Order Code RL31277
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Temporary Programs to Extend
Unemployment Compensation
Updated March 26, 2002
Jennifer E. Lake
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Temporary Programs to Extend
Unemployment Compensation
Summary
The federal/state UC system is designed to provide temporary and partial wage
replacement to workers who have become involuntarily unemployed. UC also helps
to stabilize the economy by providing unemployed workers with additional purchasing
power, which serves as an economic stimulus when unemployment rises during
recessions. The UC system generally provides sufficient duration of benefits during
periods of economic prosperity, as most UC beneficiaries experience fewer weeks of
unemployment than their maximum entitlements and return to work before their
benefit rights are exhausted. However, during periods of economic decline, people
tend to remain unemployed longer because of the greater difficulty in finding new
jobs, and a rising proportion of jobless workers exhaust UC benefits without finding
new work. Thus, programs have been established to increase the number of weeks
of assistance during periods of high unemployment.
Since 1958 there have been seven separate programs passed by Congress to
buttress the UC system, during periods of serious economic decline. The designs of
each of these temporary programs have addressed the perennial issues of benefit level,
duration, triggering mechanism, eligibility, and financing. The permanent EB program
was enacted in 1970. EB provides one-half of regular benefits up to a maximum of
13 weeks, and is financed half from state UC taxes and half from a federal payroll tax.
The most recent temporary program was the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (EUC) program of 1991-1994. The EUC program was signed into law
November 15, 1991, and paid benefits through April 30, 1994. During that time,
EUC was amended five times, creating a complex web of benefit levels and durations.
Over the course of the EUC program, a total of $27.9 billion in benefits were paid
to recipients, 160.9 million weeks of compensation were paid, and 5 million
individuals exhausted their EUC benefits.
Concerns about the recent recession, and the widespread economic impact of the
September 11, 2001, attacks had put pressure on Congress to pass some form of
emergency or supplemental extended benefits. Initial proposals were targeted to
industries most obviously affected by the attacks, but the focus soon shifted to more
comprehensive economic stimulus packages, including 13-week extended benefit
proposals (H.R. 3090, H.R. 3529, and H.R. 622). On March 7, 2002, the House
passed a fourth and final stimulus bill, an amended version of H.R. 3090; the Senate
passed H.R. 3090 on March 8, 2002. On March 9, 2002, the Job Creation and
Worker Assistance Act of 2002 was signed into law (P.L. 107-147). Title II of P.L.
107-147, the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002,
contains provisions for a 13-week extension of UC benefits in all states, an $8 billion
distribution to the states, and an additional 13 weeks of UC benefits for high-
unemployment states.

---

Contents
Description of the UC System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Brief History of Extended Benefit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) . . . . . . . 2
Extended Benefits (EB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Magnuson Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Supplemental Benefits (FSB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues in Designing Benefit Extension Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Insured Unemployment Rate vs. Total Unemployment Rate . . . . . . . . 5
National, State, and Sub-State Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Measuring the Severity of a Downturn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Temporary Benefit Extension Proposals Since September 11, 2001 . . . . . . 8
Congressional Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
President Bush’s Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation
Program Proposal (S. 1532) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Benefit Tiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix. Detailed History and Benefit Structure for the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table A. EUC Legislative History and Benefit Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table B. EUC Benefit Duration (in weeks) by State and Lawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table C. EUC Benefit Data, 1991-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Temporary Programs to Extend
Unemployment Compensation
Description of the UC System
The federal/state system of unemployment compensation (UC) is designed to
provide temporary and partial wage replacement to workers who have become
involuntarily unemployed. UC also helps stabilize the economy by providing
unemployed workers with added purchasing power, which serves as an economic
stimulus when unemployment rises. UC pays weekly cash benefits on the basis of
involuntary unemployment and past work. UC benefits are not based on financial
need. The U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) oversees the UC system, but each state
administers its own program. Federal law designates the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands as “states” for the purposes of the UC program; thus,
there are 53 state programs.
While federal law provides the framework for the UC system, each state has
significant latitude in designing its program. Each state establishes laws that levy
taxes to support regular benefit payments and half of the permanent extended benefits
(EB) program, set eligibility rules, determine weekly benefit amounts (WBAs), and
limit the duration of regular benefits. Federal law establishes the requirements for the
approval of state programs, authorizes grants to the states for UC administration, and
establishes the Unemployment Trust Fund, a federal fund that accounts for both
federal and state program revenues and spending.
The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) levies an effective 0.8% tax on
private employers on the first $7,000 of wages paid annually to each UC-covered
employee.1 The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) accounts for the financial
transactions of the UC system. These transactions are recorded in the federal unified
budget as outlays and taxes in the UTF. Within the UTF, federal FUTA receipts are
credited to three federal accounts: (1) the Extended Unemployment Compensation
Account (EUCA), which provides the financing authority for one-half of EB; (2) the
Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA), which funds both federal and
state administrative costs; and (3) the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA), which
funds loans to insolvent state accounts.
States finance their programs and half of the permanent EB program with payroll
taxes similar to the federal FUTA tax. States impose an unemployment tax on at least
1The FUTA tax levied on private employers is actually 6.2% of the first $7,000 of wages paid
annually to each UC-covered employee. This tax rate is reduced to 0.8% in states with
approved UC programs. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands have approved programs; thus the effective FUTA tax rate is 0.8%.

