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



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

Report 1: Puerto Rico, which has approximately 3 3 million residents according to U S  Census Bureau (Census) estimates, is the largest and most populous territory of the United States  As a territory, Puerto Rico is subject to congressional authority, though Congress has granted it broad authority over matters of internal governance—notably, by approving Puerto Rico’s constitution in 1952  Individuals born in Puerto Rico are U S  citizens and can migrate freely to the states  Puerto Rico and its residents are generally subject to the same federal laws as the states and their residents, except in cases where specific exemptions have been made, such as with certain federal programs  For example, Puerto Rico residents generally have full access to Social Security and unemployment insurance; however, for some programs, such as Medicaid, federal funding in Puerto Rico is restricted as compared to funding in the states  Residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from paying federal income tax on income from sources in Puerto Rico  Residents are required to pay federal income tax on income from sources outside of Puerto Rico  They are also required to pay federal employment taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare taxes, on their income regardless of where it was earned  Puerto Rico residents are also ineligible for certain federal tax credits  Corporations located in Puerto Rico are generally subject to the same federal tax laws as corporations located in a foreign country  Corporations in Puerto Rico are generally exempt from federal taxes on profits except as such profits are effectively connected to a trade or business in the states, and so long as those profits remain held outside of the states  Additionally, these corporations were subject to a withholding tax on certain investment income from the United States not connected to a trade or business  Under the 2017 Public Law 115-97, starting in 2018 U S  corporations that are shareholders in foreign corporations, such as those organized under Puerto Rico law, generally do not owe tax on dividends received from those foreign corporations  Prior to this law, dividend payments to U S  corporate shareholders were considered taxable interest for the U S  parent corporation  Prior to 1996, a federal corporate income tax credit—the possessions tax credit—was available to certain U S  corporations that located in Puerto Rico  In general, the credit equaled the full amount of federal tax liability related to an eligible corporation’s income from its operations in a possession—including Puerto Rico—effectively making such income tax- free  In 1996, the tax credit was repealed, although corporations that were existing credit claimants were eligible to claim credits through 2005  Puerto Rico’s economy is in a prolonged period of economic contraction  According to data from Puerto Rico’s government, Puerto Rico’s economy grew in the 1990s and early 2000s  However, between 2005 and 2016— the latest year for which data were available as of March 1, 2018—Puerto Rico’s economy experienced year-over-year declines in real output in all but two years, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP)  From 2005 to 2016, Puerto Rico’s real GDP fell by more than 9 percent (from $82 8 billion to $75 0 billion in 2005 dollars)  Puerto Rico’s gross national product (GNP) followed a similar pattern over the same period, declining by more than 11 percent from 2005 to 2016 (from $53 8 billion to $47 7 billion in 2005 dollars)  Figure 1 shows Puerto Rico’s real GDP and GNP growth rates from 1991 through 2016  The decline in Puerto Rico’s output has, in more recent years, occurred in conjunction with a decline in Puerto Rico’s population  According to Census estimates, Puerto Rico’s population declined from a high of approximately 3 8 million people in 2004 to 3 3 million people in 2017, a decline of 12 8 percent  This population loss closely matched the decline in real output  From 2004 to 2016, Puerto Rico’s real GNP fell by 9 5 percent, while its real GNP per capita increased by 1 6 percent over the same time period  In addition to Puerto Rico’s declining population, the territory also has a lower share of employed persons compared to the United States as a whole  As of 2017, approximately 37 percent of Puerto Rico residents were employed compared to approximately 60 percent for the United States as a whole  Puerto Rico’s employment-to-population ratio reached highs in 2005 and 2006 when it was approximately 43 percent, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St  Louis  According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), between 2005 and 2017, Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate fluctuated between 10 2 percent and 17 0 percent, with an average of 13 1 percent  During the same period, the nationwide unemployment rate fluctuated between 4 1 percent and 10 0 percent, with an average of 6 5 percent  These factors have combined to leave Puerto Rico with a small and declining labor force  From January 2006 to December 2017—the latest month for which data were available as of March 1, 2018—Puerto Rico’s labor force decreased from approximately 1 4 million persons to 1 1 million persons, according to data from BLS  Puerto Rico’s government has operated with a deficit—where expenses exceed revenues—in each fiscal year since 2002, and its deficits grew over time (see figure 2)  Puerto Rico’s governmental activities can be divided among the primary government and component units  Puerto Rico’s primary government provides and funds services such as public safety, education, health care, and economic development  Puerto Rico’s component units are legally separate entities for which its government is nonetheless financially accountable, and provide services such as public transportation, highways, electricity, and water  In fiscal year 2014, the latest for which audited financial data are available, the Puerto Rico government collected $32 5 billion in revenue, of which $19 3 billion was collected by the primary government, and $13 2 billion was collected by the component units  That year Puerto Rico’s government spent $38 7 billion, of which $22 0 billion was spent directly by the primary government, while $16 7 billion was spent by the government’s various component units  The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), which operates the territory’s electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, represented the largest component unit expenditure in fiscal year 2014  Figures 3 and 4 show a breakdown of expenses for Puerto Rico’s primary government and its component units, respectively  Puerto Rico’s government spending accounts for more than a third of the territory’s GDP  In fiscal year 2014—the latest year for which audited spending data were available as of March 1, 2018—primary government expenditures of $22 0 billion represented 21 percent of the territory’s GDP  Including component spending, total public expenditures were $38 7 billion, which represented 38 percent of the territory’s GDP  By comparison, our prior work has shown that in 2014, total state and local government expenditures represented about 14 percent of GDP for the United States as a whole, excluding territories  Federal government expenditures were 20 percent of GDP for the United States as a whole in 2014  Puerto Rico’s total public debt as a share of its economy has grown over time  In 2002, the value of its debt was 42 percent of the territory’s GDP, and 67 percent of its GNP  Both of these ratios grew over time such that by 2014, Puerto Rico’s total public debt was 66 percent of the territory’s GDP and 99 percent of its GNP  Figure 5 compares Puerto Rico’s total public debt to its GDP and GNP, in both aggregate and per capita  As of the end of fiscal year 2014, the last year for which Puerto Rico issued audited financial statements, Puerto Rico had $67 8 billion in net public debt outstanding, or $68 1 billion excluding accounting adjustments that are not attributed in the financial statements to specific agencies  Of the $68 1 billion, $40 6 billion was owed by Puerto Rico’s primary government, and $27 6 billion was owed by its component units, as shown in figure 6 (these amounts do not sum to $68 1 billion because of rounding)  The growth of Puerto Rico’s total debt resulted in greater annual debt servicing obligations  In fiscal year 2002, it cost Puerto Rico $2 7 billion to service its debt, representing about 12 percent of Puerto Rico’s $21 6 billion in total public revenue for that year  By fiscal year 2014, Puerto Rico’s annual debt service cost rose to $5 0 billion, representing just over 15 percent of Puerto Rico’s $32 5 billion in total public revenue for that year  Following years of expenditures that exceeded revenue, and a growing debt burden, in August 2015, Puerto Rico failed to make a scheduled bond payment  Since then, Puerto Rico has defaulted on over $1 5 billion in debt  In June 2016, Congress enacted and the President signed PROMESA in response to Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis  PROMESA established a Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (Oversight Board), and granted it broad powers of fiscal and budgetary control over Puerto Rico  PROMESA also established a mechanism through which the Oversight Board could petition U S  courts on Puerto Rico’s behalf to restructure debt  Under federal bankruptcy laws, Puerto Rico is otherwise prohibited from authorizing its municipalities and instrumentalities from petitioning U S  courts to restructure debt  The Oversight Board petitioned the U S  courts to restructure debt on behalf of Puerto Rico’s Highways and Transportation Authority and the Government Employees Retirement System on May 21, 2017 and on behalf of PREPA on July 2, 2017  In addition to its debt obligations, Puerto Rico also faces a large financial burden from its pension obligations for public employees  Puerto Rico’s public pension systems had unfunded liabilities of approximately $49 billion as of the end of fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which data are available  Unfunded pension liabilities are similar to other kinds of debt because they constitute a promise to make a future payment or provide a benefit  Based on interviews with current and former Puerto Rico officials, federal officials, and other relevant experts, as well as a review of relevant literature, the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s financial condition and levels of debt related to: (1) Puerto Rico’s government running persistent deficits and (2) its use of debt to cope with deficits  As previously mentioned, Puerto Rico’s government has operated with a deficit in all years since 2002, and deficits grew over time  To cope with its deficits, Puerto Rico’s government issued debt to finance operations, rather than reduce its fiscal gap by cutting spending, raising taxes, or both  Through interviews with current and former Puerto Rico officials; federal officials; experts in Puerto Rico’s economy, the municipal securities markets, and state and local budgeting and debt management; as well as a review of relevant literature, we identified three groups of factors that contributed to Puerto Rico’s persistent deficits: (1) inadequate financial management and oversight practices, (2) policy decisions, and (3) prolonged economic contraction  Some of the factors in these groups may be interrelated  To cope with its persistent deficits, Puerto Rico issued debt to finance operations  In reviewing 20 of Puerto Rico’s largest bond issuances from 2000 to 2017, totaling around $31 billion, we found that 16 were issued exclusively to repay or refinance existing debt and to fund operations  According to ratings agency officials and experts in state and local government, states rarely issue debt to fund operations, and many states prohibit this practice  According to former Puerto Rico officials and experts on Puerto Rico’s economy, high demand for Puerto Rico debt and the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico (GDB) facilitating rising debt levels enabled Puerto Rico to continue to use debt to finance operations  Puerto Rico issued a relatively large amount of debt, given the size of its population  Based on an analysis of fiscal year 2014 comprehensive annual financial reports of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico had the second highest amount of outstanding debt among states and territories, while its population falls between the 29th and 30th most populous states  By comparison, California, the state with the largest amount of outstanding debt, is the most populated state  Various factors drove demand for Puerto Rico municipal bonds, even as the government’s financial condition deteriorated  Triple tax exemption: According to a former Puerto Rico official, Federal Reserve Bank of New York officials, and an expert on Puerto Rico’s economy, Puerto Rico’s municipal bonds were attractive to investors because interest on the bonds was not subjected to federal, state, or local taxes, regardless of where the investors resided  In contrast, investors may be required to pay state or local taxes on interest income earned from municipal securities issued by a state or municipality in which they do not reside  Investment grade bond ratings: Puerto Rico maintained investment grade bond ratings until February 2014, even as its financial condition was deteriorating  Credit ratings inform investment decisions by both institutional investors and broker dealers  According to a current Puerto Rico official and an expert on Puerto Rico’s economy, investment grade ratings for Puerto Rico municipal bonds may have driven demand for these securities in the states  Based on interviews with ratings agency officials and a review of rating agency criteria, we found that Puerto Rico may have maintained its investment grade rating for two reasons  First, Puerto Rico could not seek debt restructuring under federal bankruptcy laws, prior to the passage of PROMESA in 2016  According to rating agency officials, bonds with assumed bankruptcy protection tend to rate higher than those without such protection  Second, legal frameworks that prioritize debt service are often viewed as positive for credit ratings, according to rating agency criteria  In the event that the Puerto Rico government does not have sufficient resources to meet appropriations for a given fiscal year, Puerto Rico’s constitution requires that the government pay interest and amortization on the public debt before disbursing funds for other purposes in accordance with the order of priorities established by law  The prior Puerto Rico Governor cited this constitutional provision as providing the authority to redirect revenue streams from certain entities to the payment of general obligation debt  This redirection of revenue streams is commonly known as a clawback  Lack of transparency on its financial condition: Municipal market analysts told us that untimely financial information made it difficult for institutional and individual investors to assess Puerto Rico’s financial condition, which may have resulted in investors not being able to fully take the investment risks into account when purchasing Puerto Rico debt  According to one report, between 2010 and 2016 municipal issuers issued their audited financial statements an average of 200 days after the end of their fiscal years  However, between fiscal years 2002 and 2014, Puerto Rico issued its statements an average of 386 days after the end of its fiscal year, according to our analysis of Puerto Rico’s audited financial statements  Moreover, Puerto Rico had not issued its fiscal years 2015 and 2016 audited financial statements as of March 1, 2018, or 975 and 609 days after the end of those fiscal years, respectively  Estate tax structures: Puerto Rico residents had incentive to invest in municipal bonds issued in Puerto Rico over those issued in the United States because of federal and Puerto Rico estate tax structures  Current and former Puerto Rico officials told us that this incentive drove demand among Puerto Rico residents for bonds issued in Puerto Rico  For federal estate tax purposes, Puerto Rico residents are generally considered non-U S  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 


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 : 97 039 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: Puerto Rico has roughly $70 billion in outstanding debt and $50 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and since August 2015 has defaulted on over $1.5 billion in debt. The effects of Hurricanes Irma and Maria will further affect Puerto Rico's ability to repay its debt, as well as its economic condition. In response to Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis, Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Security Act (PROMESA) in 2016, which included a provision for GAO to review Puerto Rico's debt. This report describes the factors that contributed to Puerto Rico's financial condition and levels of debt and federal actions that could address these factors. Consistent with PROMESA, GAO focused on actions that would not increase the federal deficit. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from the Puerto Rico and federal governments and conducted a review of relevant literature. GAO also interviewed former Puerto Rico officials and experts in Puerto Rico's economy, the municipal securities markets, and state and territorial budgeting, financial management, and debt practices, as well as officials from the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (created by PROMESA). GAO is not making recommendations based on the federal actions identified because policymakers would need to consider challenges and tradeoffs related to implementation. The Puerto Rico government generally agreed with the factors we identified and provided additional information. GAO incorporated technical comments from SEC as appropriate. The factors that contributed to Puerto Rico's financial condition and levels of debt relate to (1) the Puerto Rico government running persistent annual deficits—where expenses exceed revenues—and (2) its use of debt to cope with deficits. Based on a literature review and interviews with current and former Puerto Rico officials, federal officials, and other relevant experts, GAO identified factors that contributed to Puerto Rico's persistent deficits: The Puerto Rico government's inadequate financial management and oversight practices. For example, the Puerto Rico government frequently overestimated the amount of revenue it would collect and Puerto Rico's agencies regularly spent more than the amounts Puerto Rico's legislature appropriated for a given fiscal year. Policy decisions by Puerto Rico's government. For example, Puerto Rico borrowed funds to balance budgets and insufficiently addressed public pension funding shortfalls. Puerto Rico's prolonged economic contraction. Examples of factors contributing to the contraction include outmigration and the resulting diminished labor force, and the high cost of importing goods and energy. Additional factors enabled Puerto Rico to use debt to finance its deficits, such as high demand for Puerto Rico debt. One cause of high demand was that under federal law, income from Puerto Rico bonds generally receives more favorable tax treatment than income from bonds issued by states and their localities. Based on an assessment of relevant literature and input from current and former Puerto Rico officials, federal officials, and other relevant experts, GAO identified three potential federal actions that may help address some of these factors. GAO also identified considerations for policymakers related to these actions. Modify the tax exempt status for Puerto Rico municipal debt. Making interest income from Puerto Rico bonds earned by investors residing outside of Puerto Rico subject to applicable state and local taxes could lower demand for Puerto Rico debt. However, reduced demand could hinder Puerto Rico's ability to borrow funds for capital investments or liquidity. Apply federal investor protection laws to Puerto Rico. Requiring Puerto Rico investment companies to disclose risks with Puerto Rico bonds and adhere to other requirements could lower demand for the bonds. However, this action could also limit Puerto Rico's ability to borrow funds. Modify the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) authority over municipal bond disclosure requirements. SEC could be allowed to require timely disclosure of materials—such as audited financial statements—associated with municipal bonds. Over the past decade, Puerto Rico often failed to provide timely audited financial statements related to its municipal bonds. Timely disclosure could help investors make informed decisions about investing in municipal bonds. However, a broad requirement could place additional burdens on all U.S. municipal issuers, such as the costs of standardizing reporting.

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



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

Report 1: Many consumer products—such as deodorants, shaving products, and hair care products—are differentiated to appeal specifically to men or women through differences in packaging, scent, or other product characteristics (see fig  1)  These differences related to gender can affect manufacturing and marketing costs that may contribute to price differences in products targeted to different genders  However, firms may also charge consumers different prices for the same (or very similar) goods and services even when there are no differences in costs to produce  To maximize profits, firms use a variety of techniques to charge prices close to the highest price different consumers are willing to pay  Firms may attempt to get segments of the consumer market to pay a higher price than another segment by slightly altering or differentiating the product  Based on the differentiated products, consumers self-select into different groups according to their preferences and what they are willing to pay  For example, some consumer goods have different versions of what is essentially the same product—except for differences in packaging or features, such as scent—with one version intended for women and another version intended for men  The two products may be priced differently because the firm expects that one gender will be willing to pay more for the product than the other based on preference for certain product attributes  Firms may also use some group characteristic, such as age or gender, to charge different prices because some groups may have differences in willingness or ability to pay  For example, a firm may offer discounted movie tickets to students or seniors, as they may have less disposable income  For the seller the cost of providing the movie is the same for any customer, but the seller is able to maximize its profits by offering tickets to different groups of customers at different prices  A firm’s ability to differentiate prices depends on multiple factors, such as the firm’s market power (so that competitors cannot put downward pressure on prices to eliminate the price differences), the presence of consumer segments with different demands and willingness to pay, and control over the sale of its product so it cannot be easily resold to exploit price differences  In addition, the extent to which consumers pay different prices for the same or similar goods can depend on other factors, such as consumers’: willingness to purchase an item they believe may be priced higher for ability to compare prices and product characteristics and choose a product based on its characteristics rather than its price, choices about whether to purchase a more expensive version of the product (e g , a branded item versus a cheaper store brand), choices about where to purchase the item (i e , when different retailers sell the same item at different prices), and use of coupons or promotions  No federal law expressly prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar consumer goods and services targeted to men and women  However, consumer protection laws do prohibit sex discrimination in credit and real estate transactions  Specifically, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants based on sex or certain other characteristics and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in the housing market on the basis of sex or certain other characteristics  ECOA and FHA (collectively known as the fair lending laws) prohibit lenders from, among other things, refusing to extend credit or using different standards in determining to extend credit based on sex  Credit, such as a credit card account or mortgage loan, is generally made available and priced based on a number of risk factors, including credit score, income, and employment history  A borrower with a lower credit score is likely to pay a higher interest rate on a loan, reflecting the greater risk to the lender that the borrower could default on the loan  In addition to the interest rate, borrowing costs for consumers can also include fees and other costs charged by lenders or brokers  However, there may be differences in average outcomes for men and women—such as for availability of credit or interest rates—if there are differences related to gender in the factors that determine creditworthiness, such as income  BCFP, FTC, the federal prudential regulators, and DOJ have the authority to investigate alleged violations of ECOA and are primarily responsible for enforcing the act’s requirements, while HUD and DOJ share responsibility for enforcing the provisions of FHA  Further, BCFP and the prudential regulators oversee regulated entities for compliance with ECOA by, among other things, collecting complaints from the public and through routine inspections of the financial institutions they oversee  HUD and DOJ have the authority to bring enforcement actions for alleged violations of FHA  In 5 out of 10 product categories we analyzed, personal care products targeted to women sold at higher average prices than those targeted to men after controlling for certain observable factors  For 2 of the 10 product categories, men’s versions sold at higher average prices  While the factors we controlled for likely proxy for various costs and consumer preferences, we could not fully observe all underlying differences in costs and demand for products targeted to different genders  As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the gender-based price differences we observed may be attributed to gender bias as opposed to other factors  Women’s versions of personal care products sold at a statistically significant higher average price than men’s versions for 5 of the 10 personal care product categories we analyzed—using two different price measures and after controlling for observable factors that could affect price, such as brands, product size or quantity, promotional expenses (see table 1) and other product-specific attributes (e g , scent, special claims, form)  Because women’s and men’s versions of the same product were frequently sold in different sizes, we compared prices using two price measures: average item price and average price per ounce or count of product  For 2 of the 10 product categories—shaving gel and nondisposable razors—men’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher price using both price measures  For one category (razor blades), women’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher average price per count, but there was no gender price difference using average item prices  Additionally, for two product categories—disposable razors and mass-market perfumes—there were no statistically significant price differences between men’s and women’s products using either price measure  In addition to this analysis of retail price scanner data, we also manually collected advertised online prices for a limited selection of personal care products targeted to women and men from several online retailers  Some price comparisons of advertised online prices for men’s and women’s versions of a product were similar to comparisons of average prices paid based on the Nielsen retail price scanner data  For example, for three pairs of comparable underarm deodorants, the women’s deodorant was listed at a higher price per ounce on average than the men’s deodorant (see app  II)  In addition, for one pair of shaving gel products we analyzed, the men’s shaving gel was listed at a higher price per ounce on average  However, for both pairs of nondisposable razors we analyzed, the women’s razors were listed at a higher average price per count than the men’s razors  This contrasted with the Nielsen data showing that men’s nondisposable razors sold at higher prices on average than women’s  An important limitation of our analysis of these advertised prices is that we were unable to determine the extent to which consumers actually paid these prices and in what volume the products were sold, and our results are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers  Though we found that the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences we identified, we do not have sufficient information to determine the extent to which these gender- related price differences were due to gender bias as opposed to other factors  Versions differentiated to appeal to men and women can result in different costs for the manufacturer  Our econometric analysis controlled for many observable factors related to costs, such as product size, promotional activity, and packaging type  We also controlled for many product attributes such as forms, scents, and special claims that products make to account for underlying manufacturing cost differences  In addition, we controlled for brands, which can reflect consumer preferences  However, we do not have firm-level data on all cost differences—for example, those related to advertising and packaging  As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the price differences we observed may be explained by remaining cost differences between men’s and women’s products  We also do not have the data to determine the extent to which men and women have different demands and willingness to pay for a product, which would be expected to affect the prices firms charge for differentiated products  For example, some academic experts we spoke with said that women may value some product attributes, such as design and scent, more than men do  If products differentiated to incorporate those attributes do not result in different costs, then differences in prices could be part of a firm’s pricing strategy based on the willingness of one gender to pay more than another  The conditions necessary for firms to be able to implement a strategy of price differentiation likely exist for the personal care products we analyzed  First, our analysis suggests that due to industry concentration, there is limited market competition for the 10 personal care products we analyzed  With more market power, firms can more easily set different prices for different consumer segments  Second, firms have the ability to segment the market for personal care products by tailoring product characteristics related to gender, such as by labeling the product as women’s deodorant or men’s deodorant, or by altering scent or colors  Third, while men and women are able to freely purchase a product targeted to the opposite gender, certain factors may limit the extent to which this occurs  For example, some product differences such as scents may discourage one gender from buying products targeted to another gender  In addition, consumers may find it difficult and time- consuming to compare prices for similar men’s and women’s products because of the ways they are differentiated (such as product size and scents) and because they may be sold in different parts of a store  We reviewed studies that compared prices for men and women in four markets where the product or service is not differentiated by gender: mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs  First, we reviewed studies on mortgage and small business credit that analyzed interest rates and access to credit to identify any differences for men and women  Second, we reviewed studies that compared prices quoted to men and women in auto purchase and repair markets  However, several of these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable  Studies we reviewed found that women as a group pay higher interest rates on average than men in part due to weaker credit characteristics  After controlling for borrower credit characteristics and other factors, three studies did not find statistically significant differences in interest rates between men and women for the same type of mortgage, while one study found that women paid higher mortgage rates for certain subprime loans  In addition, one study found that female borrowers defaulted less frequently on their loans than male borrowers with similar credit characteristics, suggesting that women as a group may pay higher mortgage rates than men relative to their default risk  While these studies attempted to control for factors other than gender or sex that could affect borrowing costs, several lacked important data on certain borrower risk characteristics  For example, several studies we reviewed rely on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) data, which did not include data on risk factors such as borrower credit scores that could affect analysis of disparities between men and women  Also, several studies analyzed nonrepresentative samples of loans, such as subprime loans or loans originated more than 10 years ago, which limits the generalizability of the results (see table 2)  Three of the studies we reviewed found that while women on average were charged higher interest rates on mortgage loans than men, this difference was not statistically significant after controlling for other factors  For example, one study found that differences in mortgage interest rates between men and women became insignificant after controlling for differences in how men and women shop for mortgage rates  The authors used data from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) to analyze the effect on interest rates of mortgage features, borrower characteristics such as gender, and market conditions  However, their analysis did not include data on some borrower credit characteristics such as credit score and debt-to-income ratio that could affect borrowing costs  Another study found that women were charged higher interest rates for subprime loans made in 2005, but once the authors controlled for observed risk characteristics there was no evidence of disparity in interest rates by gender of the borrower in the subprime market  However, the authors’ data did not include any fees paid at loan origination, which could affect the overall cost of borrowing  A third study that examined disparities between men and women in subprime loans found no significant evidence that gender affected the cost of borrowing within the subprime market, though it did find that women—particularly African American women—were more likely to have subprime loans  The authors found that, even after controlling for some financial characteristics and loan terms, single African American women were more likely than non-Hispanic white couples to have subprime loans  One study analyzed subprime loans made by one large lender from 2003 through 2005 and found that women paid more for subprime mortgages than men after controlling for some risk factors  This study found that women had higher average borrowing costs—as measured by annual percentage rate—than men, and controlling for credit characteristics such as credit scores and debt-to-income ratios did not fully explain the differences  However, the authors did not control for other factors that could also affect borrowing costs, such as differences in education, shopping behaviors, and geographic location  Additionally, a research paper found that female-only borrowers—that is, where the only borrower is a woman—default less than male-only borrowers with similar loans and credit characteristics  The authors found that female-only borrowers on average pay more for their mortgage loans because they generally have weaker credit characteristics, such as lower income, and also because a higher percentage of these mortgage loans are subprime  However, after controlling for credit characteristics such as credit score, loan term, and loan-to-value ratio, among others, the