This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-496 entitled 'Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution' which was released on March 07, 2003. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. Report to Congressional Requesters: United States General Accounting Office: GAO: March 2003: Unemployment Insurance: States’ Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution: Unemployment Insurance: GAO-03-496: Contents: Letter: Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: Appendix II: Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts: Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions: Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State, as of 11-30-2002: Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New UI Trust Fund Balances and Average High Cost Multiples (AHCM): Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements Made in CY2002, by State: Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer Taxes as Reported by States: Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law for UI, ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002: Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002: Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002: Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Staff Acknowledgments: Abbreviations: ES: Employment Services: UI: Unemployment Insurance: This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC 20548: March 6, 2003: The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate: The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives: The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor in partnership with states, plays a critical role in ensuring the financial security of America’s workforce. In fiscal year 2002, state UI programs paid benefits totaling $50.8 billion to 10.6 million unemployed workers.[Footnote 1] In March 2002, in response to an increase in unemployment and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This broad stimulus package included a distribution to states of $8 billion of the unemployment tax revenue it holds in reserve, referred to as a Reed Act distribution.[Footnote 2] Under the act, these funds may be used to pay UI benefits, and/or to enhance UI benefits, such as increasing weekly benefit payments, extending the period of time benefits are paid, or otherwise expanding eligibility to groups that currently do not qualify for benefits. The funds may also be used for the administration of UI and employment services (ES) programs, including one-stop service centers, if appropriated by state law.[Footnote 3] You asked us to determine how states used their calendar year (CY) 2002 Reed Act distributions. This report provides information on (1) the proportion of Reed Act dollars that states have spent, to date; (2) the proportion of total Reed Act dollars that remains in state UI trust funds and the effect this has had on employer UI taxes; (3) the proportion of those Reed Act dollars remaining in state UI trust funds that have been officially obligated to their trust funds or appropriated by state law for administering the UI, ES, or one-stop systems; and (4) the makeup of state UI advisory boards and any proposals they have made for using Reed Act dollars. To obtain this information, we surveyed state workforce agency administrators in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We also reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and other documents and data relevant to unemployment insurance and Reed Act distributions and interviewed Labor officials responsible for overseeing state activities related to the CY2002 Reed Act distribution. This work was conducted from August 2002 through February 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. On February 24, 2003, we briefed your staff on the results of our work. This report conveys the information provided during that briefing. In summary, we found that about 17 percent ($1.34 billion) of the $8 billion CY2002 Reed Act distribution had been spent as of November 30, 2002, based on responses to our survey. Most was expended by three states to pay regular benefits--New York, North Carolina, and Texas. A small portion ($74 million) was expended on costs associated with administering UI, ES, or one-stop systems. One state spent Reed Act dollars to increase weekly UI benefit payments, and five other states said that the Reed Act dollars enabled their states to make enhancements to UI benefits during CY2002 using other funds. Three additional states reported that they plan to spend Reed Act dollars in 2003 to implement UI benefit enhancements. Eighty-three percent, or $6.66 billion of the Reed Act distribution had not been spent as of November 30, 2002, and state workforce officials in 30 states reported that adding these dollars to their UI trust funds enabled them to avoid automatic employer tax increases or surcharges[Footnote 4] in 2002. Five states said that they lowered employer tax rates in 2003.[Footnote 5] Twenty-six states also reported that their employer tax rates would likely have been higher than they actually were in 2003, had it not been for the Reed Act distribution. This includes two states whose tax rates were lower in 2003 than 2002. Nine states formally obligated $1.27 billion of the Reed Act distribution to remain in their UI trust funds, citing the desire to avoid increases in employer UI taxes as the most frequent reason for doing this. In addition, 27 states passed laws appropriating a total of 7 percent of the Reed Act distribution ($590 million) to be used for administrative costs of UI, ES, or one-stop systems. In general, states reported that few Reed Act dollars were being used to replace other state and federal funding sources to administer UI, ES, or one-stop systems. Twenty-five states have UI advisory boards, which are largely made up of representatives of worker and employer groups, state workforce agency officials, or members of the general public. Only five states reported that their UI advisory board had developed or endorsed a proposal for the use of the Reed Act dollars. We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Department of Labor for their technical review and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Clarita Mrena at (202) 512-3022. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI. Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: [End of section] Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: [See PDF for image} [End of section] Appendix II Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts: (Dollars in billions). Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA); Purpose: Funds both federal and state administrative costs of UI and ES.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $1.354; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $1.632. Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA); Purpose: Funds the federal share of extended UI benefits.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $11.246; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174. Federal Unemployment Account (FUA); Purpose: Funds loans to insolvent state UI trust funds.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $10.903; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174. Total; Purpose: [Empty]; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $23.503; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $39.98. Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Note: There is a statutory cap or ceiling placed on the size of each of these accounts. The ceiling for the ESAA account is 40 percent of the appropriated amounts during the fiscal year for which the ceiling is being calculated. For the EUCA and FUA accounts, this ceiling is 0.5 percent of the total covered wages in the prior calendar year. [A] The ceilings for these accounts are calculated each September. By that time, all funds will have been appropriated for the year, and total covered wages for the prior year will be known. The amounts noted here are Labor’s projections of what the ceilings should be in September 2003 based on their estimates, at this time, of the total amount appropriated for 2003, and total covered wages in calendar year 2002. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions: Distribution date: July 1, 1956; Amount: $33.4 million. Distribution date: July 1, 1957; Amount: $71 million. Distribution date: July 1, 1958; Amount: $33.5 million. Distribution date: October 1, 1998; Amount: $16 million. Distribution date: October 1, 1999; Amount: $100 million. Distribution date: October 1, 2000; Amount: $100 million. Distribution date: October 1, 2001; Amount: $100 million. Distribution date: March 13, 2002; Amount: $8 billion. Source: U.S. Department of Labor. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State, as of 11-30- 2002: State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 85.0. State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Percent expended: 0.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 19.7; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 79.8. State: Arizona; Total Reed Act allotment: 144,079,575; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Arkansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 63,958,998; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Percent expended: 0.6; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.7; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 64.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 31.6. State: Colorado; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,666,574; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 91.0. State: Delaware; Total Reed Act allotment: 26,024,719; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 31.3; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 68.7. State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Percent expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.2; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 96.4. State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: a; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Hawaii; Total Reed Act allotment: 30,761,048; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Idaho[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Percent expended: 21.