---

CRS-2
the first $7,000 paid annually to each covered employee.2 Each state deposits its own
UC taxes with the U.S. Treasury. There are 53 state accounts within the
Unemployment Trust Fund. Each state’s account accumulates legal spending
authority over time, through credits for state UC tax receipts and interest income.
Each state is reimbursed, from its state account, by the federal government for its
benefit costs.
Regular UC benefits are designed to assist experienced workers facing short-
term, temporary periods of unemployment. Currently, 51 state programs limit the
maximum duration for receipt of regular UC benefits to 26 weeks. Only
Massachusetts and Washington allow a longer maximum duration of 30 weeks.
During periods of economic growth, the duration of regular benefits is usually
sufficient, as most UC beneficiaries experience fewer weeks of unemployment than
their maximum entitlements for the year. For example, in 1999 the national average
duration was 14.2 weeks, compared to a national average duration of 16.5 weeks
during 1993 (when the effects of the 1991 recession were reflected in the
unemployment data). However, during periods of economic decline, people tend to
remain unemployed longer because of the greater difficulty in finding new jobs, and
a rising proportion of jobless workers exhaust UC benefits without finding new work.
For example, in 1993 the national average exhaustion rate for regular UC benefits was
38.4%, compared to 31.3% in 1999. Thus, programs have been established to
increase the number of weeks of assistance during periods of high unemployment.
Brief History of Extended Benefit Programs3
Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC). The first temporary
extended UC program was the Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC)
program available from June 1958 through June 1959. TUC provided one-half of the
regular benefit entitlement up to an additional 13 weeks. TUC was financed by loans
to individual state accounts. If a state failed to repay the loan by January 1, 1963, the
FUTA tax in that state was raised to repay the balance of the loan.
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC)4. The
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program was in place
from April 1961 through March 1962. Like TUC, benefits under TEUC amounted
to one-half of regular benefits up to a maximum of 13 weeks. The TEUC was
financed entirely with FUTA taxes.
Extended Benefits (EB). The permanent EB program was enacted with the
passage of the Federal-State Extended Benefits Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-373). As
2Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also tax employees directly.
3For a more detailed history, see CRS Report 94-458, Unemployment Compensation: A
History of Extended Benefits for the Long-Term Unemployed, by James R. Storey and Gene
Falk.
4P.L. 107-147, the recent Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, has also created
a temporary extended benefit program entitled the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Program of 2002 or (TEUC).

---

CRS-3
originally enacted, the EB program contained both national and state-level triggers.
The program was activated nationally when the national seasonally adjusted insured
unemployment rate (IUR)5 was 4.5% or higher for at least 3 consecutive months. EB
could be activated in a specific state if its IUR for the preceding 13 weeks was at least
4% and this quarterly average was at least 120% of the corresponding average of the
previous 2 years. The national trigger was eliminated in 1981 with passage of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA 81). The permanent EB
program provides one-half of regular benefits up to a maximum of 13 weeks, and is
financed half from state UC taxes and half from FUTA taxes. The Federal-State
Extended Benefits Act of 1970 also provided for additional FUTA revenue by raising
the taxable wage base, for the first time in the UC system’s history, from $3,000 to
$4,000, and by raising the net FUTA tax rate from 0.4% to 0.5%.
The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 (OBRA 80, P.L. 96-499), established
a federal job search requirement for EB claimants, established rules denying EB
benefits to claimants who refused certain classes of work, and provided a federal
definition of “suitable work.” The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA 81,
P.L. 97-35), signed into law August 13, 1981, established more restrictive criteria for
activating EB. OBRA 81 eliminated the national trigger, making EB available only
in states with high IURs; raised the state trigger level to a 13-week average IUR of
at least 5% and 120% of the average IUR for the corresponding weeks in the past 2
years; allowed, at state option, for EB to be activated when the state’s IUR is at least
6%, regardless of the average IUR in the past 2 years; and changed the way the IUR
was calculated, excluding EB claimants from the measure (thus reducing IURs).
OBRA 81 also established a federal minimum requirement for work history by
requiring EB claimants to have worked at least 20 full weeks, or earned equivalent
wages, in a recent period prior to becoming unemployed.
In 1992, P.L. 102-182 added an optional EB trigger that uses a state’s total
unemployment rate (TUR) to determine its eligibility to activate EB. The TUR
measures the level of unemployment using survey data rather than the administrative
data upon which the IUR depends. The TUR is the ratio of the number of people
who have lost jobs and are seeking work to the number of people who are in the
civilian work force. Only eight states have adopted this optional trigger.
Magnuson Act. The EB program was enhanced temporarily by the
Emergency Unemployment Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-224). Also known as the Magnuson
Act, it was signed into law on December 29, 1971, began operation 30 days later, and
was in place through March 1973. Like its predecessors, the Magnuson Act provided
one-half the regular benefits in the state up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits. The
Magnuson Act was wholly financed with FUTA taxes. Under the Magnuson Act,
emergency compensation was made available in states that had activated the EB
program, or if: states were eligible for EB at some point in the past year; a state’s IUR
5The IUR is defined as the 13-week moving average of continuing regular UC claims
divided by the average number of individuals in UC-covered employment over the
first 4 of the last 6 completed quarters. Insured Unemployed is defined as the average
weekly number of weeks claimed for the 3 months of the quarter. Covered Employment is
defined as the number of employees covered by UI as reported to the states by employers.

