prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Federal agencies provide a range of assistance to individual survivors; state, territorial, and local governments; and nongovernmental entities after major disasters, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks  Types of aid can include, but are not limited to, operational, logistical, and technical support; financial assistance through grants, loans, and loan guarantees; and the provision of federally owned equipment and facilities  Many, but not all, programs are available after the President issues a major disaster declaration pursuant to the Robert T  Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) authority  More limited aid is available under a Stafford Act emergency declaration, a declaration issued by a department or agency head, or on an as needed basis  This report only identifies programs frequently used to provide financial assistance in the disaster response and recovery process  It provides brief descriptive information to help congressional offices determine which programs merit further consideration in the planning, organization, or execution of the disaster response and recovery process  Most of the programs listed here are authorized as assistance programs and are listed at the General Services Administration (GSA) website beta SAM gov  The list does not include operational or technical assistance that some agencies provide in emergency or disaster situations  It is also not inclusive of all forms of financial disaster assistance that may be available to every jurisdiction in every circumstance, as unique factors often trigger unique forms of assistance  Congress may, and frequently has, authorized specific forms of financial assistance on a limited basis following particular disasters  Programs discussed in this report satisfy one or more of the following criteria: Congress expressly designated the program to provide financial assistance for disaster relief or recovery  The program is applicable to most disaster situations, even if not specifically authorized for that purpose  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies have frequently used the program to provide financial assistance  The program is potentially useful for addressing short-term and long-term recovery needs (e g , assistance with processing survivor benefits or repair of public facilities)  Most of the programs listed in this report are specifically authorized for use during situations occurring because of a disaster  General assistance programs that may apply to disaster situations are described at the end of the report (see " General Assistance Programs ")  As Congress and the Administration respond to domestic needs arising from major disasters, some conditions of these programs may be changed  For the most up-to-date information on a particular program, please contact the CRS analyst or department or agency program officers listed in the report  The Individuals and Households Program (IHP) is the primary vehicle for FEMA assistance to individuals and households after the President issues an emergency or major disaster declaration, when authorized  It is intended to meet basic needs and support recovery efforts, but it cannot compensate disaster survivors for all losses  Congress appropriates money for the IHP (and most other aid authorized by the Stafford Act) to the Disaster Relief Fund  IHP assistance is available in the form of financial and direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a result of a disaster, have uninsured or under-insured necessary expenses and serious needs that cannot be met through other means or forms of assistance  Program funds have a wide range of eligible uses, including different forms of temporary housing assistance; housing repairs; housing replacement; and permanent housing construction  IHP funds may also be used for other needs assistance (ONA), including funeral, medical, dental, childcare, personal property, transportation, and other expenses  FEMA provides 100% of the housing assistance costs, but ONA is subject to a 75% federal and 25% state cost share  In addition, there is a limitation on the amount of financial assistance an individual or household may receive, with financial assistance including assistance to reimburse temporary lodging expenses; rent for alternate housing accommodations; home repairs and replacement; as well as ONA  Financial assistance for repairs and replacement may not exceed $34,900 (FY2019)  Separately, financial assistance for ONA may not exceed $34,900 (FY2019)  Financial assistance to rent alternate housing accommodations under Section 408 (c)(1)(A)(i) of the Stafford Act, however, is excluded from the cap  The maximum amount of financial assistance is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index  IHP assistance is intended to be temporary and is generally limited to a period of 18 months from the date of the declaration, but may be extended by FEMA  (Also see " Physical Disaster Loans—Residential SBA Disaster Loans Available to Homeowners and Renters " below for additional assistance for homeowners and renters ) Agency : Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority : 42 U S C  §5174 Regulation : 44 C F R  §§206 110–206 120 Phone : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website : https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/24945 CFDA Program Numbers : 97 048 and 97 050 CRS Contact : Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) provides benefits to previously employed or self-employed individuals rendered jobless as a direct result of a major disaster and who are not eligible for regular federal or state unemployment compensation (UC)  In certain cases, individuals who have no work history or are unable to work may also be eligible for DUA benefits  DUA is federally funded through FEMA, but is administered by the Department of Labor and state UC agencies  In general, individuals must apply for benefits within 30 days after the date the state announces availability of DUA benefits  When applicants have good cause, they may file claims after the 30-day deadline  This deadline may be extended; however, initial applications filed after the 26 th week following the declaration date will not be considered  When a reasonable comparative earnings history can be constructed, DUA benefits are determined in a similar manner to regular state UC benefit rules  The minimum weekly DUA benefit is required to be half of the average weekly UC benefit for the state where the disaster occurred  DUA assistance is available to eligible individuals as long as the major disaster continues, but no longer than 26 weeks after the disaster declaration  For more information, see CRS Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) , by Julie M  Whittaker  Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Authority: 42 U S C  §5177 Regulation: 20 C F R  §625; 44 C F R  §206 141 Contact: See listings of resources by state , https://www careeronestop org/localhelp/unemploymentbenefits/unemployment-benefits aspx Website: http://ows doleta gov/unemploy/disaster asp CFDA Program Number : 97 034 CRS Contact: Julie Whittaker, 202-707-2587 The dislocated worker program helps fund training and related assistance to persons who have lost their jobs and are unlikely to return to their current jobs or industries  Of the funds appropriated, 80% are allotted by formula grants to states and local entities and 20% are reserved by the Secretary of Labor to fund a national reserve that supports national dislocated worker grants to states or local ent ities  One type of national emergency grant is Disaster Relief Employment Assistance, under which funds can be made available to states to employ dislocated workers in temporary jobs involving recovery after a national emergency  An individual may be employed for up to 12 months  There are no matching requirements for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs  Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Authority: 29 U S C  §3225 Regulation: 20 C F R  §671 Contact: See listings of state Dislocated Worker/Rapid Response Coordinators at http://www doleta gov/layoff/rapid_coord cfm Website: https://www doleta gov/DWGs/eta_default cfm CFDA Program Number : 17 278 CRS Contact: David H  Bradley, 202-707-7352 The majority of disaster loans provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA), approximately 80%, are made available to individuals and households  SBA disaster assistance is provided in the form of loans, not grants, and therefore must be repaid to the federal government  Homeowners, renters, and personal property owners located in a declared disaster area (and in contiguous counties) may apply to the SBA for loans to help recover losses from the disaster  SBA's Home Disaster Loan Program falls into two categories: personal property loans and real property loans  These loans cover only uninsured or underinsured property and primary residences  Loan maturities may be up to 30 years  A personal property loan provides a creditworthy homeowner or renter with up to $40,000 to repair or replace personal property items, such as furniture, clothing, or automobiles, damaged or lost in a disaster  These loans cover only uninsured or underinsured property and primary residences and cannot be used to replace extraordinarily expensive or irreplaceable items, such as antiques, recreational vehicles, or furs  A creditworthy homeowner may apply for a "real property loan" of up to $200,000 to repair or restore the homeowner's primary residence to its predisaster condition  The loans may not be used to upgrade homes or build additions, unless upgrades or changes are required by city or county building codes  A real property loan may be increased by 20% for repairs to protect the damaged property from a similar disaster in the future  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 200–123 204 Contact : Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website : https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/TypesOfLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact : Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This unique fund directs payments to individuals and groups for disaster-related needs that have not been or will not be met by government agencies or other organizations  A disaster survivor will normally receive