The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State
Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Julie M. Whittaker
Specialist in Income Security
January 12, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22954
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Summary
During some recessions, current taxes and reserve balances were insufficient to cover state
expenditures for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. UC benefits are an entitlement, and
states are legally required to pay benefits even if the state account is insolvent. Some states may
borrow funds from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) within the Unemployment Trust
Fund (UTF) in order to meet UC benefit obligations. The 2009 stimulus package (The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5 § 2004) temporarily waives interest
payments and the accrual of interest on these loans to states from the FUA.
This report summarizes how insolvent states may borrow funds from the federal account within
the UTF in order to meet their UC benefit obligations. Outstanding loans listed by state may be
found at the Department of Labor’s website: http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/
budget.asp#tfloans.
Michigan has just completed its first year of a credit reduction. As a result, the credit reduction
was applied retroactively to tax year 2009 earnings and the net FUTA tax during 2009 for
Michigan employers is 1.1% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s earnings. No other state
currently has a credit reduction; thus, in all other states the net FUTA 2009 tax was 0.8%.
This report will be updated to reflect major changes in state UTF account solvency.
Congressional Research Service

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Contents
Unemployment Compensation and the Unemployment Trust Fund.............................................. 1
Unemployment Taxes.................................................................................................................. 1
Federal Unemployment Taxes ............................................................................................... 1
Broad Guidelines for State Unemployment Taxes .................................................................. 2
Most States Plan to Increase State Unemployment Taxes for 2010................................... 2
Adequate Trust Fund Balances .................................................................................................... 5
Insolvency: Insufficient UTF Reserve Balances........................................................................... 7
Insolvent States Required to Pay UC Benefits ....................................................................... 7
Mechanism for Receiving a Loan .......................................................................................... 8
Interest Charges on Loans ..................................................................................................... 8
Temporary Waiver of Interest in 2009 Stimulus Package ................................................. 8
Federal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through Credit Reductions............................... 8
Credit Reduction ............................................................................................................. 9
How the Credit Reduction May be Mitigated: Avoidance or Cap ................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. Summary of Expected State Unemployment Tax Increases for 2010............................... 3
Table 2. State Unemployment Trust Fund Accounts: Financial Information by State, 3rd
Quarter 2009............................................................................................................................ 6
Table 3. Schedule of State Tax Credit Reduction and Net Federal Unemployment Tax Act
(FUTA) Tax ........................................................................................................................... 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Unemployment Compensation and the
Unemployment Trust Fund
Unemployment Compensation (UC) is a joint federal-state program financed by federal taxes
under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and by state payroll taxes under the State
Unemployment Tax Acts (SUTA). The underlying framework of the UC system is contained in
the Social Security Act (SSA). Title III of the SSA authorizes grants to states for the
administration of state UC laws, Title IX authorizes the various components of the federal
Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF), and Title XII authorizes advances or loans to insolvent state
UC programs.
Originally, the intent of the UC program, among other things, was to help counter economic
fluctuations such as recessions.1 This intent is reflected in the current UC program’s funding and
benefit structure. When the economy grows, UC program revenue rises through increased tax
revenues, whereas UC program spending falls as fewer workers are unemployed. The effect of
collecting more taxes while decreasing spending on benefits dampens demand in the economy.
This also creates a surplus of funds or a “cushion” of available funds for the UC program to draw
upon during a recession. In a recession, UC tax revenue falls and UC program spending rises as
more workers lose their jobs and receive UC benefits. The increased amount of UC payments to
unemployed workers dampens the economic effect of lost earnings by injecting additional funds
into the economy.
Unemployment Taxes
UC benefits are financed through employer taxes.2 The federal taxes on employers are under the
authority of FUTA, and the state taxes are under the authority given by SUTA. These taxes are
deposited in the appropriate accounts within the UTF.
Federal Unemployment Taxes
FUTA imposes a 6.2% gross tax rate on the first $7,000 paid annually by employers to each
employee. Employers in states with programs approved by the federal government and with no
delinquent federal loans may credit 5.4 percentage points against the 6.2% tax rate, making the
minimum net federal unemployment tax rate 0.8%. Currently, Michigan employers will face a
retroactive credit reduction for tax year 2009 and will pay a higher net FUTA tax on account of
unpaid loan balances. (Previously, the New York employers’ rate was higher for 2004 and 2005
because of unpaid loan balances.)
Because all states currently have approved programs and Michigan is the only state with a
continuous unpaid loan balance of over two years, 0.8% is the effective federal tax rate for every
state except Michigan. The 0.8% FUTA tax funds both federal and state administrative costs as