---

CRS-4
exceeded EB’s 4% threshold but failed to meet the 120% requirement; or a state’s
adjusted insured unemployment rate (AIUR)6 exceeded 6.5%.
Federal Supplemental Benefits (FSB). The Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-572) created the Federal Supplemental Benefits
(FSB) program. FSB was in effect from January 1975 through October 1977. FSB
went through several changes in duration during the course of the program. P.L. 93-
572 provided for 13 weeks of extended UC benefits, financed from spending authority
in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA). EB was triggered
nationwide in February 1975, making both EB and FSB payable in all states. The Tax
Reduction Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-12) doubled the maximum FSB weeks to 26. This
brought the maximum number of weeks of UC in all states to 65 (26 weeks of regular
benefits, 13 weeks of EB, and 26 weeks of FSB).
The Emergency and Special Unemployment Extension Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-45)
retained the March 31, 1977 expiration date set by P.L. 93-572 but began a gradual
scaling back of the program. P.L. 94-45 established a trigger for FSB separate from
that for EB. The new trigger restricted FSB to states with high IURs and introduced
a tiered benefit structure providing more weeks of FSB in states with higher
unemployment. In states with IURs exceeding 6%, 26 weeks of FSB continued to be
available; in states with IURs of at least 5% but less than 6%, FSB was available for
up to 13 weeks. FSB was not available in states with IURs of less than 5%.
Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC). The Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), which established the FSC program, was
enacted September 3, 1982. FSC was authorized in part to offset the restrictions on
the permanent EB trigger, imposed by OBRA 81. These restrictions effectively
confined EB to about half the states during the 1981-1982 recession, the worst since
the Great Depression. States were also being triggered off EB in 1982 because the
OBRA 81 provision increasing the state trigger level became effective after September
25, 1982. FSC provided benefits beginning September 12, 1982, and was financed
from federal general revenue. FSC was set to expire March 31, 1983, but was
extended several times through June 1985. Some of the extensions were made
retroactively because extension legislation was not enacted before scheduled
expiration dates.
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC). The Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-164) was signed into law
November 15, 1991, and paid benefits through April 30, 1994. The EUC program
was amended five times during this period: P.L. 102-182, P.L. 102-244, P.L. 102-
318, P.L. 103-6, and P.L. 103-152. The EUC covered those individuals who
exhausted their regular UC benefits, any additional state benefits, and EB. Thus, in
order to be considered eligible for EUC, a claimant must not have been entitled to any
other UC benefit under federal or state law. EUC was a federal program, and was
6The AIUR is computed by summing: (1) the 13-week average IUR published in the DoL
weekly trigger notice; and (2) the ratio of exhaustees for the 3 most recent months for which
data are available to the average UC-covered employment for the 12 months representing the
first 4 of the last 6 completed quarters.

---

CRS-5
federally financed, but the benefits were paid by the states through federal-state
agreements. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico paid EUC benefits. Over the course of the EUC program, a total of $27.9 billion
in benefits were paid to recipients. A total of 160.9 million weeks of compensation
were paid, however 5 million individuals exhausted their EUC benefits.
Unlike the other temporary programs enacted since 1970, EUC effectively
superseded, rather than supplemented EB. Under the EUC program, an individual’s
EUC entitlement was reduced by any EB received. The Governor of a state that
triggered on to EB had the option of triggering it off in order to qualify that state’s
jobless for EUC. EB is financed half from federal unemployment taxes, while EUC
was wholly federally financed. Thus, triggering off EB to receive EUC reduced the
state’s benefit costs.
The tables located in the Appendix to this report highlight the complex
legislative framework of the EUC program. Table A presents the various public laws
defining the EUC program, benefit tiers, and effective dates for each law. Table B
presents the duration of benefits and changes in the duration of benefits for each state,
under each law that authorized EUC. Table C presents data on the benefits paid,
number of “first pays,” weeks of compensation and the number of exhaustees by
state.7
The numerous legislative changes to the EUC program illustrate well the
difficulties inherent in the design of emergency extended benefits. Certain states
whose IUR, AIUR or TUR measures hovered around the triggers changed benefit
levels several times during the program’s operation, thereby creating considerable
administrative complexity for state agencies. Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and
Maine were particularly affected.
Issues in Designing Benefit Extension Programs
Insured Unemployment Rate vs. Total Unemployment Rate. Since
the adoption of the permanent EB program in 1970, there has been considerable
debate concerning the relative merits of the insured unemployment rate (IUR) versus
the total unemployment rate (TUR) as an EB trigger. The IUR is defined as the 13-
week moving average of continuing regular UC claims divided by the average number
of individuals in UC-covered employment over the first 4 of the last 6 completed
quarters.8 This means that the IUR itself is an output of the UC system. The state
IURs depend on various non-economic factors, including state eligibility rules and
administrative practices. Thus, the IUR is not a precise reflection of the health of a
state’s economy.
7A “first pay” is defined as the first payment in a benefit year for a week of unemployment
claimed. This measure is used as proxy for “beneficiaries.”
8Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. Report and Recommendations.
February 1994. p. 63.