analysis showed that these weaker credit characteristics do not accurately predict how well women pay their mortgage loans  Since pricing is tied to credit characteristics and not performance, women may pay more relative to their actual risk than do similar men  Studies we reviewed on small business loans generally did not find differences in interest rates, though some found differences in denial rates and other accessibility issues between female- and male-owned firms  Most of the studies we reviewed used data from the 1993, 1998, or 2003 Survey of Small Business Finances (SSBF), which could limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today  A study that analyzed data from the 1993 SSBF did not find evidence that businesses owned by women paid more for credit than firms owned by white men  However, when the authors took into account the market concentration and competition, they found that white female-owned firms experienced increased denial rates in less competitive markets  In addition, the study found that women may avoid applying for credit in those markets because of the fear of being denied  For example, almost half of all small business owners who needed credit reported that they did not apply for credit, and these rates were even higher for businesses owned by women and minorities  Other studies found that women may have less access to small business credit than men, in part because of higher denial rates and because they may not apply for credit out of fear of rejection  For example, one study found that women-owned firms have higher loan denial rates compared with men; however, this is mainly due to differences in business characteristics of female- and male-owned firms  The authors also found that even when denial rates are the same for small businesses with similar characteristics, women’s loan application rates are lower, suggesting that women may be discouraged from applying for credit by the higher overall denial rates for female-owned firms  Another study by one of the same authors examined the reasons why female borrowers may be discouraged from applying for a business loan compared to male business owners and found that it was mainly because they fear that their application will be rejected  A third study by the same author found that women in general did not have less access to credit than men, though newer female-owned firms received significantly lower loan amounts than requested compared to their male-owned counterparts  Similarly, the study also found that women with few years of experience managing or owning a business received significantly lower loan amounts compared with men with similar years of experience  A fourth study looked at six different types of loans, including lines of credit, and found that white women were significantly more likely than white men to avoid applying for a loan because they assume they would be denied  However, once the authors’ model controlled for education differences, all gender disparities in applying for credit disappeared, though white women were still less likely than white men to have loans  Studies we reviewed on auto purchases and repairs found that a seller’s expectation of what customers are willing to pay and how informed they seemed can differ by gender, which can affect the price customers are quoted  However, these studies were published in 1995 and 2001, which may limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today  The 2001 study we reviewed on auto purchases found that though women paid higher prices than men for car purchases on average, these differences declined when cars were purchased online  The authors suggest that this may be because Internet consumers can effectively convey their level of price knowledge and therefore may seem better informed to the sellers  They also suggest it could be because the dealerships have less information about online consumers and their willingness to pay, which may limit the extent of price differentiation  The 1995 study on auto purchases found that the dealers quoted significantly lower prices to white males than to female or African American test buyers using identical, scripted bargaining strategies in part because dealers may have made assumptions about women’s willingness to bargain for lower prices  We also reviewed one study on auto repairs that found that women were quoted higher prices than men if they seemed uninformed about the cost of car repair when requesting a quote, but the price differences disappeared if the study participant mentioned an expected price  The study suggests that a potential explanation for this result could be that auto repair shops expect women to accept a price that is higher than the market average and men to accept a price below it  BCFP and HUD have responsibilities to monitor consumer complaints in the consumer credit and housing markets, respectively  Additionally, FTC monitors complaints about the consumer credit and consumer goods markets  All three agencies play a role in potentially monitoring or addressing issues of gender-related price differences and have online complaint forms for submission of consumer complaints: BCFP collects and reviews consumer complaints about financial products and services and provides complaints and related data in its Consumer Complaint Database  In 2017 BCFP received approximately 320,200 consumer complaints  The products that generated the most complaints in 2017 were “Credit or consumer reporting,” “Debt collection,” and “Mortgage " According to BCFP officials, BCFP also analyzes loan and demographics data collected through HMDA and other data sources to monitor and identify market trends  In addition, BCFP and the federal financial regulators examine fair lending practices of the institutions they regulate, and these examinations have uncovered sex discrimination in credit products by FDIC and NCUA  FTC receives complaints and the complaints are stored in the Consumer Sentinel Network, a database of consumer complaints received by FTC, as well as those filed with other federal and state agencies and organizations, such as mass marketing fraud complaints from the Council of Better Business Bureaus  The complaints in the Consumer Sentinel Network focus on consumer fraud, identity theft, and other consumer protection matters, such as debt collection, and can include complaints related to consumer credit markets  HUD receives consumer complaints about potential FHA violations through its website, via its toll-free phone hotline, and in writing  HUD monitors those complaints through its online HUD Enforcement Management System  HUD investigates all complaints for which it has jurisdictional authority  HUD may monitor complaints to identify trends, but HUD officials stated that the agency does not generally monitor consumer credit and housing market data, absent a specific complaint  In cases where HUD has jurisdictional authority under FHA, HUD offers conciliation between the parties  If resolution is not reached, and HUD determines there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the parties may elect to have the matter heard in U S  District Court or at HUD  In their oversight of federal antidiscrimination statutes, BCFP officials said they have not identified significant consumer concerns about price differences based on a consumer’s sex or gender  FTC and HUD officials identified some examples of concerns of this nature  For example, FTC has taken enforcement actions alleging unlawful race- and gender-related price differences  HUD has also identified several cases where pregnant women and their partners applied for a mortgage while the woman was on maternity leave, and the couple’s mortgage loan application was denied  BCFP, FTC, and HUD have received few consumer complaints about price differences related to sex or gender, according to our analysis of a sample of each agency’s 2012–2017 complaint data (see table 3)  In separate samples of 100 gender-related complaints at BCFP, HUD, and FTC, we found that 0, 4, and 1 complaint, respectively, were related to price differences based on sex or gender  Three of the complaints from HUD also cited differences in price based on other protected classes (such as race or ethnicity)  Half of the academic experts and consumer groups we interviewed told us that in some markets it is difficult for consumers to observe and compare prices paid by other consumers, such as when prices are not posted or can be negotiated (e g , car sales)  In such cases, consumers may not know if other consumers are paying a higher or lower price than the price quoted to them  Most academic experts also told us that when consumers are aware that price differences could exist, they may make different decisions when making purchases  Additionally, officials from BCFP noted that price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify, or that consumers may not know where to complain  The consumer education resources of BCFP, FTC, and HUD provide general consumer education resources on discrimination (i e , consumer user guide or a website) and consumer awareness  Officials from BCFP and HUD said they have not identified a need to develop other