no more than $2,000 from this fund in any one declared disaster unless the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate determines that a larger amount is in the best interest of the disaster victim and the federal government  There is no matching requirement for this program and no limitation on the time period in which assistance is available  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5121 et seq  Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 181 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website : http://www fema gov/library/viewRecord do?id=5037 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This program provides grants that enable states to offer crisis counseling services, when required, to victims of a federally declared major disaster for the purpose of relieving mental health problems caused or aggravated by the disaster or its aftermath  Assistance is short-term and community-oriented  Cost-share requirements are not imposed on this assistance  The regulations specify that program funding generally ends after nine months, but time extensions may be approved if requested by the state and approved by federal officials  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5183 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 171 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/recovery-directorate/crisis-counseling-assistance-training-program CFDA Pr ogram Number : 97 032 CRS Contact: Sarah A  Lister, 202-707-7320 Disaster Legal Services (DLS) are provided for free to low-income individuals who require them as a result of a major disaster, and the provision of services is "confined to the securing of benefits under the [Stafford] Act and claims arising out of a major disaster " Assistance may include help with insurance claims, drawing up new wills and other legal documents lost in the disaster, help with home repair contracts and contractors, and appeals of FEMA decisions  Neither the statute nor the regulations establish cost-share requirements or time limitations for DLS  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5182 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 164 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/24413 CFDA Program Number : 97 033 CRS Contact: Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 The Disaster Case Management (DCM) program partners case managers and disaster survivors to develop and implement Disaster Recovery Plans to address unmet needs  The DCM program is authorized under the Stafford Act  Following a presidentially declared major disaster that includes Individual Assistance (IA), the governor or tribal executive may request a grant to use DCM providers to supply services to survivors with long-term, disaster-caused unmet needs  The program is time-limited, and it shall not exceed 24 months from the date of the presidential major disaster declaration  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5189d Contact: Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/101292 CFDA Program Number : 97 088 CRS Contact: Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) includes tax relief provisions that apply to individuals and businesses affected by federally declared disasters, and the following are some examples  Individuals located in affected areas are allowed extra time (four years instead of the general two) to replace homes due to involuntary conversion (e g , destruction from wind or floods, theft, or property ordered to be demolished) and still defer any gain  Taxpayers may also be able to deduct personal casualty losses attributable to federally declared disasters, subject to certain limitations  Qualifying disaster relief payments received by affected individuals are not subject to tax  The Internal Revenue Service also has the authority to provide some relief, including the extension of tax filing deadlines  In addition to these and other permanent tax relief provisions, special temporary provisions have been enacted for certain disasters  The 2017 tax revision ( P L  115-97 ) provided tax relief related to 2016 and 2017 disasters  These measures were expanded to cover the California wildfires in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P L  115-123 )  Agency : Internal Revenue Service Authority : Various provisions throughout the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U S C , including §§123, 139, 165, 402, 408, 1033, 6654, 7508A Regulation : No specific regulation Contact : Congressional Liaison, 202-317-6985 Website : http://www irs gov/uac/Tax-Relief-in-Disaster-Situations CRS Contact s : Molly Sherlock, 202-707-7797 Authorized by multiple sections of the Stafford Act, the Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program is FEMA's primary form of financial assistance for state and local governments  The PA Program provides grant assistance for many eligible purposes, including the following: Emergency work, as authorized by Sections 403, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act, which provide for the removal of debris and emergency protective measures, such as the establishment of temporary shelters and emergency power generation  Permanent work, as authorized by Section 406, which provides for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain private nonprofit organizations (PNPs)  At its discretion, FEMA may provide assistance for hazard mitigation measures that are not required by applicable codes and standards  As a condition of PA assistance, applicants must obtain and maintain insurance on their facilities for similar future disasters  Management costs, as authorized by Section 324, which reimburses some of the applicant's administrative expenses incurred managing the totality of the PA Program's projects and grants  PNPs are generally eligible for permanent work assistance if they provide a governmental type of service, though PNPs not providing a "critical" service must first apply to the SBA for loan assistance for facility projects  The federal government provides a minimum of 75% of the cost of eligible assistance, and this cost share can rise if certain criteria are met  Funding for the PA Program comes through discretionary appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §§5170b, 5172, 5173, 5189f, 5192 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206, subparts G, H, I Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit CFDA Program Number : 97 036 CRS Contact: Natalie Keegan, 202-707-9569 The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to states for implementing mitigation measures after a disaster and to provide funding for previously identified mitigation measures to lessen future damage and loss of life  The federal government provides up to 75% of the cost share of eligible projects  Historically, the amount available for HMGP awards is established by a scale that authorizes three tiers of awards: 15% of the total of other Stafford Act assistance in a state for a major disaster in which no more than $2 billion is provided; 10% for assistance that ranges from more than $2 billion to $10 billion; and 7 5% for a major disaster that involves Stafford Act assistance from more than $10 billion to $35 3 billion  Funding for HMGP comes through discretionary appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund  The amount of funding provided can be increased if the state has an approved enhanced mitigation plan  HMGP funding is only awarded with a major disaster declaration, not an emergency declaration  However, during FY2015, FY2017, and FY2018, Congress directed that HMGP grants be made available with fire management assistance grants  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5170c Regulation: 44 C F R  §§206 430–206 440 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs , 202-646-4500 Website : http://www fema gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97
Report 2:  residents and non-citizens for all of their U S -based property, including investments  Estates of Puerto Rico residents are required to pay the prevailing federal estate tax— which ranges from 18 percent to 40 percent depending on the size of an estate—for any U S -based property valued over $60,000  In contrast, prior to 2017, all Puerto Rico-based property was only subject to the Puerto Rico estate tax of 10 percent  Puerto Rico’s estate tax was repealed in 2017  In addition to financing from the municipal bond markets, GDB also provided an intragovernmental source of financing  Prior to April 2016, GDB acted as a fiscal agent, trustee of funds, and intergovernmental lender for the Government of Puerto Rico  GDB issued loans to Puerto Rico’s government agencies and public corporations to support their operations  GDB provided loans to government entities valued at up to 60 percent of GDB’s total assets, as shown in Figure 11  In general, these entities did not fulfill the terms of their borrowing agreements with GDB, while they independently accessed the municipal bond market  Additionally, according to GDB’s audited financial statements, GDB did not reflect loan losses in its audited financial statements until 2014 because it presumed that Puerto Rico’s legislature would repay loans through the general fund or appropriations, as generally required by the acts that approved such loans  Facing non-repayment of public sector loans, GDB took on debt to maintain liquidity  According to GDB documents, repayment of amounts owed to GDB was a main reason for the creation of the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), an entity backed by a new sales tax, through which Puerto Rico issued some of its debt  Though initially intended as a means to repay GDB and other debt, COFINA bonds were also used to finance operations  Through our interviews and an assessment of relevant literature, we identified three potential federal actions that could help address some of the factors that contributed to unsustainable indebtedness in Puerto Rico  Consistent with the provision in PROMESA that was the statutory requirement for this work, we focused on actions that were non-fiscal in nature—that is, actions that would not increase the federal deficit  There are tradeoffs for policymakers to consider when deciding whether or how to implement any policy  For each action, we describe a specific challenge as it relates to debt accumulation in Puerto Rico, identify