---

CRS-6
The TUR is defined as the number of all unemployed individuals actively seeking
work divided by the size of the civilian labor force. The TUR represents a larger
population than the IUR, because it counts as unemployed all those who are out of
work and actively looking for work, on layoff, or waiting to start a new job within 30
days. Since March 1992, states have had the option of using the seasonally adjusted
TUR, a measure that should prevent a state’s triggering EB during periods of high
seasonal unemployment. While the TUR is recognized as a better indicator of the
health of a state’s labor market, it is criticized by some as an inappropriate EB trigger
because the TUR includes many individuals for whom UC benefits are not available,
such as individuals voluntarily separated from employment.
National, State, and Sub-State Triggers. A perennial EB question
concerns the appropriate level at which to measure changes in unemployment. Should
the EB trigger be based on national, regional, state or sub-state data? Currently EB
is triggered on a statewide basis. National and state-level triggers were used together
from the beginning of the permanent EB program in 1970 through 1981, when the
national trigger was eliminated. The argument in favor of a national trigger is that the
definition of a recession is national in scope, and the federal government’s interest in
reversing a downturn is national as well. Thus, a national trigger is appropriate where
a goal of the program is to address cyclical unemployment by bolstering personal
income during a downturn.
The EUC program, while not employing a national trigger, essentially provided
benefits on a national level, because some form of emergency extended benefits were
available to individuals in all states. The EUC triggers allowed for variations in
duration of benefits among the states in relation to state unemployment levels.
However, recessions have often been primarily regional in impact. Thus, a national
trigger can result in the payment of extended benefits to individuals in states that do
not face unusually weak labor markets.
There have also been proposals to create EB triggers on either a regional or a
sub-state level. The logic behind the sub-state or regional triggers is that they might
improve the targeting of benefits because state boundaries are often of little relevance
to the workings of labor markets. There can be considerable labor market differences
between urban and rural areas within a state or among urban areas within a state.
Furthermore, some labor markets are located in more than one state. A statewide
trigger can deny benefits to areas facing severe labor market problems because other
regions of the state are not facing the same conditions.
There are a variety of arguments against regional and sub-state triggers. There
is little evidence that either of these mechanisms would improve the targeting of
benefits during a recession compared to the existing state-level trigger structure.
Considerable controversy also exists concerning how to define appropriate regional
or sub-state boundaries, and it is unclear whether these newly defined regions would
be any less arbitrary than current state boundaries. In addition, there are significant
obstacles to be overcome in the financing and administration of an EB program based
on regional or sub-state areas, because the state has always been the operational unit