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 78.3. State: Illinois; Total Reed Act allotment: 376,244,918; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Indiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 174,573,012; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 42.4; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 57.6. State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Percent expended: 1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 35.2; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 63.6. State: Kansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 78,166,750; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: Kentucky; Total Reed Act allotment: 103,829,381; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 24.9; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 75.1. State: Maine; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,486,816; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Maryland; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,929,005; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.3; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 98.7. State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Percent expended: 13.9; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 85.0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 1.2. State: Minnesota[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Percent expended: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 92.6. State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Percent expended: 1.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 23.3; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 75.3. State: Missouri; Total Reed Act allotment: 161,426,814; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Percent expended: 3.0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 97.0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: Nebraska; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,380,203; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 28.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 71.1. State: Nevada; Total Reed Act allotment: 68,082,942; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: New Hampshire; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,475,620; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Percent expended: 0.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.1; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 84.8. State: New Mexico; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,599,338; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: New York; Total Reed Act allotment: 491,343,135; Percent expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: North Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 240,892,032; Percent expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Percent expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.1; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 98.5. State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Percent expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 14.4; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 63.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 22.1. State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.5; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 97.5. State: Oregon; Total Reed Act allotment: 98,029,105; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Percent expended: 0.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.3; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 95.6. State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 33.8; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 66.2; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 0. State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.6; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 90.4. State: South Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 108,203,982; Percent expended: 1.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 98.5. State: South Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 19,140,671; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.6; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 95.4. State: Texas; Total Reed Act allotment: 596,446,497; Percent expended: 89.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 10.3. State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.5; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 96.5. State: Vermont; Total Reed Act allotment: 16,395,967; Percent expended: 10.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 89.8. State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Percent expended: 5.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.9; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 92.0. State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Percent expended: 1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 13.2; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 85.6. State: Washington; Total Reed Act allotment: 167,011,815; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 10.3; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 89.7. State: Wisconsin; Total Reed Act allotment: 166,214,419; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: Wyoming; Total Reed Act allotment: 12,043,444; Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 100. State: United States; Total Reed Act allotment: $8,000,000,000; Percent expended: 16.8; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent officially obligated to UI trust fund: 15.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated nor obligated: 60.0. Source: GAO data and U.S. Department of Labor data. [A] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, but could not specify the dollar amount allocated for this purpose. [B] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, ES, or one- stop systems and expended all the dollars appropriated. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New UI Trust Fund Balances and Average High Cost Multiples (AHCM): State: Alabama; UI trust fund balance: $324.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: $110.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 25; AHCM: .065; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.5. State: Alaska; UI trust fund balance: 231.9; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 14.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.03; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03. State: Arizona; UI trust fund balance: 954.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 144.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 1.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.57. State: Arkansas; UI trust fund balance: 179.2; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 64.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 26; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.45. State: California; UI trust fund balance: 5,689.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 936.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.78; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.77. State: Colorado; UI trust fund balance: 684.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 142.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 17; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.89. State: Connecticut; UI trust fund balance: 629.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 100.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.96; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.7. State: Delaware; UI trust fund balance: 312.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 26.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 2.02; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.83. State: District of Columbia; UI trust fund balance: 278.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 25.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07. State: Florida; UI trust fund balance: 1,761.8; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 449.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 1.4; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.17. State: Georgia; UI trust fund balance: 1,542.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 249.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.43. State: Hawaii; UI trust fund balance: 306.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 30.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.56; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.47. State: Idaho; UI trust fund balance: 233.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 32.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.95; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.79. State: Illinois; UI trust fund balance: 1,382.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 376.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 21; AHCM: 0.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32. State: Indiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,330.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 174.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.57; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.31. State: Iowa; UI trust fund balance: 772.8; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 82.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.15. State: Kansas; UI trust fund balance: 473.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 78.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.93; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.87. State: Kentucky; UI trust fund balance: 544.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 103.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 16; AHCM: 0.77; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.59. State: Louisiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,508.9; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 105.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.36; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.3. State: Maine; UI trust fund balance: 410.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 32.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.43; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.66. State: Maryland; UI trust fund balance: 826.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 142.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.94; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.84. State: Massachusetts; UI trust fund balance: 1,770.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 193.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83. State: Michigan; UI trust fund balance: 2,601.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 291.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 0.75; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.65. State: Minnesota; UI trust fund balance: 450.