real GDP for 2013-2018, indicating that wage growth has sometimes been faster than GDP growth and sometimes slower. There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or relative to GDP growth. This finding is consistent with the CBO projection of a modest effect. The Department of Labor reports that average weekly wages of production and nonsupervisory workers were $742 in 2017 and $766 in 2018. Wages, assuming full-time work, increased by $1,248 annually. But this number must account for inflation and growth that would otherwise have occurred regardless of the tax change. The nominal growth rate in wages was 3.2%, but adjusting for the GDP price deflator, real wages increased by 1.2%. This growth is smaller than overall growth in labor compensation and indicates that ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates. Effects on Repatriation and International Investment Flows One of the major sources of anticipated increased investment through supply-side effects is international capital flows, particularly in the short and medium term. Savings rates tend to be relatively unresponsive to changes in the rate of return and savings accumulate slowly. Thus the increased investment in the United States (in the aggregate) would need to come from abroad. Some expected foreign investment to flow due to the reduction in the user cost of capital. Some also argued that eliminating the tax barrier to repatriating funds (as was done with the tax revision) would lead to reinvestment in the United States of unrepatriated earnings held abroad in U.S. subsidiaries. Under prior law, these earnings would have been taxed at 35%, adjusted for credits on foreign taxes paid, if paid as dividends to the parent company. The tax change exempted dividends from tax, imposed a transition tax on deemed repatriations of existing untaxed earnings at a rate lower than the new corporate rate of 21% (15.5% on liquid assets and 8% on illiquid assets), and imposed a global minimum tax on intangible income. These changes meant paying dividends resulted in no tax consequences. Although estimates varied, they indicated close to $3 trillion of unrepatriated earnings. There were a number of criticisms of the possibility that repatriation of these earnings would stimulate investment, considering the evidence that a repatriation holiday in 2004 had not affected investment. Not all of these amounts were held in cash, as some were earnings reinvested in physical assets (such as plant and equipment) and some might be invested in other assets that were not cash equivalents. A Federal Reserve study estimated that $1 trillion was held in cash. A significant amount of repatriations occurred in 2018, as compared both to history and 2017. Dividends in the previous three years ranged from $144 billion to $158 billion, as shown in Figure 5 , whereas $664 billion was repatriated in 2018. Simultaneously, reinvested earnings declined sharply before returning to more normal levels in the 4 th quarter of 2018. It is important, however, to measure international capital flows in true terms that reflect the inflow of resources for capital investment and not by financial transactions, such as repatriation of income earned abroad through dividend payments from foreign subsidiaries. Capital investment involves resources that reflect actual investment in the United States. It could involve imports of investment goods directly, or it could involve imports of consumption goods that free up other resources for investment. In either case, the true capital invested in the United States is largely measured by the excess of exports over imports, or more precisely by the current account, which can also include a small amount of net income payments. In more fundamental terms, investment from abroad occurs in a real sense only when the amount of imported goods exceeds the amount of U.S. exports. To measure this aggregate change in net capital inflows, examine the balance on the current account, which is generally negative, indicating a net capital inflow (imports exceed exports, or a trade deficit). Adjusting these amounts by the GDP deflator and looking at the change, there was a small increase that amounted to 0.8% of private investment. This change is relatively small and is not out of line with historical fluctuations; see Figure 6 . Again, many factors can affect net capital inflows, including domestic borrowing by the government and domestic saving, but the evidence does not suggest a surge in investment from abroad in 2018. Use of Funds for Worker Bonuses and Share Repurchase Increased funds, whether accessed from abroad or through tax cuts, could be used in several ways: investment, paying down debt, increasing wages, paying wage bonuses, paying dividends, or repurchasing shares. During the passage of the tax revision and in the immediate aftermath, some argued that firms would use these funds to pay worker bonuses (as discussed in the previous section on wages). Subsequently, a number of firms announced bonuses, which in some cases they attributed to the tax cut. One organization that tracks these bonuses has reported a total of $4.4 billion. With US employment of 157 million, this amount is $28 per worker. This amount is 2% to 3% of the corporate tax cut, and a smaller share of repatriated funds. It is consistent with what most economists would expect that a small percentage of increased corporate profits or repatriated funds (if any) would be used to compensate workers, as economic theory indicates that firms would pay workers their marginal product, a result of fundamental supply and demand forces. The bonus announcements could have reflected a desire to pay bonuses when they would be deducted at 35% rather than 21% (in late 2017 for firms with calendar tax years but in 2018 for firms with different tax years). Worker bonuses could also be a result of a tight labor market and attributed to the tax cut as a public relations move. Much of these funds, the data indicate, has been used for a record-breaking amount of stock buybacks, with $1 trillion announced by the end of 2018. A similar share of repurchases happened in 2004, when a tax holiday allowed firms to voluntarily bring back earnings at a lower rate. Effects on Inversions During the discussion of corporate tax revision over a number of years, one important issue repeatedly raised was the effect of the current tax system on incentives for firms to relocate abroad, or "invert." Inversions involved firms relocating their headquarters to low-tax jurisdictions that generally had territorial taxes, allowing firms to shift profits out of their U.S. operations (so-called earnings stripping) as well as providing potential paths to repatriate earnings without taxes. The earliest of these inversions, beginning in the early 1980s, were called "naked inversions," where a company simply relocated its headquarters without otherwise changing its activities. A number of legislative and regulatory actions largely ended these types of inversions. In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 108-357 ) required that any firm in which the former U.S. owners owned 80% or more of the new firm would