---

CRS-7
for UC. There is also concern regarding the accuracy and availability of regional or
sub-state data and the costs of data improvements that would be needed.9
Measuring the Severity of a Downturn. The permanent EB program
employs threshold requirements for changes in the unemployment rate in addition to
the unemployment rate itself. Historically, the EB thresholds have been set at 120%
for the IUR triggers and 110% for TUR triggers. There are three potential conditions
under which a state can trigger on to EB. The first is an automatic trigger applying
to all states, allowing EB to be triggered when a state’s average 13-week IUR in the
most recent 13 weeks is at least 5.0% and at least 120% of the average of the 13-
week IUR in the last 2 years for the same 13-week calendar period. The second
trigger, which is available to states at their option, does not use a threshold criterion.
It allows a state to trigger on when the current 13-week IUR is at least 6.0%. All but
12 states have adopted the second trigger option. The third trigger mechanism is a
state-option trigger based on a seasonally adjusted 3-month average TUR. If the
average TUR exceeds 6.5% and is at least 110% of the same measure in either of the
prior 2 years, a state can offer 13 weeks of EB. If the average TUR exceeds 8% and
meets the same 110% test, 20 weeks of EB can be offered. Only eight states (Alaska,
Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington) use this third trigger.
The threshold requirements (the 110% and 120% tests) are designed to
distinguish states suffering from chronically high unemployment from those that have
experienced a recent cyclical tightening of the labor market. Use of thresholds
prevents the countercyclical effects of EB from being applied in states that have little
cyclical unemployment. One difficulty with thresholds is that they often serve to delay
the extension of benefits beyond the point where some political leaders may feel that
assistance is needed. A state such as Alaska that suffers from chronically high
unemployment will, because of the 120% criterion, have to reach a higher IUR to
trigger EB on than will a state that enters a recession with a lower unemployment
rate. Thus, a deteriorating national economy could result in EB triggering on faster
in more prosperous states than in poorer states if the low-unemployment states meet
the 120% criterion first.10
9The Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation advised against the use of sub-state
or regional data in determining the availability of extended benefits. Advisory Council on
Unemployment Compensation. Collected Findings and Recommendations: 1994-1996, 1996.
p. 5.
10For a discussion of additional policy issues regarding the use of unemployment triggers, with
particular focus on their use as a measure of economic need under the TANF contingency
fund, see CRS Report RL31106, Welfare Reform Financing Issues: An Analysis of Funding
Available in Case of Recession, by Gene Falk and Craig Abbey. For further discussion of
policy issues concerning extended benefits, see Advisory Council on Unemployment
Compensation, Report and Recommendations. February 1994. Chapter 6, Extended Benefits
Reform.

---

CRS-8
Temporary Benefit Extension Proposals Since September 11,
200111
Historically, temporary EB programs often started operation after the trough of
a recession had passed.12 The TUC (1958) and the TEUC (1961) were proposed and
enacted after the trough of those recessions but before the unemployment rate had
peaked. The EUCA (1971) was enacted after the end of the recession in November
1970 because unemployment levels had remained relatively high. FSC (1974) and
FSB (1982) both became effective toward the end of recessions. EUC (1991) was
enacted 8 months after the 1990-91 recession trough but 8 months before the
unemployment rate peaked.
In November, 2001, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
determined that the current recession began in March 2001.13 One unique feature of
the current economic decline is the added impact of a non-economic event (the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). NBER maintains that the attacks may have
been a significant factor in altering the nature of the economic decline from a
contraction to a recession. Although it is impossible to measure precisely the
economic effects of the attacks, they focused public attention on the state of the
economy and worsening unemployment.14
The recession, and the widespread economic impact of the attacks, had put
pressure on Congress to legislate some form of emergency or supplemental extended
benefits. Though a number of bills were introduced offering an array of benefit levels
and durations, this report focuses on major economic stimulus packages (H.R. 3090,
H.R. 3529, and the amended versions of H.R. 622). The President had also put forth
his own plan, embodied in S. 1532.
Congressional Proposals. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11
attacks, Congress focused on providing assistance to those workers who were
displaced from jobs in the most obviously affected industries, such as the airline and
11For additional information regarding bills temporarily expanding or extending UC benefits,
see CRS Report 95-742, Unemployment Benefits: Legislative Issues in the 107th Congress,
by Celinda Franco.
12The trough is the lowest point of GDP reached at the end of an economic decline.
13The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession as “a significant
decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in
industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade.” Recessions begin
just after the peak of an economic expansion and end as the economy approaches the trough
of the decline. For more information see The NBER’s Business-Cycle Dating Procedure,
[http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html]. NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee,
December 13, 2001.
14For additional information regarding layoffs due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
see CRS Report RL31250, Layoffs Due to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks and the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), by Linda Levine.