consumer education resources specific to gender-related price differences  For example, BCFP’s print and online consumer education materials are intended to inform consumers of their rights and protections related to credit discrimination, which includes discrimination based on sex or gender  The three agencies’ consumer education materials also provide advice that could help consumers avoid paying higher prices regardless of their gender—such as home-buying resources and resources on comparison shopping  However, the agencies have not developed additional educational resources focused specifically on potential gender- related price differences in part because few complaints on this topic have been collected in their databases, agency officials told us  FTC officials noted that it tries to focus its education efforts on topics that will have the greatest benefit to consumers, often determined by information it gathers through complaints and investigations  Representatives of five consumer groups and industry associations told us that they have received few complaints about gender-related price differences  However, four consumer groups noted that low concern could be the result of consumers being unaware of price differences related to gender  For example, as indicated above, price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify when they cannot determine whether they are paying a higher price than others  Representatives of two retailing industry associations similarly stated that they have not heard concerns about price differences related to gender  In response to consumer complaints or concerns about gender disparities in pricing, at least one state (California) and two municipalities (Miami- Dade County and New York City) have passed laws or ordinances to prohibit businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar goods or services solely based on gender (see table 4)  In addition, two of these laws included requirements related to promoting price transparency  California enacted the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar services based on a consumer’s gender  The law also requires certain businesses to display price information and disclose prices upon request, according to state officials with whom we spoke  Similarly, in 1997, Miami-Dade County passed the Gender Pricing Ordinance, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices based solely on a consumer’s gender (though businesses are permitted to charge different prices if the goods or services involve more time, difficulty, or cost)  In the same year, it also passed an ordinance that prohibits dry cleaning businesses from charging different prices for similar services based on gender  This ordinance also requires those businesses to post all prices on a clear and conspicuous sign, according to county officials with whom we spoke  State and local officials we interviewed identified benefits and challenges associated with these laws  For example, California, New York City, and Miami-Dade County officials noted that these laws give them the ability to intervene to address pricing practices that may lead to discrimination based on gender  In addition, California state officials said that the state’s efforts to implement the Gender Tax Repeal Act helped to improve consumer awareness about gender price differences  However, officials from California and Miami-Dade County cited challenges associated with tracking relevant complaints  For example, Miami-Dade County’s online complaint form includes a narrative section but does not ask for the complainant’s gender  Consumers do not always identify their gender in the narrative or state that that was the reason for their treatment  Additionally, officials from California and Miami-Dade County stated that seeking out violations would be very resource-intensive, and they rely on residents to submit complaints about violations  We provided a draft of this report to BCFP, DOJ, FTC, and HUD  BCFP, FTC, and HUD provided technical comments on the report draft, which we incorporated where 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 appropriate congressional committees, BCFP, DOJ, FTC, HUD, and other interested parties  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) 512-8678 or cackleya@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 VI  We used a multivariate regression model to estimate the effect of gender (to which a product is targeted to) on the price of that product while controlling for other factors that may also affect the product’s price  The factors that we controlled for were the product size, promotional and packaging costs, and other product characteristics discussed in detail later  We used scanner data from the Nielsen Company (Nielsen) for calendar year 2016 and analyzed the following 10 product categories: (1) underarm deodorants, (2) body deodorants, (3) shaving cream, (4) shaving gel, (5) disposable razors, (6) nondisposable razors, (7) razor blades, (8) designer perfumes, (9) mass-market perfumes, and (10) mass-market body sprays  We estimated the following regression model for each of our 10 product categories: P=α+β*Male + λ* Size + θ*Owner +η*Promotion+ μ*X + δ*Y + ε The dependent variable P in the above equation represents price  For our analysis, we constructed two measures of price  The first is the item price, estimated as the total dollar sales of an item (each item is depicted by a unique Universal Product Code (UPC) in the Nielsen data), divided by the total units sold of that item  The second measure of price that we use is price per ounce or price per count  This is estimated as the item price divided by the total quantity of product, where quantity or size depicts the number of ounces (as in the case of fragrances) or the count of blades in razor blade packs  The total quantity of the product is the ounces or counts of one item multiplied by the number of items included in a specific product configuration  For example, a 2-pack of deodorant sticks where each deodorant stick is 2 7 ounces would be a total quantity of 5 4 ounces  The variable Male in the above equation is an indicator variable depicting whether the product is designated as a “men’s” product in the Nielsen data  It is represented as a value of “1” for men’s products and a value of “0” for women’s products  The co-efficient for this variable, parameter β, would therefore show the price difference between a men’s and women’s product  A negative value would imply a lower price for products designated as men’s products  The variable Size represents the most appropriate specification of the size of the product  Owner is a set of indicator variables representing all the brand owners selling a particular product  The brand of a product can be expected to have a substantial effect on prices for the kind of products we analyze because brands can be a proxy for quality for some consumers  However, we also found that firms often create gender-specific brands, so holding brands constant rendered most gender-based price comparisons infeasible  To overcome this, we hold owners instead of brands constant for our price comparison analysis  The variable Promotion represents the percentage of dollar sales that were sold on any type of promotion  This variable proxies for promotional costs to some extent based on the assumption that the greater the proportion of sales due to promotional activity, the greater the promotional costs  The variables X represent a set of indicator variables for packaging characteristics such as package delivery method (for example, roll-on or aerosol spray deodorants) or package shape (for example, bottle, tube, or can)  We expect these characteristics to proxy for different costs associated with different packaging methods  The variables Y represent a set of indicator variables representing different product characteristics (for example, forms such as gel stick or smooth solid and claims such as “active cooling” or “anti-wetness” for underarm deodorants, and blade types such as “triple edge” and “flexible six” for razors)


Report 2:  These product characteristics may proxy for some underlying manufacturing costs or even consumer preferences  Since firms may create gender-specific product attributes—scents like “sweet petals” and “pure sport” or razor head types and colors to differentiate products between genders—we did not always keep every product attribute constant when comparing prices  The idiosyncratic error term is represented by ε  All of our regressions are weighted, with the proportion of units sold for a particular item in that year as the weight  This is because, for personal care products, there are large differences in units sold of various product types and brands, and therefore it not useful to compare simple un- weighted average prices  For example, for one company the highest selling men’s deodorant stick sold almost 12 million units in 2016, and the highest selling women’s deodorant stick sold over 8 million units  The average units sold for underarm deodorants as a whole was just over 300,000 units, and 1,000 products out of a total of almost 3,000 products had less than 100 units sold in 2016  The linear model we used has the usual shortcomings of being subject to specification bias to the extent the relationship between price and each of the independent variables is not linear  The model also does not include complete data on costs, such as advertising and packaging, or consumers’ willingness to pay, both of which have an effect on the price differences  The model may thus also be subject to omitted variable bias  In addition, the model may have some endogeneity issues to the extent the product characteristics themselves are influenced by consumers’ willingness to pay for some of those product features  To reduce the impact of any model misspecifications or heteroscedasticity, we used the robust (or Huber-White sandwich) estimator  We estimated the regression model above for each of the 10 products separately and for each of the two measures of price  We used Nielsen’s in-store, retail price scanner data, which include information on total volume sold and dollar sales for items purchased at 228 retailers including grocery stores, drug stores, mass merchandisers (such as Target), dollar stores, club stores (such as Sam’s Club), and convenience stores  The data capture 82 percent of all U S  sales  Nielsen also projects sales for the remaining noncooperating retailers, and that information is included in this dataset  We excluded some very small brands that did not have enough units sold from our regression analysis in order to avoid outliers  These brands usually had less than 50,000 units sold over the entire year, and for some products they represented less than 1 percent of all units sold  We found that average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women’s products than for men’s in 5 out of 10 personal care products  In 2 categories, men’s versions sold at a significantly higher price  One category had mixed results based on two price measures analyzed, and two others showed no significant gender price differences  A summary of our regression results is presented in table 5  We manually collected prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from the websites of four online retailers that also operated physical store locations  We selected comparable pairs of similar men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were sold at most or all of the four retailers  The products were selected based on several comparability factors such as brand, product claims, and number of blades in a razor  For two 1-week time periods in January and March 2018, we collected prices manually between 1:00 p m  and 7:00 p m  (ET) over two 7-day time periods  We collected listed prices and did not adjust the prices for any promotions that were available, such as online coupons or buy-one-get-one-free offers  Table 6 presents the results of our online price collection  These results have important limitations: The average prices shown are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers  The data reflect prices advertised to consumers rather than the prices consumers actually paid  The data do not capture the volume of sales for each item for each retailer; in our analysis, we weighted all advertised prices equally across the retailers  As a result, differences we found within these advertised prices may not have translated into comparable differences in prices female and male consumers paid for these products online  The prices do not reflect any promotional discounts, volume discounts, or other discounts that may have been available to some or all consumers  This report examines (1) how prices compared for selected categories of consumer goods that are differentiated for men and women, and potential reasons for any significant price differences; (2) what is known about the extent to which men and women may pay different prices in, or experience different levels of access to, markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender; (3) the extent to which federal agencies have identified and taken steps to address any concerns about gender-related price differences; and (4) state and local government efforts to address concerns about gender-related price differences  To compare prices for selected goods that are differentiated for men and women, we purchased and analyzed Nielsen Company (Nielsen) data on retail prices paid for 10 personal care product categories for calendar year 2016  The product categories included underarm deodorants, body deodorants (typically sold as a spray), disposable razors, nondisposable razors, razor blades, shaving creams, shaving gels, and three categories of fragrances  We selected these categories of personal care products because they are commonly purchased consumer goods that were categorized by gender in the Nielsen data  The women’s and men’s versions of personal care products we selected are generally more similar in terms of the form, size, and packaging in comparison to certain other consumer product categories that are also differentiated by gender, such as clothing  We used regression models to analyze data on retail prices paid for the 10 categories of personal care products differentiated for women and men  To assess the reliability of the Nielsen data, we reviewed relevant documentation and conducted interviews with Nielsen representatives to review steps they took to collect and ensure the reliability of the data  In addition, we electronically tested data fields for missing values, outliers, and obvious errors  We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  For more details on the methodology for, and limitations of, our analysis of these retail price data, see appendix I  We also manually collected listed prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from four different retailer websites over two 7-day periods in January and March 2018  For each pair, we selected comparable men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were commonly sold across retailers  For more details on our online price data collection and the limitations associated with interpreting the results, see appendix II  To examine what is known about the extent to which men and women may be offered different prices or access for the same goods or services, we reviewed academic literature identified through a literature search covering the last 25 years  To identify existing studies from peer-reviewed journals, we conducted searches using subject and keyword searches of various databases, such as EconLit, Scopus, ProQuest, and Social SciSearch  We also used a snowball search technique—meaning we reviewed relevant academic literature cited in our selected studies—to identify additional studies  We performed these searches and identified articles from December 2016 to April 2018  From these searches, we identified 21 studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals or research institutions’ publications from 1995 through 2016 and were relevant to gender-related price differences for the same products  We reviewed and assessed each study’s evaluation methodology based on generally accepted social science standards  See the bibliography at the end of this report for a list of the 21 studies  We then summarized the research findings  A GAO economist read and assessed each study, using the same data collection instrument  The assessment focused on information such as the types of disparities examined, the research design and data sources used, and methods of data analysis  The assessment also focused on the quality of the data used in the studies as reported by the researchers and any limitations of data sources for the purposes for which they were used  A second GAO economist reviewed each completed data collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information included  As a result, the 21 studies that we selected for our review met our criteria for methodological quality  We found the studies we reviewed to be reliable for purposes of determining what is known about price differences for the same products  However, these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable  To examine the federal role in overseeing gender-related price differences, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and agency guidance, and interviewed officials from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)  To help identify the extent of concerns about gender-related price differences, we interviewed representatives from eight consumer groups, three industry associations, and four academic experts  Additionally, we reviewed a sample of consumer complaints from databases managed by BCFP, FTC, and HUD (Consumer Complaint Database, Consumer Sentinel Network, and Enforcement Management System, respectively)  Complaints were submitted by consumers across the United States about various financial products, housing grievances, and other consumer protection concerns  To identify our universe of gender-related consumer complaints in BCFP and FTC databases, we used the following search terms that targeted sex or gender discrimination: discriminat, unfair, treat, decept, abus, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, sex, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, and sex  HUD’s consumer