continue to be treated as a U.S. firm. Firms with 60% to 80% ownership by former shareholders of the U.S. firm were considered inverted firms and subject to certain penalty taxes. This legislation allowed naked inversions in cases where the firm had substantial business activity in the new headquarters country, but regulations issued in 2012 tightened these requirements after a series of inversions used this rule to relocate. In 2014, a new wave of inversions that involved mergers with smaller foreign firms began, with one of the most prominent being an announcement that Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, would acquire Astra-Zeneca with a UK headquarters (although this merger never took place). These inversions gave rise to a number of legislative proposals, but also led to numerous regulatory proposals, which were released in 2014, 2015, and 2016. These regulations addressed a number of issues, including restricting the use of serial inversions to allow a firm to fall under the ownership limits, limiting the ability to access earnings of subsidiaries abroad, and limiting earnings stripping through locating debt in the United States. The 2017 Act contained several provisions that made inversions less attractive (aside from the lower corporate tax rate). One notable provision required firms that inverted in the next 10 years to pay a deemed repatriation tax at 35%, rather than at the lower rates of 8% for non-cash holdings and 15.5% for cash or cash equivalents. The Act introduced a new minimum tax to address international profit shifting, the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT), which adds back payments between related domestic and foreign companies to base income and then taxes that base at a lower rate. BEAT excludes payments which reduce gross receipts with the result that payment for the cost of goods sold is not included under BEAT. An exception applies for firms that invert after November 9, 2017, where payments to a foreign parent or any foreign firm in the affiliated group for cost of goods sold is included in BEAT. The legislation also contained some other provisions making inversions less attractive. The Act also modified asset attribution rules. The constructive ownership rules for purposes of determining 10% U.S. shareholders, whether a corporation is a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC), and whether parties satisfy certain relatedness tests, which can trigger certain tax provisions including restrictive ones, were expanded in the 2017 tax revision. Specifically, the new law treats stock owned by a foreign person as attributable to a U.S. entity owned by the foreign person (so-called "downward attribution"). As a result, stock owned by a foreign person may generally be attributed to (1) a U.S. corporation, 10% of the value of the stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by the foreign person; (2) a U.S. partnership in which the foreign person is a partner; and (3) certain U.S. trusts if the foreign person is a beneficiary or, in certain circumstances, a grantor or a substantial owner. The downward attribution rule was originally conceived to deal with inversions. In an inversion, without downward attribution, a subsidiary of the original U.S. parent could lose CFC status if it sold enough stock to the new foreign parent so the U.S. parent no longer had majority ownership. With downward attribution, the ownership of stock by the new foreign parent in the CFC is attributed to the U.S. parent, so that the subsidiary continues its CFC status, making it subject to any tax rules that apply to CFCs (such as Subpart F and repatriation taxes under the old law, and Subpart F and Global Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) under the new law). The Act also contained other provisions affecting stockholders and stock compensation. These provisions were intended to discourage inversions. Dividends (like capital gains) are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. The rates are 0%, 15%, and 20% depending on the rate bracket that ordinary income falls into. Certain dividends received from foreign firms (those that do not have tax treaties and Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs)) are not eligible for these lower rates. Dividends paid by firms that inverted after the date of enactment of P.L. 115-97 are added to the list of those not eligible for the lower rates. Also, in 2004, an excise tax of 15% was imposed on stock compensation received by insiders in an expatriated corporation; the 2017 Act increased it to 20%, effective on the date of enactment for corporations that first become expatriated after that date. These new laws did not change the definition of inverted firms but rather the consequences of inversions. Although the legislative changes in the 2017 Act contributed to making inversions less attractive, announced inversions had already slowed substantially following the regulatory changes implemented in 2014, 2015, and 2016. In addition, data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicated that foreign acquisitions of US companies, which rose substantially in 2015, fell by 15% in 2016 and 32% in 2017 (data not available for 2018). Some of the largest declines were in inversion-associated countries, such as Ireland, where acquisitions fell from $176 billion in 2015, to $35 billion in 2016, and to $7 billion in 2017. Appendix. The User Cost of Capital The user cost of capital is the sum of the pretax required return for a marginal investment and the economic depreciation, or (1) C = R/(1-t)+d Where C is the user cost, R is the required after-tax return, t is the effective marginal rate, and d is the economic depreciation rate. Economic depreciation is the decline in the value of the asset in real terms, and belongs in the cost term because it compensates the investor for the wearing away, or using up, of the asset. The user cost calculations use a weighted pretax rate of return that reflects both debt and equity finance to simplify the analysis. The effective marginal tax rate, in turn, depends on the statutory tax rate, the present value of economic depreciation, the inflation rate, the return on equity, the share debt-financed, and the nominal interest rate. Table A-1 reports the effective tax rate for corporate and non-corporate investment before and after the 2017 changes for the basic types of nonresidential fixed capital. The overall user cost also depends on the economic depreciation rates and the relative sizes of each type of capital stock in the corporate and non-corporate sector. For equipment, the economic depreciation rate is 12.95% per year, and corporate equipment comprises 67% of all equipment. Structures are composed of two types: (1) public utility structures (accounting for 23% of the total) with a depreciation rate of 2.24% and (2) buildings with a depreciation rate of 2.8%. Within public utility structures, corporations account for 84%; within buildings, corporate structures account for 55%. Intangible assets have a depreciation rate of 17%, and corporations account for 86%. User costs and their percentage changes are shown in Table A-2 .