a possible federal response to the challenge, and describe other considerations for policymakers  To help address the factors that contributed to the high demand for Puerto Rico debt relative to other municipal debt, legislative and executive branch policymakers could further ensure that municipal securities issuers provide timely, ongoing, and complete disclosure materials to bondholders and the public  Specifically, Congress could authorize SEC to establish requirements for municipal issuers on the timing, frequency, and content of initial and continuing disclosure materials  In general, the municipal securities market is less regulated and transparent than other capital markets, such as equity markets  For example, SEC’s authority to directly establish or enforce initial and continuing disclosure requirements for issuers—including those in Puerto Rico—is limited  SEC requires that underwriters (sellers of municipal securities) reasonably determine that issuers have undertaken continuing disclosure agreements (CDA) to publicly disclose ongoing annual financial information, operating data, and notices of material events  However, federal securities laws do not provide SEC with the authority to impose penalties on municipal issuers for noncompliance with CDAs, which may limit any incentive for issuers to comply with SEC disclosure and reporting guidance  As a result, SEC has limited ability to compel issuers to provide continuing disclosure information  As previously discussed, the Puerto Rico government often issued its audited financial statements in an untimely manner, thus failing to meet its contractual obligations to provide continuing disclosures for securities it issued  SEC could not directly impose any consequences on Puerto Rico’s government for failing to adhere to the terms of, or enforce compliance with, the CDAs  Additionally, as previously discussed, municipal market analysts told us that untimely financial information made it difficult for institutional and individual investors to assess Puerto Rico’s financial condition  Timely disclosure of information would help investors make informed decisions about investing in municipal securities and help protect them against fraud involving the securities  These disclosures would be made to investors at the time of purchasing securities and throughout the term of the security, including when material changes to an issuer’s financial condition occur  According to SEC staff, enhanced authority could prompt more municipal issuers to disclose financial information, including audited financial statements, in a timelier manner  For example, SEC staff said that if the agency had required that issuers provide timely financial statements at the time of issuing a municipal security, this may have precluded Puerto Rico from issuing its $3 5 billion general obligation bond in 2014  However, any rulemaking SEC would or could take as a result of enhanced authority would depend on a number of factors, such as compliance with other SEC guidance and related laws  Since this action would apply to all U S  municipal securities issuers, it has policy and implementation implications that extend well beyond Puerto Rico  For example, establishing and enforcing initial and continuing disclosure requirements for municipal securities issuers could place additional burdens on state and local issuers, and not all municipal issuers use standardized accounting and financial reporting methods  As a result, state and local governments may need to spend resources to adjust financial reporting systems to meet standardized reporting requirements  However, in a 2012 report proposing this action, SEC said it could mitigate this burden by considering content and frequency requirements that take into account, and possibly vary by, the size and nature of the municipal issuer, the frequency of issuance of securities, the type of municipal securities offered, and the amount of outstanding securities  To help address the factors that contributed to the high demand for Puerto Rico debt relative to other municipal debt, Congress could ensure that investors residing in Puerto Rico receive the same federal investor protections as investors residing in states  Specifically, Congress could subject all investment companies in Puerto Rico to the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (1940 Act)  In recent years, the House and Senate separately have passed legislation that would achieve this action  Certain investment companies in Puerto Rico and other territories— specifically, those whose securities are sold solely to the residents of the territory in which they are located—are exempt from the 1940 Act’s requirements  The 1940 Act regulates investment companies, such as mutual funds that invest in securities of other issuers and issue their own securities to the investing public  It imposes several requirements on investment companies intended to protect investors  For example, it requires that investment companies register with SEC and disclose information to investors about the businesses and risks of the companies in which they invest, and the characteristics of the securities that they issue  It also restricts investment companies from engaging in certain types of transactions, such as purchasing municipal securities underwritten by affiliated companies  According to a former Puerto Rico official, some broker-dealers in Puerto Rico underwrote Puerto Rico municipal securities issuances and investment companies managed by affiliated companies of these underwriters purchased the securities, packaged them into funds, and marketed the funds to investors residing in Puerto Rico  This practice would be prohibited or restricted for investment companies subject to the 1940 Act, as it might result in investment companies not acting in the best interests of their investors  If all Puerto Rico investment companies had been subject to the 1940 Act, they would have been prohibited or restricted from investing in Puerto Rico municipal bonds underwritten by affiliated companies  Also, these investment companies may have further disclosed the risks involved in Puerto Rico municipal bonds to Puerto Rico investors  As a result, demand for Puerto Rico municipal bonds from Puerto Rico investment companies and residents may have been lower had the 1940 Act requirements applied to all Puerto Rico investment companies, and it may have been more difficult for the Puerto Rico government to issue debt to finance deficits  SEC staff told us that industry groups had raised objections to extending the 1940 Act provisions to all investment companies in Puerto Rico  These industry groups noted that, among other things, certain investment companies would have difficulty meeting the 1940 Act’s leverage and asset coverage requirements and adhering to some restrictions on affiliated transactions  However, SEC staff noted that under certain legislation that passed the House or Senate separately, as described above, Puerto Rico investment companies would have three years to come into compliance if they were newly subject to the 1940 Act  Further, under that legislation, after three years, investment companies in Puerto Rico could also request an additional three years to come into compliance  Regarding affiliated company restrictions, SEC has previously waived some requirements for investment companies if they are unable to obtain financing by selling securities to unaffiliated parties with an agreement to repurchase those securities at a higher price in the future, known as repurchase agreements  According to SEC staff, SEC would consider allowing companies in Puerto Rico to enter into reverse repurchase agreements with their affiliates if the 1940 Act applied to them  To help address the factors that contributed to the high demand for Puerto Rico debt relative to other municipal debt, Congress could remove the triple tax exemption for Puerto Rico’s municipal securities  This action would mean that interest income from Puerto Rico municipal securities earned by investors residing outside of Puerto Rico could be taxed by states and local governments, while still being exempt from federal income taxes, similar to the current tax treatment of municipal bond income in the states  As mentioned previously, former Puerto Rico officials and experts in municipal securities told us that the triple tax exemption fueled investor demand and enabled Puerto Rico to continue issuing bonds despite deteriorating financial conditions  Some of the demand for Puerto Rico municipal securities came from certain U S  municipal bond funds  These funds concentrated their investments in one state to sell to investors within that state, but also included Puerto Rico bonds in their portfolios  Puerto Rico bond yields generally were higher than state bonds yields, according to industry experts  When added to a fund, the higher yields from Puerto Rico bonds would increase the overall return on investment yield of a fund  Modifying the triple tax exemption for Puerto Rico’s municipal securities might result in reduced demand for Puerto Rico’s debt  In response to reduced demand for its debt, Puerto Rico’s government may need to address any projected operating deficits by decreasing spending, raising revenues, or both  According to U S  Treasury officials, this action could increase the proportionate share of investors in Puerto Rico debt that reside in Puerto Rico, because of reduced demand from investors in the states  In the event of a future debt crisis, this could result in a concentration of financial losses within Puerto Rico  Also, debt financing allows governments to make needed capital investments and provides liquidity to governments, and can be a more stable funding source to manage fiscal stress  Reduced market demand for Puerto Rico’s bonds could make access to debt financing difficult, as the Puerto Rico bond market may not support the Puerto Rico government’s future borrowing at reasonable interest rates, according to Treasury officials  Alternately, a variant of this action would be to retain the triple tax exemption for Puerto Rico debt only for bonds related to capital investments rather than for deficit financing, according to Treasury officials  Various provisions in PROMESA were intended to help Puerto Rico improve its fiscal condition  PROMESA requires that the Oversight Board certify fiscal plans for