---

CRS-9
related industries.15 However, as the severity of the broader economic decline was
revealed, the focus shifted from industry-specific proposals to more comprehensive
economic stimulus initiatives, including temporary UC benefit extensions.
Broader proposals include H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act
of 2001, passed by the House on October 24, 2001. H.R. 3090 provides for the
distribution of $9 billion from a federal trust fund account (EUCA) to the state
unemployment accounts. These funds could be used for regular UC benefits, or states
could elect to extend or expand UC benefits through March 11, 2003.
H.R. 3090 was reported by the Senate Finance Committee on November 9,
2001, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment contains
provisions to extend UC benefits temporarily for up to 13 weeks for individuals who
exhaust their regular UC benefits, expand eligibility to cover part-time workers, and
supplement the regular UC weekly benefit amount by the larger of 15% or $25. The
Senate Finance Committee version of H.R. 3090 was considered by the Senate on
November 14, 2001, but was not brought to a vote. The substitute amendment was
withdrawn by unanimous consent.
As a result of negotiations attempting to reach agreement on a stimulus package,
on December 20, 2001, the House passed H.R. 3529, the Economic Security and
Worker Assistance Act of 2001. Title VII of the bill, the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2001, would provide up to 13 weeks of
extended benefits, available in any state, for individuals who become unemployed after
March 15, 2001, and who exhaust their regular benefits. H.R. 3529, a new version
of H.R. 3090, would also transfer $9 billion in surplus federal unemployment (Reed
Act) funds to the states. These Reed Act funds could be used by the states to enlarge
eligibility to include (1) individuals seeking part-time work, and (2) individuals who
qualify under an alternative base period for counting past wages.
On February 6, 2002, the Senate passed by unanimous consent and sent to the
House an amended version of H.R. 622. The amended of H.R. 622 included
provisions to extend UC benefits for up to 13 weeks to those individuals who have
exhausted their regular compensation since September 11, 2001.
On February 14, 2002, the House passed a third stimulus bill, an amended
version of the Senate-approved H.R. 622. The House-passed version of H.R. 622
included provisions for a 13-week extension of UC benefits, a $9 billion Reed Act
distribution to states, and 13 weeks of additional UC benefits in high unemployment
states. Also, on February 14, 2002, the Senate passed an amended version of the
House-approved H.R. 3090. The Senate-amended version of H.R. 3090 contained
provisions identical to those in the Senate-passed H.R. 622.
On, March 7, 2002, the House passed a fourth stimulus bill as a substitute
amendment to the Senate-amended version of H.R. 3090. The provisions in this bill
15For additional information see CRS Report RS21047, Unemployment Related to Terrorist
Attacks: Proposals to Assist Affected Workers in the Airlines and Related Industries, by Paul
J. Graney.

---

CRS-10
included a 13-week extension of UC benefits for all states, an extra 13 weeks (for a
possible extension of 26 weeks total) in high-unemployment states, and an $8 billion
Reed Act distribution to states. The Senate passed H.R. 3090 on March 8, 2002, and
the President signed H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002,
into law (P.L. 107-147) on March 9, 2002.
President Bush’s Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation Program Proposal (S. 1532). The President’s proposal
includes a temporary program called the Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation program (EEUC). The EEUC program would be in place for 18
months and would provide 13 additional weeks of UC for individuals who became
unemployed after September 11, 2001. Individuals would be eligible for EEUC if
they: (1) became unemployed after September 11, 2001; (2) were employed in a state
that has triggered on to the EEUC program; and (3) have exhausted their regular state
unemployment benefits. The weekly benefit amount available under the EEUC would
be equal to the state UC benefit amount. A state could trigger on if the President has
issued a major disaster or emergency declaration in that state as a result of the
September 11, 2001, attacks. The state could also trigger on to the EEUC if the
state’s seasonally adjusted TUR for the most recent 3 months is at least 30% higher
than the average TUR for the 3 months ending August 31, 2001.
The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
On March 9, 2002, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-147) was signed into law. Title II of P.L. 107-147 is the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC).16 The TEUC program contains
provisions extending UC benefits for 13 weeks in all states, distributing $8 billion in
Reed Act Funds to the states, and offering an additional 13 weeks of UC benefits (for
a potential total extension of 26 weeks) in high-unemployment states. The benefit
extensions in the TEUC program are wholly federally financed with general funds and
provide weekly benefit amounts equal to the amount of regular UC weekly benefits.
Eligibility. An individual could be eligible for TEUC benefits if he or she (1)
filed an initial (new or additional) claim that was effective during or after the week
of March 15, 2002; and (2) has exhausted regular benefits or have no benefit rights
due to expiration of a benefit year ending during or after the week of March 15, 2001;
and (3) has no rights to regular or extended benefits under any state or federal law;
and (4) is not receiving benefits under Canadian law.17 Individuals must also have 20
weeks of work, or the equivalent in wages, in their base periods in order to qualify for
TEUC.
16There was another program passed by Congress in 1961 called the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program. This program has no relationship with the
TEUC program of 2002.
17U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration. Unemployment
Insurance Program Letter No. 17-02.

---

CRS-11
Benefit Tiers. The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
(TEUC) program has two separate benefit tiers. The first tier, TEUC, contains no
trigger mechanism or threshold requirement. The first tier of benefits applies to all
states, regardless of the IUR in each state. The second tier of benefits, TEUC-X, is
an additional 13 weeks of extended UC benefits. This second extension is available
only to those individuals who have exhausted their initial 13-week TEUC extension
in a state classified as a ‘high unemployment’ state at the time the individual exhausts
the initial TEUC extension. TEUC-X employs a trigger mechanism to determine
whether or not a state is considered a ‘high-unemployment’ state.
A state is classified as a ‘high-unemployment’ state if the state’s IUR is at least
4%, and at least 120% of the average of the 13-week IUR in the last 2 years for the
same 13-week calendar period. DoL provides updated weekly trigger notices
indicating when states have triggered on to the TEUC-X program.18 Once a state has
triggered on to TEUC-X, that state will remain classified as a high-unemployment
state for 13 weeks, regardless of whether or not the state’s IUR drops below the 4%
criterion during that 13-week period. At the end of that 13 weeks, the state would
trigger off TEUC-X if that state’s IUR fell below 4%. If the state’s IUR remains
above 4% and continues to meet the 120% criterion, the state would continue to be
classified a high-unemployment state for an additional 13 weeks. This classification
process proceeds in 13-week increments for the life of the TEUC program (currently
slated to end January 1, 2003). Individuals who exhaust their initial 13-week TEUC
extension while their state is classified as a high unemployment state will be eligible
to receive TEUC-X.
18U.S. Department of Labor. Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Trigger
Notices. The most recent trigger notices are available online at
[http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/TEUC.asp].