1 See, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s remarks at the signing of the Social Security Act at
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#signing.
2 For a detailed description of UC financing, see CRS Report RS22077, Unemployment Compensation (UC) and
the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): Funding UC Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker and Kathleen Romig.
Congressional Research Service
1

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

well as the federal share of the Extended Benefit (EB) program, loans to insolvent state UC
accounts, and state employment services. Michigan’s effective federal unemployment tax rate for
2009 is 1.1%.
Broad Guidelines for State Unemployment Taxes
Federal laws and regulations provide broad guidelines on state unemployment taxes. States levy
their own payroll taxes on employers to fund regular UC benefits and the state share of the EB
program. These state UC tax rates are “experience-rated,” in which employers generating the
fewest claimants have the lowest rates. The state unemployment tax rate of an employer is, in
most states, based on the amount of UC paid to former employees. Generally, in most states, the
more UC benefits paid to its former employees, the higher the tax rate of the employer, up to a
maximum established by state law. The experience rating is intended to ensure an equitable
distribution of UC program taxes among employers and to encourage a stable workforce. State
ceilings on taxable wages in 2009 range from $7,000 (seven states and Puerto Rico) to $35,700
(Washington). The minimum rates range from 0% (10 states and the Virgin Islands) to 1.9%
(Connecticut). The maximum rates range from 5.4% (15 states and Puerto Rico) to 10.96%
(Massachusetts). Approximately $31.0 billion in SUTA taxes were collected in FY2009. In
comparison, states spent an estimated $75.0 billion on regular UC benefits and $4.1 billion on
extended benefit payments in FY2009.
Most States Plan to Increase State Unemployment Taxes for 2010
A recent survey conducted by the National Association of Workforce Agencies found that a SUTA
increase is expected in 35 states for 2010. Six states indicated tax rates in their state are currently
adjusted on employers due to a solvency tax already in state law.3 A total of 27 states and Puerto
Rico indicated the tax schedule in their state will see a state unemployment tax increase in 2010
compared to the same period one year earlier.4 All of these states, except Georgia, indicated that
the increase in the tax schedule is automatic (based on the level of reserves in the trust fund).
Georgia will see a discretionary increase in the state tax schedule implemented at the option of
the commissioner of labor.
Furthermore, in 10 states, the state was currently at the highest tax rate schedule.5
Of the 51 state programs surveyed, four states (Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia)
freeze or adjust indexed benefits in response to a general increase to UC tax rates or a low level
of reserves in the UC trust fund.

3 Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.
4 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
5 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
Congressional Research Service
2

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Table 1. Summary of Expected State Unemployment Tax Increases for 2010
Tax
Indexed
Indexed Wage
Schedule
(Frozen/Decreasing)
Legislative Changes/
State
Base
Increase
Benefits
Other
Alabama Yes

Alaska Yes

Arizona Yes

Arkansas

Yes

Increased taxable wage
base.
California Already
at

highest
schedule.
Colorado Yes

Connecticut
Already
at

highest
schedule.
Delaware Already
at

highest
schedule.
District of Columbiaa

Florida

Temporarily
increased
taxable wage base. Revised
state tax schedule trigger.
Georgia Yes

Tax
schedule
increased.
Hawaii Yes
Yes

Idaho Yes
Yes
When
taxes
rise,

maximum benefit
decreases.
Illinois
Yes

Indiana

Increased taxable wage
base. Increased taxes on
employers with poor
experience ratings.
Iowa Yes
Yes

Kansas Yes

Kentucky Already
at
Benefit is frozen if trust
highest
fund reserves are
schedule.
below specified level.
Louisiana

Tax increase was not
specified in survey but state
asserted a tax increase for
2010.
Maine
Yes

Maryland Yes

Massachusetts
Yes

Congressional Research Service
3

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Tax
Indexed
Indexed Wage
Schedule
(Frozen/Decreasing)
Legislative Changes/
State
Base
Increase
Benefits
Other
Virginia Yes

Solvency
Socialized
Tax
increased.
Washington Yes

West Virginia

Benefits are frozen.
Temporarily increased
taxable wage base.
Retroactive to 2nd quarter
of 2009. Once certain
criteria are met, the base
will be indexed to annual
wages. Required benefit
freeze to remain in effect
until trust fund reserves
reach a specified level.
Wisconsin Yes