achieving fiscal responsibility and access to capital markets  The intent of the fiscal plans is to eliminate Puerto Rico’s structural deficits; create independent revenue estimates for the budget process; and improve Puerto Rico’s fiscal governance, accountability, and controls, among other things  From March 2017 to April 2017, the Oversight Board certified the fiscal plans the Government of Puerto Rico developed for the primary government and certain component units, such as PREPA  As a result of the effects of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the Oversight Board requested that the Government develop updated fiscal plans  Although the Government of Puerto Rico developed and submitted updated fiscal plans, the Oversight Board did not certify them, with the exception of the plan for GDB  Instead, in April 2018, the Oversight Board certified fiscal plans it developed itself, as PROMESA allows  PROMESA also requires the Oversight Board to determine whether or not Puerto Rico’s annual budgets, developed by the Governor, comply with the fiscal plans prior to being submitted to Puerto Rico’s legislature for approval  Technical assistance is another area where the federal government has taken action to help Puerto Rico address its fiscal condition  In 2015, Congress first authorized Treasury to provide technical assistance to Puerto Rico, and has continued to reauthorize the technical assistance, most recently through September 30, 2018  For example, Treasury officials told us that they helped Puerto Rico’s Planning Board develop a more accurate macroeconomic forecast, which should enable Hacienda to develop more accurate revenue estimates and receipt forecasts  Treasury officials also told us that the agency began helping Puerto Rico improve its collection of delinquent taxes—for example, by helping Hacienda develop an office dealing with Puerto Rico’s largest and most sophisticated taxpayers, which are often multinational corporations  With Puerto Rico focused on hurricane recovery efforts, Treasury and the Puerto Rico government are reassessing the types of assistance that Treasury might provide in the future, according to Treasury officials  Current and former Puerto Rico government officials and experts on Puerto Rico’s economy also told us that the federal government could further help Puerto Rico address its persistent deficits through federal policy changes that are fiscal in nature  For example, it could change select federal program funding rules—at a cost to the federal government—such as eliminating the cap on Medicaid funding and calculating the federal matching rate similar to how the rate is calculated in the states  Likewise, the Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico (Congressional Task Force), as established by PROMESA, issued a report in December 2016 that recommended changes to federal laws and programs that would spur sustainable long- term economic growth in Puerto Rico, among other recommendations  In addition to federal actions that could address the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s fiscal condition and debt levels, the Puerto Rico government plans to take various actions  For example, according to current Puerto Rico officials and the Puerto Rico government’s April 2018 fiscal plan, the government is: Planning to implement an integrated new information technology system for financial management, to include modernized revenue management and accounting and payroll systems  Hacienda officials stated that they are in the process of developing a project schedule for this long-term effort  Developing a new public healthcare model in which Puerto Rico’s government pays for basic services and patients pay for premium services  The government will begin implementing the new healthcare model in fiscal year 2019 and expects to achieve annual savings of $841 million by fiscal year 2023  Collaborating with the private sector for future infrastructure and service projects, including for reconstruction efforts related to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, which it expects will stimulate Puerto Rico’s weakened economy  We also asked Puerto Rico officials about progress made toward addressing many of the factors we identified  However, they did not provide us this information  We provided a draft of this report for review to Treasury, SEC, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Government of Puerto Rico, and the Oversight Board  Treasury and SEC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Oversight Board had no comments  We received written comments from the Government of Puerto Rico, which are reprinted in appendix II  In its comments, the Government of Puerto Rico generally agreed with the factors we identified that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt  It also provided additional context on Puerto Rico’s accumulation of debt, such as Puerto Rico’s territorial status and its effect on federal programs in Puerto Rico and outmigration  The Government of Puerto Rico also noted that the federal actions we identified to address factors contributing to Puerto Rico’s unsustainable debt levels did not include potential actions that were fiscal in nature or that addressed Puerto Rico’s long-term economic viability  As we note in the report, we excluded fiscal actions from our scope, consistent with the provision in PROMESA that was the statutory requirement for this work  We excluded potential actions that could promote economic growth in Puerto Rico because these actions would address debt levels in Puerto Rico only indirectly and because the Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico already recommended actions for fostering economic growth in Puerto Rico in its December 2016 report  We are sending copies of the report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Government of Puerto Rico, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other interested parties  In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or krauseh@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 III  Our objectives were to describe (1) the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt; and (2) federal actions that could address the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt  Consistent with the provision in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) that was the statutory requirement for this work, we focused on actions that would not increase the federal deficit  For both objectives we interviewed current Puerto Rico officials from several agencies—the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury (Hacienda in Spanish), Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico (GDB), the Puerto Rico Office of Management and Budget (Spanish acronym OGP), Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (FAFAA), and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority  We also interviewed 13 former Puerto Rico officials that held leadership positions at Hacienda, GDB, or OGP, or a combination thereof  These former officials served between 1997 and 2016 for various gubernatorial administrations associated with the two political parties in Puerto Rico that held the governorship during that period  We also interviewed officials from the U S  Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (created by PROMESA)  Additionally, we conducted another 13 interviews with experts on Puerto Rico’s economy, the municipal securities markets, state and territorial budgeting and debt management—including credit rating agencies—and with select industry groups in Puerto Rico  We selected the experts we interviewed based on their professional knowledge closely aligning with our engagement objectives, as demonstrated through published articles, congressional testimonies, and referrals from agency officials or other experts  To describe the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt, we reviewed our prior work related to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of public debt  We also collected and analyzed additional financial data from Puerto Rico’s audited financial statements for the fiscal years 2002 to 2014, the last year for which audited financial statements were available  To determine how the Puerto Rico government used bond proceeds, we reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of Puerto Rico bonds prospectuses issued between 2000 and 2017 from the Electronic Municipal Market Access database of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board  We reviewed literature—including academic reports, congressional hearing transcripts, and credit rating agency reports—that described Puerto Rico’s economy and factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s levels of debt  We also reviewed credit rating agency reports that described Puerto Rico’s municipal debt and the agencies’ methodologies for rating municipal debt  We also collected and reviewed Puerto Rico government documents related to budget formulation and execution, debt issuance, and financial management  We considered factors to include, but not be limited to, macroeconomic trends, federal policies, and actions taken by Puerto Rico government officials  Our review focused largely, though not exclusively, on conditions that contributed to the debt crisis during those years for which we collected financial data on Puerto Rico, fiscal years 2002 to 2014  Finally, we also conducted a thematic analysis of the summaries of our interviews to identify common patterns and ideas  Although these results are not generalizable to all current and former officials and experts with this subject-matter expertise, and do not necessarily represent the views of all the individuals we interviewed, the thematic analysis provided greater insight and considerations for the factors we identified  To describe federal actions that could address the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt, we reviewed our prior reports and documents from Treasury and SEC, conducted a literature review, and conducted various interviews  Specifically, we met with federal agencies with subject-matter expertise or whose scope of responsibilities related to these actions, as well as with current and former Puerto Rico officials and municipal securities experts  Consistent with PROMESA, we omitted from our scope: (1) actions that could increase the federal deficit (i e , fiscal options), (2) actions that could be taken by the Puerto Rico government, (3) actions that could infringe upon Puerto Rico’s sovereignty and constitutional parameters, and (4) actions that would imperil America’s homeland and national security  We considered actions that could promote economic growth in Puerto Rico as outside of scope, as they could address debt levels in Puerto Rico indirectly, rather than directly, and because a study issued by the Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico already identified actions that Congress and executive agencies could take to foster economic growth in Puerto Rico  We also considered actions that could address Puerto Rico’s unfunded pension liability as outside of our scope  The actions we identified may also help avert future unsustainable debt levels in other territories; however, we did not assess whether and how each action would apply to other territories  We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, Jeff Arkin (Assistant Director), Amy Radovich (Analyst in Charge), Pedro Almoguera, Karen Cassidy, Daniel Mahoney, A J  Stephens, and Justin Snover made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: In 2015, 3.8 million Americans reported misusing prescription drugs within the last month, and deaths from prescription opioids have more than quadrupled since 1999. About half of the people who reported misusing prescription drugs in 2015 received them from a friend or relative. One way to help prevent this kind of diversion and potential misuse is by providing secure and convenient ways to dispose of unused, unneeded, or expired prescription medications. The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 authorizes pharmacies and other entities already authorized by DEA to handle controlled substances to also collect unused prescription drugs for disposal. In 2014, DEA finalized regulations for the implementation of the Act, establishing a voluntary process for eligible entities to become authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs using disposal bins. GAO was asked to review participation among authorized collectors that maintain disposal bins. In this report GAO describes (1) participation rates among entities eligible to collect unused prescription drugs and (2) factors that affect participation. GAO analyzed the most currently available DEA data from April 2017 on entities eligible to participate and those participating as authorized collectors. GAO also conducted interviews with DEA officials and a nongeneralizable sample of 11 stakeholder organizations selected to illustrate different types of authorized collectors and long-term care facilities. GAO is not making any recommendations. DEA provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. GAO found that about 3 percent of pharmacies and other entities eligible to collect unused prescription drugs for disposal have volunteered to do so. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) authorizes these entities to dispose of unused drugs to help reduce their potential misuse. Analysis of DEA data shows that as of April 2017, 2,233 of the 89,550 (2.49 percent) eligible entities—that is, certain entities already authorized by DEA to handle controlled substances—had registered with DEA to use disposal bins to collect unused prescription drugs. Most—about 81 percent—of the authorized collectors were pharmacies, followed by hospitals or clinics. GAO also found that participation rates varied by state, though in 44 states less than 5 percent of the state's pharmacies and other eligible entities had registered to become authorized collectors. Stakeholders cited several factors that may explain why relatively few pharmacies and other eligible entities have registered with DEA as authorized collectors of unused drugs. Most notably, stakeholders representing authorized collectors told GAO that because participation is voluntary, the cost associated with maintaining a disposal bin—which includes purchasing and installing the bin according to DEA requirements and paying for the destruction of its contents—is an important factor to weigh against potential benefits. DEA noted that availability of disposal by law enforcement agencies also contributes to low participation.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The DEA, within the Department of Justice, is responsible for ensuring the availability of controlled substances for legitimate uses while preventing their diversion through its administration and enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations  Under the Controlled Substances Act, all persons or entities that manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances are required to register with DEA, unless specifically exempted  DEA regulates these entities to limit diversion and prevent abuse  For example, DEA regulates pharmaceutical companies that manufacture controlled substances, health care providers who prescribe them to patients, and pharmacies that dispense them  In October 2010, the Disposal Act amended the Controlled Substances Act to allow the public to deliver unused controlled substances to an entity authorized by DEA to dispose of the substances  DEA was given responsibility for promulgating the implementing regulations, and the Disposal Act stipulated that the regulations should prevent diversion of controlled substances while also taking into consideration public health and safety, ease and cost of implementation, and participation by various communities  In addition to disposal bins, DEA’s regulations describe two other options for the public to transfer controlled substances for the purpose of disposal: mail-back programs and take-back events  Law enforcement agencies may use all three methods of drug disposal without the need for authorization by DEA  The Disposal Act stipulates that the regulations cannot require an entity to participate in or establish any of the disposal options  To participate as authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs, eligible entities—retail pharmacies, hospitals/clinics with an on-site pharmacy, narcotic treatment programs, reverse distributors, distributors, and drug manufacturers that are already authorized by DEA to handle controlled substances—must modify their DEA registration  According to DEA officials, such modification is free and simple to do  Eligible retail pharmacies or hospitals/clinics that become authorized collectors are able to install and maintain disposal bins in long-term care facilities in addition to their own location  DEA’s website contains a public search feature to identify authorized collectors located near a specific zip code or address  Authorized collectors must install, manage, and maintain the disposal bins following DEA regulations  For example, under DEA’s regulations for maintaining the disposal bins, the disposal bin must be securely fastened to a permanent structure, securely locked, substantially constructed with a permanent outer container and removable inner liner, and have a small opening that allows contents to be added but not removed; the bin must also prominently display a sign indicating which types of substances are acceptable; users must dispose the unused prescriptions into the collection receptacle themselves without handing them to staff at the pharmacy; the disposal bin must typically be located in an area where an employee is present and near where controlled substances are stored, and the bin must be made inaccessible to the public when an employee is not present; the inner liner of the disposal bin must meet certain requirements, including being waterproof, tamper-evident, tear-resistant, opaque, and having the size and identification number clearly labeled; and the installation and removal of inner liners must be performed under the supervision of at least two employees of the authorized collector  DEA regulations also require that all controlled substances collected in the disposal bin’s inner liners must be destroyed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and rendered non-retrievable  According to DEA regulations, non-retrievable means that the physical and chemical conditions of the controlled substance must be permanently altered, thereby rendering the controlled substance unavailable and unusable for all practical purposes  Authorized collectors are permitted to destroy the inner liner on their premises if they have the capacity to do so  If not, the inner liners can be transported to a separate location to be destroyed  Typically, in this case, an authorized collector contracts with a reverse distributor to periodically remove, transport, and destroy the inner liners  DEA regulations require that two reverse distributor employees transport the inner liners directly to the disposal location without any unnecessary stops or stops of an extended duration  Authorized collectors must document certain information, including inner liner identification numbers and the dates that each liner is installed, removed, and transferred for destruction  The authorized collectors must maintain these records for 2 years  Figure 1 summarizes the steps involved in the collection of unused prescription drugs  About 3 percent of pharmacies and other eligible entities have voluntarily chosen to become DEA-authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs, according to DEA data  As of April 2017, 2,233 of the 89,550 (2 49 percent) of eligible entities—which are already authorized by DEA to handle controlled substances—had registered to use disposal bins to collect unused prescription drugs  Most of the authorized collectors— about 81 percent—were pharmacies, followed by hospitals or clinics  (See table 1)  Narcotic treatment programs, reverse distributors, and distributors made up approximately 1 percent of the authorized collectors  We also found that participation rates varied by state, though in most states relatively few of the eligible entities had registered with DEA to become authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs  In 44 states, less than 5 percent of the eligible entities had registered  (See figure 2 and appendix I for more information on the participation rates of authorized collectors in each state)  As of April 2017, Connecticut, Missouri, and Maine had the lowest participation rates, with 0 11, 0 22, and 0 70 percent, respectively  In