complaint database is categorized by protected class (e g , race, sex, national origin), so we did not need to use search terms to identify gender-related complaints  For the years 2012 through 2017, we identified 6,117 BCFP consumer complaint narratives; 10,472 FTC consumer complaints narratives; and 5,421 HUD consumer complaint narratives that were relevant to our scope  We then drew a stratified random probability sample of 100 gender-related consumer complaints from each database  To determine which complaints in our samples were about price differences related to gender or sex, two team members read through each complaint narrative and coded whether or not the complainant’s narrative indicated that they felt that they paid or were charged more because of their gender or sex  A third team member conducted a final review of the results, and made a final determination in cases where there were differences in the first two team member’s assessments  With this probability sample, each member of the study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that probability could be computed for any member  We followed a probability procedure based on random selections and our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn  Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (with a margin of error of 5 9 percent)  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing documentation and interviewing agency officials about the databases used to collect these complaints  We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of identifying complaints of gender- related price differences  To explore state and local efforts to address concerns about gender- related price differences, we conducted a literature search and identified three state or local laws or ordinances that specifically address gender- related price differences: California, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and New York City, New York  We reviewed these laws and ordinances and interviewed officials from these jurisdictions to discuss motivations for, oversight of, and the impact of these laws  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to August 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  For each of 10 personal care product categories we analyzed, we compared the overall average prices for women’s products and men’s products using two measures of average price: average item price and average price per ounce or count  While the second price measure adjusts the average price for quantity of product, these comparisons did not take into account the effect on price of differences in product brand, packaging, and other characteristics  As shown in table 7, adjusting the average item price to account for differences in product quantity (ounces or count) significantly affected the size and magnitude of gender price differences for several product categories  This is because men’s products in the dataset were frequently larger in size or count compared with women’s products in the same category  For example, women’s disposable razors sold for 11 percent less than those targeted to men when we compared average item prices  However, when we compared average price per count of razors, women’s disposable razors sold for 19 percent more on average than men’s  This is because women’s disposable razors had on average about one fewer razor per package  In 5 out of 10 product categories, women’s versions of the product on average sold for a higher price per ounce or count than men’s and these differences were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level for 4 products and at the 90 percent level for one product  Information about sales and relative sizes of different products targeted to men and women are presented in table 8 below  This appendix provides additional details about the consumer complaint processes at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  Consumers with a complaint about unfair treatment related to gender could submit a complaint to one of these agencies  BCFP and FTC monitor consumer complaints related to violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, while HUD and the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate housing discrimination complaints under the Fair Housing Act  These complaints could be about price differences because of gender  Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, John Fisher (Assistant Director), Jeff Harner (Analyst in Charge), Vida Awumey, Bethany Benitez, Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Kelsey Kreider, and Kelsey Sagawa made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Abigail Brown, Michael Hoffman, Jill Lacey, Oliver Richard, Tovah Rom, and Paul Schmidt  We reviewed literature to identify what is known about the extent to which female and male consumers may face different prices or access in markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender  This bibliography contains citations for the 20 studies and articles that we reviewed that compared prices or access for female and male consumers in markets where the product is not differentiated by gender (mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs)  Asiedu, Elizabeth, James A  Freeman, and Akwasi Nti-Addae  “Access to Credit by Small Businesses: How Relevant Are Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?” The American Economic Review, vol  102, no  3 (2012): 532- 537  Ayers, Ian and Peter Siegelman  “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car ” The American Economic Review, vol  85, no  3  (1995): 304-321  Blanchard, Lloyd, Bo Zhaob, and John Yinger  “Do lenders discriminate against minority and woman entrepreneurs?” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (2008): 467–497  Blanchflower, David G , Phillip B  Levine, and David J  Zimmerman  “Discrimination in the Small-Business Credit Market ” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol  85, no  4 (2003): 930-943  Busse, Meghan R , Ayelet Israeli, and Florian Zettelmeyer  “Repairing the Damage: The Effect of Price Expectations on Auto Repair Price Quotes ” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 19154 (2013)  Cavalluzzo, Ken S , Linda C  Cavalluzzo, and John D  Wolken  “Competition, Small Business Financing, and Discrimination: Evidence from a New Survey ” The Journal of Business, vol  75, no  4 (2002): 641- 679  Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu  “Do Women Pay More for Mortgages?” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol  43 (2011): 423-440  Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu  “Racial Discrepancy in Mortgage Interest Rates ” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol  51 (2015): 101-120  Cole, Rebel, and Tatyana Sokolyk  “Who Needs Credit and Who Gets Credit? Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances”  Journal of Financial Stability, vol  24 (2016), 40-60  Coleman, Susan  “Access to Debt Capital for Women- and Minority- Owned Small Firms: Does Educational Attainment Have an Impact?” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol  9, no  2 (2004): 127-143  Duesterhas, Megan, Liz Grauerholz, Rebecca Weichsel, and Nicholas A  Guittar  “The Cost of Doing Femininity: Gendered Disparities in Pricing of Personal Care Products and Services,” Gender Issues, vol  28, (2011): 175-191  Goodman, Laurie, Jun Zhu, and Bing Bai  “Women Are Better than Men at Paying Their Mortgages ” Urban Institute, Research Report (2016)  Haughwout, Andrew, et al  “Subprime Mortgage Pricing: The Impact of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender on the Cost of Borrowing ” Brookings- Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2009): 33-63  Mijid, Naranchimeg  “Gender differences in Type 1 credit rationing of small businesses in the US ” Cogent Economics & Finance, vol  3 (2015)  Mijid, Naranchimeg  “Why are female small business owners in the United States less likely to apply for bank loans than their male counterparts?” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, vol  27, no  2 (2015): 229- 249  Mijid, Naranchimeg and Alexandra Bernasek  “Gender and the credit rationing of small businesses ” The Social Science Journal, vol  50 (2013): 55-65  Morton, Fiona Scott, Florian Zettelmeyer, and Jorge Silva-Risso  “Consumer Information and Price Discrimination: Does the Internet Affect the Pricing of New Cars to Women and Minorities?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8668 (2001)  O’Connor, Sally  “The Impact of Gender in the Mortgage Credit Market ” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Doctoral Dissertation (1996)  Van Rensselaer, Kristy N , et al  “Mortgage Pricing and Gender: A Study of New Century Financial Corporation ” Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, vol  18, no  4 (2014): 95-110  Wyly, Elvin and C S  Ponder  “Gender, age, and race in subprime America ” Housing Policy Debate, vol  21, no  4 (2011): 529-564  Zimmerman Treichel, Monica and Jonathan A  Scott  “Women-Owned Businesses and Access to Bank Credit: Evidence from Three Surveys Since 1987 ” Venture Capital, vol  8, no  1 (2006): 51-67 

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.