Wyoming Yes
Yes

Source: “UI Trust Fund Solvency Survey, December 2009.” Conducted by the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies (NASWA), http://www.workforceatm.org/sections/pdf/2009/
NASWA%20Solvency%20Survey%20Summary%20of%20State%20Responses.pdf.
a. The District of Columbia did not participate.
Adequate Trust Fund Balances
Whether a state trust fund balance is adequate is ultimately a matter up to each state as there is no
statutory requirement of an adequately funded state UC program. However, the U.S. Department
of Labor (DOL) suggests that, to be minimally solvent, a state’s reserve balance should provide
for one year’s projected benefit payment needs on the basis of the highest levels of benefit
payments experienced by the state over the last twenty years. This is called the average high-cost
multiple (AHCM). A ratio of 1.0 or greater prior to a recession indicates a state is minimally
solvent. States below this level are vulnerable to exhausting their funds in a recession. DOL
provides the AHCM in its Quarterly Program and Financial Data report in the summary of
financial data. These reports are available online at http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/
unemploy/finance.asp.
Table 2 provides financial information for the unemployment trust fund accounts. The first data
column lists the amount of state taxes collected in the previous 12 months. The second column
lists the balance each state’s account in the UTF at the end of the 12-month period. The third
column calculates the ratio of the trust fund balance to the estimated sum of wages earned by
employees in jobs covered by the UC system. The final column lists the AHCM where a number
less than 1 does not meet DOL’s definition of minimally solvent.
Congressional Research Service
5

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Table 2. State Unemployment Trust Fund Accounts:
Financial Information by State, 3rd Quarter 2009
State Revenues
Last
Trust Fund
Trust Fund
Average High
12 Months
Balance
Ratio to Total
Cost Multiple
(thousands of $)
(thousands of $) Covered Wages
(AHCM)
Alabama
217,451
7,752
0.01
0.39
Alaska
118,233
320,998
2.97
1.07
Arizona
259,032
372,212
0.45
1.00
Arkansas
266,892
14,480
0.05
0.17
California
4,612,643
107,664
0.02
0.07
Colorado
367,492
191,011
0.22
0.65
Connecticut
623,400
62,890
0.09
0.40
Delaware
90,365
72,663
0.48
0.69
District of Columbia
123,415
366,615
1.32
1.09
Florida
859,839
179,892
0.08
0.65
Georgia
522,005
269,419
0.20
0.70
Hawai
55,880
213,740
1.27
1.43
Idaho
126,624
3,221
0.02
0.21
Illinois 1,599,575
19,024
0.01
0.28
Indiana
501,804
18,963
0.02
N.A.
Iowa
356,008
480,569
1.15
0.85
Kansas
216,089
264,155
0.58
0.83
Kentucky
394,806
6,631
0.01
0.08
Louisiana
161,781
1,271,179
2.10
0.89
Maine
95,533
366,175
2.46
1.51
Maryland
425,062
312,375
0.36
0.59
Massachusetts
1,550,838
450,709
0.32
0.47
Michigan
1,415,834
115,633
0.09
N.A.
Minnesota
787,750
9,872
0.01
0.34
Mississippi
102,073
526,398
1.89
1.54
Missouri
573,543
13,913
0.02
0.12
Montana
75,464
177,533
1.56
1.38
Nebraska
101,136
207,186
0.83
1.17
Nevada
321,403
104,086
0.25
0.79
New Hampshire
79,651
68,040
0.33
0.75
New Jersey
1,884,710
36,448
0.02
0.16
New Mexico
94,143
347,225
1.55
1.61
New York
2,405,697
53,831
0.02
0.00
North Carolina
819,919
19,249
0.02
0.11
Congressional Research Service
6

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

North Dakota
51,643
101,028
1.10
0.74
Ohio
1,099,241
108,705
0.07
0.02
Oklahoma
138,461
595,465
1.28
1.40
Oregon
578,762
1,286,625
2.58
1.48
Pennsylvania
2,077,727
129,167
0.07
0.19
Puerto Rico
170,817
442,747
2.71
0.95
Rhode Island
194,199
1,938
0.01
0.17
South Carolina
268,909
11,633
0.02
N.A.
South Dakota
30,060
3,821
0.04
0.33
Tennessee
590,577
273,563
0.33
0.37
Texas
1,183,090
40,433
0.01
0.31
Utah
126,689
565,709
1.60
1.40
Vermont
71,201
46,872
0.60
0.91
Virgin Islands
1,034
276
0.03
0.41
Virginia
329,445
129,441
0.10
0.55
Washington
985,501
3,030,135
2.95
1.58
West Virginia
165,227
167,375
0.88
0.40
Wisconsin
672,777
27,184
0.03
0.11
Wyoming
53,208
182,239
2.01
1.12
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
Notes: Total covered wages are based on extrapolated wages for the most recent 12 months.
N.A.= Not Applicable; Indiana, Michigan, and South Carolina have outstanding debt exceeding their fund
balances.
Insolvency: Insufficient UTF Reserve Balances
During economic slowdowns or recession, some states have found that current state
unemployment taxes and UTF reserve balances were insufficient to cover state expenditures for
UC benefits.
Insolvent States Required to Pay UC Benefits
States have a great deal of autonomy in how they establish and run their unemployment system.
However, the framework established by the federal government requires states to actually pay the
UC benefits as provided under state law. If the state does not pay the UC benefits, federal law is
quite explicit. The state will not have a UC program meeting federal requirements and thus the
federal tax on employers would be a net tax of 6.2% (with no credit for state unemployment
taxes) rather than 0.8% if the state UC program paid benefits and had no outstanding loans.
In budget terms, UC benefits are an entitlement (although the program is financed by a dedicated
tax imposed on employers and not by general revenues). Thus, even if a recession hits a given
state and as a result that state’s trust account is depleted, the state remains legally required to
Congressional Research Service
7