---

CRS-12
Appendix. Detailed History and Benefit Structure
for the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Program
Table A. EUC Legislative History and Benefit Structure
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)
Dates in
Law
Benefit tier
effecta
Emergency
20 weeks: States with TUR of 9.5% or higher, or
Superseded
Unemployment
AIUR of 5% or higher
by P.L.
Compensation Act (P.L.
102-182
102-164) signed
13 weeks: States with AIUR of 4% or higher or
November 15, 1991
AIUR of 2.5% or higher and UC
exhaustion rate of 29% or higher
6 weeks:
All other states
Termination of
33 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or higher, or
November
Application of Title IV of
AIUR of 5% or higher
17, 1991-
the Trade Act of 1974 to
June 13,
Czechoslovakia and
26 weeks: All other states [NOTE: P.L. 102-
1992
Hungary (P.L. 102-182)
182 authorized benefit periods of 20
signed December 4,
and 13 weeks; P.L. 102-244 authorized
1991, and Emergency
an additional 13 weeks for each tier]
Unemployment Benefits
Extension (P.L. 102-244)
signed February 7, 1992
Unemployment
26 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or higher or
June 14,
Compensation
AIUR of 5% or higher
1992-
Amendments of 1992
March 6,
(P.L. 102-318) signed
20 weeks: All other states
1993
July 3, 1992
Emergency
Claims filed before September 12, 1993:
March 7,
Unemployment
26 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or higher or
1993-
Compensation
AIUR of 5% or higher
October 2,
Amendments of 1993
1993
(P.L. 103-6) signed
20 weeks: All other states
March 4, 1993
Claims filed on or after September 12, 1993b:
15 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or
higher, or AIUR of 5% or higher
10 weeks: All other states
Unemployment
13 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or
October 3,
Compensation
higher, or AIUR of 5% or higher
1993-
Amendments of 1993
February 5,
(P.L. 103-152) signed
7 weeks:
All other states
1994c
November 25, 1993
a “Dates in effect” refers to the date of first claim. A claimant received benefits for the period
established by the law in effect on the date of first claim.
b This benefit reduction was triggered by the national TUR’s falling below 7% for 2 consecutive
months. Had the TUR fallen below 6.8% for 2 months, benefit weeks would have been reduced to
13 and 7.
c Payments for claims filed by this date could continue until the earlier of the exhaustion of the
claimant’s entitlement or April 30, 1994.

---

CRS-13
Table B. EUC Benefit Duration (in weeks) by State and Lawa
P.L. 102-164,
State
P.L. 102-182 P.L. 102-244
P.L. 102-318
P.L. 103-6
P.L. 103-152
Alabama
13
26
20
10
7
13, January 23,
1994--EB on
Alaska
20
33
26
15
(13)b
Arizona
13
26
20
10
7
13, February
Arkansas
2, 1992--20
33
20
10
7
13, January 5,
California
1992--20
33
26
15
13
Colorado
13
26
20
10
7
26, November
Connecticut
20
33
1, 1992--20
10
7
Delaware
13
26
20
10
7
District of
Columbia
13
26
20
10
7
Florida
13
26
20
10
7
Georgia
13
26
20
10
7
Hawaii
13
26
20
10
7
26, July 19,
1992--20
13, February
February 21,
15, July 4,
Idaho
9, 1992--20
33
1993--26
1993--10
7
Illinois
13
26
20
10
7
Indiana
13
26
20
10
7
Iowa
13
26
20
10
7
Kansas
13
26
20
10
7
Kentucky
13
26
20
10
7
Louisiana
13
26
20
10
7
10, March 28,
26, August 30,
1993--15, June
7, March 27,
Maine
20
33
1992--20
27, 1993--10
1994 EB on (20)
Maryland
13
26
20
10
7
26, August 2,
Massachusetts
20
33
1992--20
10
7
26, October 25,
Michigan
20
33
1992--20
10
7
Minnesota
13
26
20
10
7
33, February
Mississippi
20
16, 1992--26
20
10
7
Missouri
13
26
20
10
7
10, March 7,
26, March 8,
1993--15 June
Montana
13
1992--33
20
12, 1993--10
7
Nebraska
13
26
20
10
7
26, March 8,
1992--33
June 6,
Nevada
13
1992--26
20
10
7
New Hampshire
13
26
20
10
7