contrast, North Dakota had the highest participation rate, with 32 0 percent of its pharmacies and other eligible entities registered to be authorized collectors  The state with next highest participation rate was Alaska, with 8 96 percent  In North Dakota, the state’s Board of Pharmacy provides funding for authorized collectors to purchase and maintain the disposal bins  According to a board official, the board decided to fund these activities to increase participation rates and plans to continue its funding indefinitely using revenue generated from prescription drug licensing fees it collects  In addition, our analysis shows that about 82 percent of all authorized collectors were located in urban areas as of April 2017  However, when comparing the entities registered to be authorized collectors with the total number of eligible entities, we found that a larger percentage of the eligible entities in rural areas became authorized collectors compared with those in urban areas (see table 2)  The data we obtained on the number of eligible and participating authorized collectors and their locations are the only available DEA data on the use of disposal bins to collect unused prescription drugs  According to DEA officials, the agency does not collect any other information on the use of disposal bins, such as the extent to which the bins are used, or the amount and types of prescription drugs deposited into the bins  For example, to minimize the risk of diversion, DEA regulations do not allow authorized collectors to open and inspect the inner liners of the disposal bins, so information on their contents cannot be collected  According to DEA officials, the agency is not responsible for collecting information on the amount and types of prescription drugs destroyed through the disposal bins  DEA officials told us that the agency views its responsibility solely as giving pharmacies and other eligible entities the opportunity to become authorized collectors  Though we do not have information on the extent to which individuals use DEA’s prescription drug disposal bins, we were able to estimate that as of April 2017, about half of the country’s population lived less than 5 miles away from a pharmacy or other DEA-authorized entity offering a prescription disposal bin  In 21 states, at least 50 percent of the state’s population lived within 5 miles of a prescription disposal bin  (See figure 3)  While close to half of the nation’s population lived less than 5 miles from a disposal bin as of April 2017, the availability of nearby disposal bins varied significantly for people depending on whether they lived in an urban or a rural area  Specifically, about 52 percent of the population in urban areas lived less than 5 miles away from a disposal bin, compared to about 13 percent of the population in rural areas  Furthermore, about 44 percent of the population in rural areas lived even further away—more than 30 miles away from a disposal bin  An exception to this is North Dakota, where about 86 percent of its urban population and about 64 percent of its rural population lived within 5 miles of a disposal bin  According to officials from the 11 stakeholder organizations we interviewed—which represent authorized collectors and long-term care facilities—several factors may explain why relatively few pharmacies and other eligible entities have chosen to become authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs  These factors include the associated costs of participating, uncertainty over proper implementation, and participation in other, similar efforts for disposing of unused prescription drugs  Costs: Stakeholders said that the costs associated with purchasing, installing, and managing the disposal bins is a factor that explains the relatively low rate of participation  One stakeholder told us that many eligible entities may decide that the benefit of participating does not outweigh the costs associated with doing so  Specifically, stakeholders told us that the major costs associated with participating include the one-time cost of purchasing and installing a disposal bin; the ongoing costs to train personnel to manage the bins; and the cost of contracting with a reverse distributor to periodically dispose of the bin’s inner liner and contents  Stakeholders gave varying examples of the specific costs associated with these investments  For example, one stakeholder estimated the yearly costs of maintaining a disposal bin ranged from $500 to $600 per location; another stakeholder said that the cost is thousands of dollars per location per year, but did not provide a specific estimate  These stakeholders added that costs can increase if the disposal bins fill more quickly and need to be emptied more often than expected  For their part, officials from the reverse distributor stakeholders we interviewed cited incinerating hazardous waste, the availability of incinerators, and the cost of personnel as factors that increase the cost of their services for authorized collectors  One reverse distributor stakeholder told us that there are not many incinerators available, requiring them to travel long distances to incinerate collected waste  The other reverse distributor stakeholder added that DEA’s requirement that a second employee be present during the transportation and disposal increases the cost of their services  While some stakeholders speculated that costs are a reason for low participation, a few stakeholders told us that the benefits are worth the costs  In fact, two stakeholders we spoke with told us that the benefit to the communities was so important that they decided to provide funding to retail pharmacies, alleviating an individual pharmacy’s concern about the cost of installing and maintaining the disposal bins  We found that as of April 2017, over a quarter of the 2,233 authorized collectors using disposal bins received external funding to pay for the costs associated with installing and maintaining the disposal bins  In addition, stakeholders told us that some localities have enacted laws known as extended producer responsibility ordinances, which require that pharmaceutical manufacturers pay for certain costs associated with drug disposal  When asked about the costs associated with operating disposal bins, DEA officials told us that addressing cost issues with eligible participants falls outside of their responsibilities  Uncertainty: Stakeholders also told us that uncertainty regarding how to comply with aspects of DEA’s regulations for prescription drug disposal bins affected their decisions to participate  One stakeholder added that many eligible entities decide not to participate because uncertainties over participation requirements could result in inadvertent non-compliance with DEA’s regulations  As an example of their uncertainty over some of the requirements governing the disposal bins, officials from both of the reverse distributor stakeholders we interviewed cited DEA’s non-retrievable standard for destruction of the inner liners of the bins  DEA requires that the method of destruction be sufficient to render all controlled substances non- retrievable, meaning that the physical and chemical conditions of the controlled substances must be permanently altered and unusable in order to prevent diversion for illicit purposes  Both reverse distributor stakeholders told us that they are uncertain about whether certain disposal methods meet this standard, and they said that the agency has not provided further guidance on how reverse distributors can meet this requirement  DEA officials told us that the agency responds to questions about whether a specific method of destruction meets the non-retrievable standard by telling the registrant to test the remnants after destruction, to see if any components of the controlled substance are still present  In its summary of the regulations implementing the Disposal Act, DEA stated that in order to allow for the development of various methods of destruction, the agency did not require a specific method of destruction as long as the desired result is achieved  However, DEA officials stated that to their knowledge, incineration is the only method known to meet the non-retrievable standard to date, but the officials hoped other methods will be developed in the future  When asked about the guidance they provide to authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs or those eligible to become authorized collectors, DEA officials told us that they post frequently-asked questions on their website, routinely answer questions from participants and others, and give training presentations at conferences that include information on the disposal bins  In our prior work, we found problems with DEA’s communication and guidance to stakeholders  In 2015, we recommended that DEA identify and implement cost-effective means for communicating regularly with pharmacies and other entities authorized to handle controlled substances  DEA agreed with the recommendation, and officials told us that, starting in August 2017, these entities can subscribe to DEA’s website to receive notifications when it is updated with new guidance  Stakeholders also noted that some DEA requirements related to disposal bins may conflict with other state and federal requirements governing the transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, which includes some controlled substances  For example, the two reverse distributor stakeholders told us that some incinerator permits issued by states require that hazardous waste be examined before incineration; however, DEA requirements do not allow the contents of the liners to be examined, even at the time of incineration  To address the incinerator permit requirements, one reverse distributor told us that they use the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazardous waste household exemption, which treats the liners as household waste and thereby allows incinerator facilities to destroy the liners without examining the contents or violating their state permit  In addition, some stakeholders raised concerns that DEA’s regulations may conflict with other federal regulations  For instance, one stakeholder noted that they recently learned that transporting the disposal bin’s inner liners could violate Department of Transportation regulations  DEA officials told us that they were aware of this, explaining that the conflict was between