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

continue paying benefits. To do so, the state will be forced to borrow money from the dedicated
loan account, the FUA, within the UTF or from outside sources. If the state chooses to borrow
funds from the FUA, not only will the state be required to continue paying benefits, it will also be
required to repay the funds (plus any interest due) it has borrowed from the federal loan account.
Such states will probably be forced to raise taxes on their employers or reduce UC benefit levels,
actions that dampen economic growth, job creation, and consumer demand. In short, states have
strong incentives to keep adequate funds in their trust fund accounts.
Mechanism for Receiving a Loan
In order for a loan to be made to a state account, the governor of the state (or the governor’s
designee) must apply to the Secretary of Labor for a three-month loan. Once the loan is approved
by the Department of Labor, the funds are placed into the state account in monthly increments.
Interest Charges on Loans
Since 1982 (P.L. 97-35), states are charged interest on new loans that are not repaid by the end of
the fiscal year in which they were obtained. Under previous law, states could receive these loans
interest-free. The interest is the same rate as that paid by the federal government on state reserves
in the UTF for the quarter ending December 31 of the preceding year, but not higher than 10%
per annum. States may not pay the interest directly or indirectly from funds in their state account
with the UTF.
States still may borrow funds without interest from the FUA during the year. To receive these
interest-free loans, the states must repay the loans by September 30. No loans may be made in
October, November, or December of the calendar year of such an interest-free loan. Otherwise,
the “interest-free” loan will accrue interest charges. However, the 2009 stimulus package
temporarily extends the period in which interest-free loans are available.
Temporary Waiver of Interest in 2009 Stimulus Package
The 2009 stimulus package (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5 §
2004) temporarily waives interest payments and the accrual of interest on advances to State
unemployment funds by amending section 1202(b) of the Social Security Act. The interest
payments that come due from the time of enactment of the proposal until December 31, 2010, are
deemed to have been made by the State. No interest on advances accrue during the period.
Although interest will not accrue during this period, this does not absolve states from repaying the
underlying loans. If a state does not pay back funds within the prescribed amount of time or make
good progress as determined by the Labor Secretary, the state tax credit will be reduced, as
described below.
Federal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through
Credit Reductions
States with outstanding loans must repay them fully by November 10 following the second
consecutive January 1 on which the state has an outstanding loan. If the outstanding loan is not
repaid by that time, the state will face federal unemployment tax increases through a credit
Congressional Research Service
8

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

reduction. This means that a state may have from approximately 22 to 34 months to repay the
loan without a federal tax increase, depending on when it obtained the outstanding loan. If the
state does not repay fully by November 10, it becomes subject to a reduction in the amount of
credit applied against the federal unemployment tax beginning with the preceding January 1 until
the state repays the loan fully. That state’s employers must pay the additional federal taxes
resulting from the credit reduction no later than January 31 of the next calendar year. The
provisions of the 2009 stimulus package do not change the timetable for federal tax increases
resulting from a state’s outstanding loans.
The additional federal taxes are then deposited into the appropriate state account. Thus the
amount of the loan (or the funds the state must continue to borrow) is reduced by the additional
federal taxes paid by the state employers.
Credit Reduction
The credit reduction is initially 0.3 percentage points for the year beginning with the calendar
year in which the second consecutive January 1 passes during which the loan is outstanding and
increases by 0.3 percentage points for each year there is an outstanding loan. (For example, in the
first year, the credit reduction results in the net federal tax rate increasing from 0.8% to 1.1%—an
additional $21 for each employee; in the second year, it would increase to 1.4%—a cumulative
additional $42 for each employee. Michigan has just completed its first year of a credit reduction.
As a result, the credit reduction was applied retroactively to tax year 2009 earnings. No other
state currently has a credit reduction.)
There are two potential additional credit reductions (on top of the cumulative 0.3 percentage point
increases) during the ensuing calendar years in which a state has an outstanding loan: (1) in the
calendar years after which the third and fourth consecutive January 1s pass and (2) in the calendar
years after which the fifth or more consecutive January 1s pass. The first additional credit
reduction (programmatically referred to as the “2.7 add-on”) uses a statutory formula that takes
into consideration the average annual wages and average employment contribution rate. The
second credit reduction (programmatically referred to as the Base Credit Reduction, or BCR, add-
on) replaces the 2.7 add-on and uses the five-year benefit cost rate as well as average wages in its
calculation.6 Table 3 present these reductions and the subsequent net FUTA tax faced by state
employers as a result of these unpaid loans.