---

CRS-14
P.L. 102-164,
State
P.L. 102-182 P.L. 102-244
P.L. 102-318
P.L. 103-6
P.L. 103-152
10,
March 7,
26, November
1993--15, June
New Jersey
20
33
22, 1992--20
13, 1993--10
7
New Mexico
13
26
20
10
7
26, February
26, July 12,
New York
13
16, 1992--33
1992--20
10
7
North Carolina
13
26
20
10
7
North Dakota
13
26
20
10
7
Ohio
13
26
20
10
7
Oklahoma
13
26
20
10
7
26, September
7, October 3,
27, 1992--20
1993--EB on
13,
January 31,
15, July 11,
(13) February
Oregon
1/12/92--20
33
1993--26
1993--10
26, 1994--EB off
10, March 21,
13, January
26, August 16,
1993--15, June
Pennsylvania
26, 1992--20
33
1992--20
20, 1993--10
7
7, January 16,
Rhode Island
20
33
26
15
1994--13
South Carolina
13
26
20
10
7
South Dakota
13
26
20
10
7
Tennessee
13
26
20
10
7
Texas
13
26
20
10
7
Utah
13
26
20
10
7
10, May 9,
1993--15
13, January
26, August 16,
August 8,
Vermont
19, 1992--20
33
1992--20
1993--10
7
Virginia
13
26
20
10
7
26, July 4,
1992--20
January 31,
15, June 27,
Washington

33
1993--26
1993--10
7
West Virginia
20
33
26
15
13
Wisconsin
13
26
20
10
7
Wyoming
13
26
20
10
7
Source: Emergency Unemployment Compensation: the 1990's Experience, Revised Edition, U.S.
Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, UI Occasional Paper 99-4. January
1999. (Data on Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands not available.)
a The italicized text in Table B shows the date the benefit duration changed and the new duration. For
example, a box reading 13, February 2, 1992–20 indicates that the original duration was 13
weeks, but that on February 2, 1992 the duration changed to 20 weeks because of a change in that
state’s IUR or TUR.
b The notation EB indicates that the state triggered off EUC and triggered on to the permanent EB
program. For example, EB on (13), would indicate that a state had triggered on to the permanent
EB program with a 13 week duration; or a notation reading February 26, 1994–EB off, indicates
the state triggering off the permanent EB program.

---

CRS-15
Table C. EUC Benefit Data, 1991-1994
Number of First
Number of Weeks
Number of
Benefits paid
Paysa
Compensated
Exhaustees
State
($ millions)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
United States
27,939
9,136
160,896
4,993
Alabama
166
101
1,586
49
Alaska
118
42
619
21
Arizona
174
88
1,443
54
Arkansas
162
66
1,152
38
California
4,548
1,016
28,814
805
Colorado
176
64
1,045
37
Connecticut
780
196
3,688
118
Delaware
44
15
257
9
District of Columbia
132
41
697
24
Florida
1,083
454
6,016
294
Georgia
348
146
2,666
93
Hawaii
106
29
354
15
Idaho
71
38
546
15
Illinois
1,185
457
6,562
216
Indiana
172
113
1,583
51
Iowa
137
55
850
28
Kansas
154
58
837
33
Kentucky
197
85
1,497
50
Louisiana
167
107
1,520
47
Maine
196
80
1,316
43
Maryland
464
140
3,220
55
Massachusetts
1,480
248
5,614
239
Michigan
1,382
419
6,828
240
Minnesota
295
109
1,529
51
Mississippi
129
82
1,199
36
Missouri
384
189
2,869
98
Montana
39
21
336
10
Nebraska
27
17
218
1
Nevada
131
53
783
26
New Hampshire
72
36
423
12
New Jersey
2,113
475
9,712
305
New Mexico
58
14
428
15
New York
3,668
1,081
17,989
459
North Carolina
399
318
2,818
69
North Dakota
25
15
184
6
Ohio
910
272
4,785
174
Oklahoma
138
58
952
31
Oregon
363
127
2,083
49
Pennsylvania
2,136
582
11,305
296
Puerto Rico
196
121
2,514
69
Rhode Island
286
82
1,383
50
South Carolina
193
99
1,536
48
South Dakota
4
3
44
1

---

CRS-16
Number of First
Number of Weeks
Number of
Benefits paid
Paysa
Compensated
Exhaustees
State
($ millions)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
Tennessee
284
176
2,511
76
Texas
1,262
507
7,752
302
Utah
59
27
351
12
Vermont
53
20
354
7
Virginia
297
231
2,010
67
Virgin Islands
1
1
20
0
Washington
507
171
3,075
70
West Virginia
171
53
1,135
24
Wisconsin
274
125
1,747
51
Wyoming
20
10
141
4
Source: Table prepared by CRS using data from the U.S. Department of Labor.
a First pay is defined as the first payment in a benefit year for a week of unemployment claimed. This
measure is used as proxy for the number of “beneficiaries”.

---