DEA’s requirement that controlled substances be transported in liners and the Department of Transportation’s requirement that this type of waste be transported in sturdy containers  According to DEA officials, this conflict has been resolved by the Department of Transportation allowing reverse distributors to place the liners inside sturdy containers kept on trucks  Participation in or Availability of Similar Efforts: Stakeholders said that some pharmacies and other eligible entities were already participating in other, similar efforts that allow for the safe disposal of controlled substances, and therefore they did not want to invest additional resources into participating as authorized collectors using disposal bins  For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has an established process that long-term care facilities use to dispose of their unused controlled substances  As a result, all of the long-term care stakeholders told us that long-term care facilities may choose not to partner with pharmacies interested in placing disposal bins within their facilities because it adds significant cost and effort without any additional benefit  Furthermore, pharmacy stakeholders noted that because of the availability of other prescription drug collection efforts in their communities, they did not think that maintaining a disposal bin at their locations was needed  For example, two of the stakeholders explained that local law enforcement precincts already had a similar type of disposal bin in place to collect unused prescription drugs  DEA officials told us that they were aware of other options for the public and entities such as long-term care facilities that are not registered as authorized collectors to dispose of controlled substances  The officials also indicated that the availability of disposal options at law enforcement agencies contributes to the low participation rates among pharmacies as authorized collectors of unused prescription drugs  We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for comment  DEA, part of the Department of Justice, provided technical comments, which we 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 to the Attorney General of the United States and the Administrator of DEA  In addition, the report will be 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 draperd@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 II  In addition to the contact name above, Elizabeth H  Curda (Director), Will Simerl (Assistant Director), Kathryn Richter (Analyst-In-Charge), Nick Bartine, Giselle Hicks, Jessica Lin, and Emily Wilson made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Muriel Brown and Krister Friday 


Report 2: 039 CRS Contact: Diane P  Horn, 202-707-3472 The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program provides grants and technical assistance to states, territories, and local communities for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive hazard mitigation program and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property  Through FY2018, a minimum of the lesser of $575,000 or 1 0% of appropriated funds was provided to a state or local government, with assistance capped at 15% of appropriated funds  Federal funds generally comprise 75% of the cost of approved mitigation projects, except for small impoverished communities that may receive up to 90% of the cost  Funding for the PDM Program changed significantly with the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA)  DRRA authorizes the National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, for which the President may set aside from the DRF, with respect to each major disaster, an amount equal to 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of the grants to be made pursuant to the following sections of the Stafford Act: 403 (essential assistance), 406 (repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities), 407 (debris removal), 408 (federal assistance to individuals and households), 410 (unemployment assistance), 416 (crisis counseling assistance and training), and 428 (public assistance program alternative program procedures)  These changes may increase the focus on funding public infrastructure projects that improve community resilience before a disaster occurs, although FEMA has the discretion to shape the program in many ways  There is potential for significantly increased funding post-DRRA through the new transfer from the DRF, but it is not yet clear how FEMA will implement this new program  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5133 Regulation: 44 C F R  §201 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97 047 CRS Contact: Diane P  Horn, 202-707-3472 The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program provides loans to local governments that have suffered substantial loss of tax and other revenue in areas included in a major disaster declaration  Typically, the loan may not exceed 25% of the local government's annual operating budget for the fiscal year of the disaster  The limit is 50% if the local government lost 75% or more of its annual operating budget  A loan may not exceed $5 million, and there is no matching requirement  The statute does not impose time limitations on the assistance, but the normal term of a loan is five years  The statute provides that the repayment requirement is cancelled if local government revenues are not sufficient to meet operations expenses during a three-fiscal-year period after a disaster  The governor's authorized representative must officially approve the application and funds must be available in the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program (DADLP) account  In P L  115-72 , Congress provided up to $4 9 billion for the CDL program to assist local governments in providing essential services as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, or Maria  However, this legislation departed from the traditional CDL program framework by giving the Secretary of Homeland Security (in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) broad authority over lending terms, eligible uses, and criteria for loan cancelation, among other program elements  As a result, this CDL-type program operates differently from the traditional program  For more information, see CRS Insight IN11106, Community Disaster Loans: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Michael H  Cecire  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5184 Regulation: 44 C F R  §§206 360–206 378 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 CFDA Program Number : 97 030 CRS Contact: Michael H  Cecire, 202-707-7109 This program provides grants to state and local governments to aid states and their communities with the mitigation, management, and control of fires burning on publicly or privately owned forests or grasslands  The federal government provides 75% of the costs associated with fire management projects, but funding is limited to calculations of the "fire cost threshold" for each state  No time limitation is applied to the program  For more information, see CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Katie Hoover  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5187 Regulation: 44 C F R  §§204 1–204 64 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/fire-management-assistance-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97 046 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 Congress created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in 1986  Subsequent laws authorized the OSLTF taxing authority, appropriations from the fund, and eligible uses for the fund  The OSLTF complements the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; P L  101-380 ), which established a new federal oil spill liability framework, replaced existing federal liability frameworks, and amended the existing Clean Water Act oil spill response authorities  In addition, OPA transferred monies into the OSLTF from existing liability funds  The OSLTF may be used, among other purposes, to fund oil spill response activities and to compensate individuals, businesses, and governments for applicable economic damages resulting from an oil spill  Potential damages include injury or loss of property and loss of profits or earning capacity  OPA established a claims process for compensating parties affected by an oil spill  In general, claims must be presented first to the party responsible for the spill, but specific circumstances (e g , the responsible party is unknown) allow persons to present a claim directly to the OSLTF  Agency : National Pollution Funds Center (part of the U S  Coast Guard) Authority : 26 U S C  §9509 and 33 U S C  §2712 Regulation : 33 C F R  §136 Contact : Office of Legislative Affairs, 202-245-0520 Website : http://www uscg mil/npfc/ CRS Contact : Jonathan L  Ramseur, 202-707-7919 This program assists small businesses and nonprofits suffering economic injury as a result of disasters by offering loans and loan guarantees  Businesses must be located in disaster areas declared by the President, the Small Business Administration, or the Secretary of Agriculture  There is no matching requirement in this program  The maximum loan amount is $2 million  Loan terms may extend for up to 30 years  The application period is announced at the time of the disaster declaration  For more information, see CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 300–123 303 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website : https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/EIDLLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This program provides loans to businesses and nonprofits in declared disaster areas for uninsured physical damage and losses  The maximum loan amount is $2 million  Loan terms may extend for up to 30 years  There is no matching requirement in this program  For more information, see CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 200–123 204 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website: https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/BusinessPhysicalLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 When a county has been declared a disaster area by either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture, agricultural producers in that county may become eligible for low-interest emergency disaster (EM) loans available through the U S  Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency  Producers in counties that are contiguous to a county with a disaster designation also become eligible for an EM loan  EM loan funds may be used to help eligible farmers, ranchers, and aquaculture producers recover from production losses (e g , when the producer suffers a significant loss of an annual crop) or from physical losses (e g , repairing or replacing damaged or destroyed structures or equipment, or replanting permanent crops, such as orchards)  A qualified applicant can then borrow up to 100% of actual production or physical losses (not to exceed $500,000) at a below-market interest rate  For more information see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance , by Megan Stubbs  Agency: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency Authority: 7 U S C  §1961 Regulation: 7 C F R  §764 Contact : Legislative Liaison Staff, 202-720-7095 Website: https://www fsa usda gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/emergency-farm-loans/index CFDA Program Number : 10 404 CRS Contact: Megan Stubbs, 202-707-8707 Since 1968, the federal government has pursued a comprehensive flood risk management strategy designed to (1) identify and map flood-prone communities across the country (flood hazard mapping); (2) encourage property owners in NFIP participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses (flood insurance); and (3) require communities in designated flood risk zones to adopt and enforce approved floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood risk to new construction in regulated floodplains (floodplain management)  The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a part of FEMA, manages the NFIP  For more information, see CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Diane P  Horn and Baird Webel, and CRS In Focus IF11023, Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reauthorization and Reform , by Diane P  Horn  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §4001 et seq  Regulation: 44 C F R  §59 1–§82 21 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/national-flood-insurance-program CFDA Program Number : 97 022 CRS Contact : Diane Horn, 202-707-3472 In addition to programs described above that provide targeted assistance to individuals, states, territories, local governments, and businesses specifically affected by disasters, other general assistance programs may be useful to communities in disaster situations  For example, individuals who lose income, employment, or health insurance may become eligible for programs that are not specifically intended as disaster relief, such as cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, job training under the Workforce Investment Act, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)  Likewise, state or local officials have the discretion to use funds under programs such as the Social Services Block Grant or Community Development Block Grant to meet disaster-related needs, even though these programs were not established specifically for such purposes  Other agencies may offer assistance to state and local governments, including the Economic Development Administration and the Army Corps of Engineers  For businesses, however, only the disaster programs administered by the Small Business Administration are generally applicable  Numerous other federal programs could offer disaster relief, but specific eligibility criteria or other program rules might make it less likely that they would actually be used  Moreover, available funds might already be obligated for ongoing program activities  To the extent that federal agencies have discretion in the administration of programs, some agencies may choose to adapt these non-targeted programs for use in disaster situations  Also, Congress may choose to provide additional funds through emergency supplemental appropriations for certain general assistance programs, specifically for use after a disaster  CRS analysts and program specialists can help provide information regarding general assistance programs that might be relevant to a given disaster situation  CRS appropriations reports may have information on disaster assistance within particular federal agencies  These reports also list CRS's key policy staff by their program area and agency expertise  CRS Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis , by Natalie Keegan and Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery , by Eugene Boyd CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding , by Sarah A  Lister CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Diane P  Horn and Baird Webel CRS Insight IN10450, Private Flood Insurance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Baird Webel and Diane P  Horn CRS Report R45099, National Flood Insurance Program: Selected Issues and Legislation in the 115th Congress , by Diane P  Horn CRS In Focus IF10730, Tax Policy and Disaster Recovery , by Molly F  Sherlock CRS Report R41884, Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report R43784, FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Katie Hoover CRS Report R45085, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: In Brief , by Shawn Reese CRS Report R45238, FEMA and SBA Disaster Assistance for Individuals and Households: Application Process, Determinations, and Appeals , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Shawn Reese CRS Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) , by Julie M  Whittaker CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance , by Megan Stubbs CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation , by Megan Stubbs CRS In Focus IF10565, Federal Disaster Assistance for Agriculture , by Megan Stubbs CRS In Focus IF10730, Tax Policy and Disaster Recovery , by Molly F  Sherlock CRS Report R44808, Federal Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Available to Individuals and Households After a Flood , by Diane P  Horn CRS Insight IN11094, The Evolving Use of Disaster Housing Assistance and the Roles of the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) and the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) , by Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Insight IN11054, Disaster Housing Assistance: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Insight IN11106, Community Disaster Loans: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Michael H  Cecire Note: Because not all agencies have complete, up-to-date information available on the internet, in particular during and immediately after a disaster, congressional users are encouraged to contact the appropriate CRS program analysts or department or agency program officers for more complete, timely information  USA gov http://www USA gov/ Many federal agencies have established websites specifically for responding to disasters  Some agencies maintain websites with comprehensive information about their disaster assistance programs, whereas others supply only limited information; most list contact phone numbers  An A-Z index of U S  government departments and agencies is available at the website above  FEMA Website http://www fema gov From its website, FEMA offers regular updates on recovery efforts in areas under a major disaster declaration  Information on a specific disaster may include a listing of declared counties and contact information for local residents  Disaster Assistance gov http://www disasterassistance gov/ DisasterAssitance gov provides information on how help might be obtained from the U S  government before, during, and after a disaster  The website includes tools to find, apply for, and check the status of assistance by category or agency  The website also includes disaster-related news feeds and information on community resources  Assistance Listings at beta SAM gov https://beta SAM gov/ Official descriptions of more than 2,200 federal assistance programs, including disaster and recovery grants and loans, can be found on beta SAM gov  The website is currently in beta, and it houses federal assistance listings previously found on the now-retired Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)  For programs summarized in this report, CFDA program numbers are given (which are searchable at the "Assistance Listings" domain at beta SAM gov)  Full assistance listing descriptions, updated by departments and agencies, cover authorizing legislation, objectives, and eligibility and compliance requirements  For current appropriations and additional information, users can contact CRS analysts, or departments and agencies 

ground_truth: This report is designed to assist Members of Congress and their staff as they address the needs of their states, communities, and constituents after a disaster. It includes a summary of federal programs that provide federal disaster assistance to individual survivors, states, territories, local governments, and nongovernmental entities following a natural or man-made disaster. A number of federal agencies provide financial assistance through grants, loans, and loan guarantees to assist in the provision of critical services, such as temporary housing, counseling, and infrastructure repair. The programs summarized in this report fall into two broad categories. First, there are programs specifically authorized for use during situations occurring because of a disaster. Most of these programs are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Second are general assistance programs that in some instances may be used either in disaster situations or to meet other needs unrelated to a disaster. Many federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), administer programs that may be included in the second category. The programs in the report are primarily organized by recipient: individuals, state and local governments, nongovernmental entities, or businesses. These programs address a variety of short-term needs, such as food and shelter, and long-term needs, such as the repair of public utilities and public infrastructure. The report also includes a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on disaster assistance as well as relevant federal agency websites that provide information on disaster responses, updates on recovery efforts, and resources on federal assistance programs. This report will be updated as significant legislative or administrative changes occur.