6 The 2.7 add-on formula is: [(2.7% x 7000/ U.S. Annual Average Wage)-Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total
Wages] x State Annual Average Wage/7000. The BCR add-on formula is Max [five-year State Average Cost/Taxable
Wages, 2.7] - Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total Wages.
Congressional Research Service
9

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Table 3. Schedule of State Tax Credit Reduction and Net Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) Tax
Loan Year
Credit Reduction
Additional Reductions
Net FUTA Tax
Year 1 of outstanding
0.0% None
0.8%
loan
Year 2 (applied
0.3% None
1.1%
retroactively at end of
calendar year)
Year 3
0.6%
2.7 Add-on
1.4% or more
Year 4
0.9%
2.7 Add-on
1.7% or more
Year 5
1.2%
BCR Add-on
2.0% or more
Year 6
1.5%
BCR Add-on
2.3% or more
Year 7
1.8%
BCR Add-on
2.6% or more
Year 8
2.1%
BCR Add-on
2.9% or more
Year 9
2.4%
BCR Add-on
3.2% or more
Year 10
2.7%
BCR Add-on
3.5% or more
Year 11
3.0%
BCR Add-on
3.8% or more
Year 12
3.3%
BCR Add-on
4.1% or more
Year 13
3.6%
BCR Add-on
4.4% or more
Year 14
3.9%
BCR Add-on
4.7% or more
Year 15
4.2%
BCR Add-on
5.0% or more
Year 16
4.5%
BCR Add-on
5.3% or more
Year 17
4.8%
BCR Add-on
5.6% or more
Year 18
5.1%
BCR Add-on
5.9% or more
Year 19
5.4%
BCR Add-on
6.2%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Notes: 2.7 Add-on= [(2.7% x 7000/ U.S. Annual Average Wage)-Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total
Wages] x State Annual Average Wage/7000.
Base Credit Reduction (BCR) Add-on= Max [five-year State Average Cost/Taxable Wages, 2.7] - Average Annual
State Tax Rate on Total Wages.
How the Credit Reduction May be Mitigated: Avoidance or Cap
States may reduce the amount of credit reduction applied in a year by meeting certain statutory
criteria. States must apply to the Secretary of Labor for approval for the credit reduction.
Avoidance
The most straightforward way to avoid the credit reduction is to repay the loan before November
10 of the second year in which there was an outstanding loan on January 1.
Congressional Research Service
10

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Section 272 of P.L. 97-248 allows a delinquent state the option of repaying—on or before
November 9—a portion of its outstanding loans each year through transfer of a specified amount
from its account in the UTF to the FUA. The state also must repay all loans for the most recent
one-year period ending on November 9, plus the potential additional taxes that would have been
imposed for the taxable year. In addition, the state must have sufficient amounts in the state
account of the UTF to pay all compensation for the last quarter of that calendar year without
receiving a loan. Finally, the state must also have altered its state law to increase the net solvency
of its account with the UTF. If the state complies with all these requirements, the credit reduction
is reduced by a statutory formula.
Cap
Once a state begins to have a credit reduction, the state may apply to have the reductions capped
if the state meets four criteria:
1. No legislative or other action in 12 months ending September 30 has been taken
to decrease state unemployment tax effort.
2. No legislative or other action has been taken to decrease the state trust account’s
net solvency.
3. Average state unemployment tax rate on total wages must exceed the five-year
average benefit cost rate on total wages.
4. Balance of outstanding loans as of September 30 must not be greater than the
balance three years before.
Waiving the BCR Add-on
The BCR add-on may be waived if a state does not take legislative or other actions to decrease
the state trust account’s net solvency. The 2.7 add-on would then replace the BCR add-on.

Author Contact Information

Julie M. Whittaker

Specialist in Income Security
jwhittaker@crs.loc.gov, 7-2587

Congressional Research Service
11