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 163.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 27; AHCM: 0.58; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.36. State: Mississippi; UI trust fund balance: 658.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 64.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.98; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.87. State: Missouri; UI trust fund balance: 276.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 161.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 37; AHCM: 0.55; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32. State: Montana; UI trust fund balance: 186.9; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 18.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.42; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41. State: Nebraska; UI trust fund balance: 144.1; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 48.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 25; AHCM: 0.99; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78. State: Nevada; UI trust fund balance: 481.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 68.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.07; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.97. State: New Hampshire; UI trust fund balance: 317.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 38.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 11; AHCM: 2.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.91. State: New Jersey; UI trust fund balance: 3,121.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 242.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.15; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16. State: New Mexico; UI trust fund balance: 581.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 38.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 2.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.74. State: New York; UI trust fund balance: 474.9; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 491.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 51; AHCM: 0.31; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.12. State: North Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 626.3; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 240.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 28; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.48. State: North Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 33.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 15.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 31; AHCM: 0.28; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.28. State: Ohio; UI trust fund balance: 1,904.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 343.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.64; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.55. State: Oklahoma; UI trust fund balance: 491.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 81.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.46; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.21. State: Oregon; UI trust fund balance: 1,467.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 98.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41. State: Pennsylvania; UI trust fund balance: 2,380.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 337.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.56. State: Puerto Rico; UI trust fund balance: 507.0; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 48.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16. State: Rhode Island; UI trust fund balance: 277.8; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 27.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 0.89; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83. State: South Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 627.2; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 108.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 1.29; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03. State: South Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 45.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 19.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 30; AHCM: 0.84; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.72. State: Tennessee; UI trust fund balance: 650.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 162.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 0.9; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.66. State: Texas; UI trust fund balance: 439.8; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 596.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 58; AHCM: 0.26; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.15. State: Utah; UI trust fund balance: 564.8; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 61.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.42. State: Vermont; UI trust fund balance: 308.4; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 16.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 5; AHCM: 2.54; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.46. State: Virgin Islands; UI trust fund balance: 64.1; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 2.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 3; AHCM: 3.33; AHCM: as of December 2001: 3.03. State: Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 905.5; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 214.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 19; AHCM: 1.32; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07. State: Washington; UI trust fund balance: 1,796.1; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 167.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.04; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.96. State: West Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 239.6; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 36.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 0.52; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.54. State: Wisconsin; UI trust fund balance: 1,585.1; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 166.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.08; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.93. State: Wyoming; UI trust fund balance: 195.1; 2002 Reed Act allotment: 12.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.56. State: United States; UI trust fund balance: $46,550.7; 2002 Reed Act allotment: $8,000; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78. Source: U.S. Department of Labor. [NOTE:] The average high cost multiple (AHCM) indicates how many years a state can pay benefits before its trust fund became insolvent. It is based on the average amount a state paid out in UI benefits during its 3 highest cost years in the previous 20 years, without collecting any additional revenue. As a guideline, the Department of Labor uses a reserve multiple of 1.0 as a minimally acceptable level of solvency. [A] Percentage of new UI trust fund balance was calculated by dividing the amount of the Reed Act allotment by the sum of that amount and the UI trust fund balance as of 12-31-01. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements Made in CY2002, by State: State: Alabama; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: California; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: ; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Colorado; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Connecticut; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: District of Columbia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Georgia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Idaho; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/ implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Indiana; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Iowa; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/ implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Maryland; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Michigan; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Minnesota; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: Yes; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: New Hampshire; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: New Jersey; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Ohio; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/ implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Oklahoma; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Oregon; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Rhode Island; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: South Carolina; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Texas; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/ implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Vermont; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Used; Test/ implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part- time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Virgin Islands; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty]. State: Washington; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Wisconsin; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: Yes; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Wyoming; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes. State: Total: 25; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: 9; Test/ implement alternative base period: 4; Expand eligibility to part-time workers: 2; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 21; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: 1; Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: 6; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: 7. Source: GAO survey of states. [A] Other changes include activities such as: elimination of the waiting week, reduction of social security offsets, and increasing the replacement rate for benefits. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer Taxes as Reported by States: State: Alabama; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Alaska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Arizona; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Arkansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: California; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Colorado; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Connecticut; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Delaware; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: District of Columbia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Florida; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Georgia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Hawaii; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Idaho; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Illinois; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Indiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Iowa; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Kansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Kentucky; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Louisiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Maine; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Maryland; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Massachusetts; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Michigan; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Minnesota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Mississippi; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Missouri; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Montana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Nebraska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Nevada; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: New Hampshire; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: New Jersey; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: New Mexico; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: New York; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: North Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: North Dakota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Ohio; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Oklahoma; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Oregon; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Pennsylvania; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Puerto Rico[B]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Rhode Island; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: South Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: South Dakota[C]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Tennessee; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Texas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Utah; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Vermont; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Virgin Islands; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: Washington; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes. State: West Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Wisconsin; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Wyoming; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty]. State: Total; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: 49; Reed Act funds prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 30; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 25; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 22; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 5; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: 26. Source: GAO survey of states. [A] According to the Department of Labor, for most states, any increases triggered in CY2002 would not have gone into effect until CY2003. [B] Data for this state was not available. [C] Data for this state is preliminary. Final rates have not been determined. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law for UI, ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002: State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: $16,593,522. State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one- stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $76,656; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,923,344. State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 5,700,000; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 34,936,000. State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 9,000,000. State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30- 02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 8,060,000. State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,684,530; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,544,970. State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: [A]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: [A]. State: Idaho; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one- stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 7,000,000; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0. State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 992,109; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 29,007,891. State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 26,316,771. State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30- 02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,425,000. State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 40,378,377; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 247,621,623. State: Minnesota; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 12,000,000; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0. State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30- 02: 905,889; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 15,094,111. State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one- stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 565,143; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 17,986,484. State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 433,514; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 36,566,486. State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 57,868; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 173,604. State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one- stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,531,288; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 49,468,712. State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,000,000. State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 444,337; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,555,663. State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 16,500,000. State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30- 02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,600,000. State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 7,400,000. State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,160,000. State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 98,548; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 56,577. State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 2,529,421; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 28,376,035. State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 3,745,000. State: Total: 27; Total Reed Act allotment: $4,413,593,220; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI system: 21; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES or one-stop system: 22; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $74,397,680; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: $588,111,793. Source: GAO survey of states. [A] State was unable to report dollar amount. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002: State: Alabama; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Alaska; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty]. State: California; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Connecticut; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: District of Columbia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Georgia[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty]. State: Idaho; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Iowa; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Louisiana; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Michigan; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Minnesota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Montana; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: New Jersey; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: North Dakota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Ohio; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Pennsylvania[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty]. State: Puerto Rico; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: Tennessee; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Virgin Islands; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Virginia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty]. State: West Virginia; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes. State: Total: 21; General technology: 14; Staff: 10; Claims system developments: 13; Tax filing and paying enhancements: 8; Appeals system improvements: 5; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 4; Program integrity: 18; Other: 7. Source: GAO survey of states. [A] State was unable to report how dollars were allocated. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002: [See PDF for image] [End of table] [End of section] Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Clarita Mrena, (202) 512-3022: Staff Acknowledgments: Laura Heald, Carolyn Blocker, Cheri Harrington, Stuart Kaufman, Daniel Schwimer, and Barbara Hills made significant contributions to this briefing. [End of section] FOOTNOTES [1] For UI purposes, federal law designates the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as “states.” [2] The term “Reed Act” refers to a part of the Employment Security Financing Act of 1954. The Reed Act provides that when federal accounts in the UI trust fund reach their statutory limits at the end of a federal fiscal year, any excess funds are transferred to state UI trust funds. Unlike “traditional” Reed Act distributions, this distribution was required regardless of the ceilings and did not take place at the beginning of a fiscal year. [3] The one-stop center system--a centralized service delivery structure consolidating delivery of most federally funded state and local employment and training assistance--was mandated by the Workforce Investment Act, passed in 1998. [4] Forty-nine states set triggers that automatically increase employer taxes or institute surcharges when trust funds fall below specified levels. [5] States set employer tax rates annually, and most states had their 2002 tax rates in place before the Reed Act distribution in March 2002. GAO’s Mission: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000: TDD: (202) 512-2537: Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Public Affairs: Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548: