Temporary Programs to Extend Unemployment Compensation

Temporary Programs to Extend Unemployment Compensation

Order Code RL31277
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Temporary Programs to Extend
Unemployment Compensation
Updated January 24, 2003
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 unemployment compensation (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 or stagnation, 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 eight 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
extended benefits (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 recently completed 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.
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 (TEUC), contains provisions for a 13-
week extension of UC benefits in all states and an additional 13 weeks of UC
benefits for high-unemployment states.
The TEUC program ended on December 28, 2002. On January 8, 2003, S. 23
(P.L. 108-1) was signed into law, extending the TEUC program through the week
ending May 31, 2003, and including a gradual a phase-out period through August 30,
2003. Those with existing TEUC or TEUC-X claims as of May 31, 2003, will be
able to receive the remainder of their entitlement through the week ending August 30,
2003. No new TEUC claims will be accepted after May 31, 2003. P.L. 108-1 does
not provide additional weeks of benefits to individuals once they have exhausted
their initial TEUC entitlement. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Description of the UC System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Brief History of Extended Benefit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) . . . . . . . 5
Extended Benefits (EB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Magnuson Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Supplemental Benefits (FSB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Issues in Designing Benefit Extension Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Insured Unemployment Rate vs. Total Unemployment Rate . . . . . . . 10
National, State, and Sub-State Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Measuring the Severity of a Downturn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC)
Act of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Benefit Tiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TEUC-X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Legislative Developments in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Legislative History in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Proposals to Provide Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Proposals to Amend the TEUC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix. Detailed History and Benefit Structure for the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Extended Unemployment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. FSC Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. EUC Legislative History and Benefit Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 4. EUC Benefit Duration (in weeks) by State and Lawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5. EUC Benefit Data, 1991-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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
1 The 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
on at least 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). The national average duration for 2001 was 13.5 weeks.
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. The national average exhaustion rate for 2001 was
32.6%, and was 38.8% in the 2nd quarter of 2002. Thus, programs have been
established to increase the number of weeks of assistance during periods of high
unemployment.
2 Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also tax employees directly.

CRS-3
Table 1. Summary of Extended Unemployment Programs
Public
Duration of
Program
Dates
Trigger Mechanism
Financing Authority
Law
Benefits
Temporary
85-441
6/58 to 6/59
Lesser of 50% of
None.
Loans to state accounts; if a
Unemployment
regular UC benefit
state failed to repay loan by
Compensation
entitlement, or 13
1/1/63, the FUTA tax in the
(TUC)
weeks
state was raised to repay the
loan
Temporary
87-6
4/61 to 3/62
Lesser of 50% of
None.
FUTA taxes.
Extended
regular UC benefit
Unemployment
entitlement, or 13
Compensation
weeks
(TEUC)
Federal-State
91-373
Permanently
Lesser of 50% of
National:
50% state UC taxes
Extended
Authorized
regular UC benefit
IUR: (seasonally adjusted) of
50% federal FUTA taxes
Benefits Act of
entitlement, or 13
at least 4.5%
1970 (EB)
weeks
State
IUR: at least 5.0% and 120%
prior 2 years; or 6.0%
TUR: 6.5% and 110% of either
of 2 prior years.3
Emergency
92-224
1/72 to 3/73
Lesser of 50% of
National: seasonally adjusted
FUTA taxes.
Unemployment
regular UC benefit,
IUR of at least 4.5%
Compensation
or 13 weeks
State: special IUR of at least
(Magnuson Act)
4% and 120% of prior 2
years4
3 The EB triggers reported in this box are the trigger rates in operation today. See the section below, Extended Benefits (EB) for more
details on the changes made to the EB triggers since enactment of P.L. 91-373.
4 The Magnuson Act used an IUR that was adjusted to include exhaustions. See the section below on the Magnuson Act for a
description of this trigger. This measure was not calculated in exactly the same manner as the adjusted insured unemployment rate
(AIUR) was calculated in the EUC program of the 1990's.

CRS-4
Public
Duration of
Program
Dates
Trigger Mechanism
Financing Authority
Law
Benefits
Federal
93-572
1/75 to 10/77
Varied during the
National:
FUTA taxes for benefit paid
Supplemental
program; at its
IUR: (seasonally adjusted)
before 4/1/77; federal general
Benefits (FSB)
peak provided up
of at least 4.5%
revenue for benefits paid on or
to 26 weeks of
State:
after 4/1/77
benefits in the first
IUR: at least 5.0% and 120%
half of 1975
prior 2 years; or 6.0%
TUR: 6.5% and 110% of either
of 2 prior years
Federal
97-248
9/82 to 6/85
Varied depending
Varied during the program (see
FUTA taxes and federal
Supplemental
on time period and
Table 2)
general revenue.
Compensation
state’s insured
(FSC)
unemployment
(see Table 2)
Emergency
102-164
11/91 to 4/94
Varied depending
Varied during the program (see
FUTA taxes for benefits paid
Unemployment
on time period and
Table 3 in the Appendix)
before 7/5/92 and after 10/2/93;
Compensation
state’s insured
with certain exceptions, federal
(EUC)
unemployment
general revenue for benefits
(see Table 3 in the
paid on or after 7/5/92 but
Appendix)
before 10/3/93
Temporary
107-147
3/02 to 12/02
TEUC and TEUC-
TEUC-X:
FUTA taxes.
Extended
X: Lesser of 50%
IUR: at least 4% and 120% of
Unemployment
of regular UC
the prior 2 years
Compensation
entitlement, or 13
TUR: at least 6.5% and 110%
(TEUC)
weeks5
of either or both of the
prior 2 years.
5 There are two benefit tiers available under the TEUC program. The first tier (TEUC) is available in every state; the second tier
(TEUC-X) is available only in ‘high-unemployment’ states which meet the trigger.

CRS-5
Brief History of Extended Benefit Programs6
Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC). The first temporary
extended UC program was the Temporary Unemployment Compensation (TUC)
(P.L. 85-441) program available from June 1958 through June 1959. Eligible
individuals received a TUC benefit that was equal to 50% of the total amount of their
regular UC benefit. This means, for example, that an individual who received a
regular UC entitlement of 26 weeks received 13 weeks of TUC benefits, or an
individual who received 14 weeks of regular UC received 7 weeks of TUC benefits.
An individual’s TUC benefit was also reduced by the amount of any state financed
temporary additional UC benefits.7
The TUC program was extended once. As originally enacted, the TUC program
was to provide additional benefits for weeks of unemployment beginning after June
19, 1958, and before April 1, 1959. P.L. 86-7 extended TUC through June 1, 1959
for claimants who had exhausted regular benefits before the week of April 1, 1959.
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. State participation in the TUC program was optional.
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC)8. The
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) (P.L. 87-6) program
was in place from April 1961 through March 1962. TEUC benefits were provided
nationwide for individuals who had exhausted their regular benefit entitlement after
June 30, 1960. Individuals eligible for TEUC received a benefit equal to the lesser
of 50% of their regular UC entitlement or 13 weeks. The TEUC program also
limited the total number of weeks of benefits to a maximum of 39 (26 weeks of
regular UC plus 13 weeks of TEUC). Unlike the TUC program, TEUC benefits were
not reduced by weeks of temporary additional state UC, but they were reduced by
amounts received from public or private pensions.
TEUC was financed through repayable advances from federal general revenue,
except that benefits for jobless federal employees and ex-service members were
financed directly from federal general revenues and were not required to be repaid.
The advances for regular state benefit exhaustees were required to be repaid through
a delayed, temporary increase in the FUTA tax revenues. The net FUTA tax rate was
doubled in 1962 to 0.8% (from the 1961 level of 0.4%), and was set at 0.65% for
1963. This increased FUTA revenue was credited to a special, temporary account in
6 For 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.
7 While an individual’s TUC entitlement would be reduced by the number of weeks of state
temporary additional UC, an individual’s receipt of TUC benefits could not affect their
eligibility for, or amount of the state temporary additional UC benefits.
8 P.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-6
the Unemployment Trust Fund that served as an accounting device for the repayment
of the general fund transfers. The TEUC program was mandatory in all states.
Extended Benefits (EB). The permanent EB program was enacted with the
passage of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment compensation Act of 1970
(P.L. 91-373). As 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)9 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).10
OBRA 81 also established a federal minimum requirement for work history by
9 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. In other words, it is number of individuals receiving UC
benefits divided by the number of individuals who would be eligible for UC should they
become unemployed. 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.
10 The Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 required that
national and state EB triggers be based on the IUR, defined as average weekly UC claims
divided by covered employment. The Department of Labor’s regulation required that claims
for regular UC, EB and any additional compensation be included in the IUR determination.
In June 1979, the Carter Administration proposed revising the regulations to include claims
only for regular benefits in the IUR calculations. This change was effective February 3,
1980 (Federal Register, v. 45 no. 2, January 3, 1980, p. 797). However, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia in AFL/CIO v. Marshall found this change to be illegal.
DoL revised its IUR computation in December 1980 to include EB claimants, until OBRA
81 mandated that the IUR include only regular benefit claimants.

CRS-7
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
UC claims 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. Currently, nine states have adopted the optional TUR
trigger (Alaska, Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington).
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 in states’: that had been eligible for EB at some point in the past year;
where the IUR exceeded EB’s 4% threshold but failed to meet the 120% requirement;
or where the insured unemployment rate, adjusted for exhaustions exceeded 6.5%.
It is important to note that the adjusted insured unemployment rate (AIUR)
implemented by the Magnuson Act was arrived at using a different calculation than
the AIUR implemented in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)
program of the 1990's.11 Under the Magnuson Act the AIUR was calculated by
combining the IUR (as determined in the EB program) with the 13-week exhaustion
rate. The Magnuson Act calculated the 13-week exhaustion rate by dividing 25% of
the sum of the most recent 12 months worth of exhaustions by the average monthly
covered employment.
The Magnuson Act was originally set to expire on September 30, 1972. P.L. 92-
329 extended the program to March 31, 1973, and included a delayed, temporary
increase in the FUTA tax rate, for 1973 only, to 0.58% from 0.5%.
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
11 The AIUR used in the EUC program was defined as the 13-week moving average of
insured unemployed plus the sum of the exhaustions in the 3 most recently completed
calendar months divided by covered employment.

CRS-8
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%.
The Emergency Unemployment Extension Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-19) extended
FSB through October 31, 1977, when the program expired. P.L. 95-19 reduced the
maximum number of weeks of FSB to 13 in all states with IUR’s over 6%, with no
additional weeks available in any state that did not meet the 6% trigger. P.L. 95-19
also provided that FSB benefits paid after April, 1, 1977 be financed from federal
general revenues.
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. Table 2 illustrates the various changes made to the FSC program.

CRS-9
Table 2. FSC Benefits
Law
Benefit Tiers
Dates in
Effect
Tax Equity and
10 weeks: EB activated in state after 6/1/82
9/12/82-
Fiscal
8 weeks:
EB inactive in state; IUR at least 3.5%
1/8/83
Responsibility Act
6 weeks:
All other states
(P.L. 97-248)
signed 9/3/82
Surface
16 weeks: IUR of 6% or higher
1/9/83-
Transportation Act
14 weeks: EB activated on or after 6/1/83 but IUR
3/31/83
of 1982 (P.L. 97-
below 6%
424) signed 1/6/83
12 weeks: IUR at least 4.5%
10 weeks: IUR at least 3.5% but less than 4.5%
8 weeks:
All other states
Social Security
First FSC payments on 4/1/83 or later:
4/1/83-
Amendments of
10/18/83
1983 (P.L. 98-21)
14 weeks: IUR of 6% or higher
signed 4/20/83
12 weeks: IUR of at least 5% but less than 6%
10 weeks: IUR of at least 4% but less than 5%
8 weeks:
IUR below 4%
Additional entitlements for FSC recipients before
4/1/83:
10 weeks: IUR at least 6%
8 weeks:
IUR at least 4% but below 6%
6 weeks:
IUR below 4%
Federal
FSC first payments 10/19/83 and later:
10/19/83-
Supplemental
expiration
Compensation
14 weeks: IUR at least 6%
date
Amendments of
12 weeks: IUR at least 5% but less than 6%
1983 (P.L. 98-135)
10 weeks: IUR at least 4% but less than 5%
signed 10/24/83
8 weeks:
IUR below 4%
Additional entitlements, FSC first payments after
3/31/83 but before 10/19/83:
5 weeks:
If all remaining benefits are for weeks before
10/19/83
4 weeks:
IUR of at least 5%
2 weeks:
IUR below 5%
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 federally financed, but the benefits were paid by the states through federal-state

CRS-10
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 3 presents the various public laws
defining the EUC program, benefit tiers, and effective dates for each law. Table 4
presents the duration of benefits and changes in the duration of benefits for each
state, under each law that authorized EUC. Table 5 presents data on the benefits
paid, number of “first pays,” weeks of compensation and the number of exhaustees
by state.12
The numerous legislative changes to the EUC program illustrate well the
difficulties inherent in the design of emergency extended benefit programs. 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.13 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.
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
12 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 “beneficiaries.”
13 Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. Report and Recommendations.
February 1994. p. 63.

CRS-11
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. Currently, nine states have adopted this trigger
(Alaska, Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington). 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-12
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.14
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 nine states (Alaska,
Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, 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.15
14 The 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.
15 For 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-13
The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
(TEUC) Act of 2002
Historically, temporary EB programs often started operation after the trough of
a recession had passed.16 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 2001.17 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.18 The recession, and the economic impact
of the attacks, put pressure on Congress to legislate some form of emergency or
supplemental extended benefits.
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).19 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 FUTA
tax dollars from EUCA account in the unemployment compensation trust fund) and
provide weekly benefit amounts equal to the amount of regular UC weekly benefits.
16 The trough is the lowest point of GDP reached at the end of an economic decline.
17 The 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.
18 For 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.
19 There 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.

CRS-14
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 has 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.20 Individuals also must have 20
weeks of work, or the equivalent in wages, in their base periods in order to qualify
for TEUC.
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. Under the first tier of benefits, individuals
are eligible for up to 13 weeks of TEUC benefits.
An individual’s TEUC benefit entitlement is based upon their regular UC
entitlement. TEUC law is written so that an individual receives the lesser of 50% of
their regular UC entitlement or 13 times their average weekly benefit amount.21 The
key point is that individuals who were not eligible to receive the full 26 weeks (30
weeks in Massachusetts and Washington)22 of regular UC would receive a TEUC
allotment that was equal to half of their regular UC benefit. For example, an
individual who received 14 weeks of regular UC and exhausted those benefits, would
be eligible for 7 weeks of TEUC.
The second tier of benefits, TEUC-X, provides up to an additional 13 weeks of
extended UC benefits.23 This second extension is available only to those individuals
who exhaust their initial 13-week TEUC extension in a state classified as a ‘high
unemployment’ state at the time the individual exhausts the initial TEUC entitlement.
TEUC-X has 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
20 U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration. Unemployment
Insurance Program Letter No. 17-02.
21 P.L. 107-147, Sec. 203(b)(1).
22 The ‘lesser of’ segment of this provision also ensures that eligible individuals in
Massachusetts and Washington states do not receive a larger TEUC entitlement than
comparably eligible individuals in other states. An individual who received a full 30 weeks
of regular UC in Washington or Massachusetts would (without the ‘lesser of’ provision) be
eligible for 15 weeks.
23 The TEUC-X benefit amount is equal to the first tier of TEUC benefits. For example, an
individual who exhausted their initial TEUC allotment of 7 weeks while their state was
classified as a ‘high-unemployment state’ would receive an additional 7 weeks of TEUC-X
benefits. This would mean that the individual in our example (above) would have received
a total of 28 weeks of unemployment compensation benefits (14 weeks of regular UC, 7
weeks of TEUC, and 7 weeks of TEUC-X).

CRS-15
indicating when states have triggered on to the TEUC-X program.24 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 will
trigger off TEUC-X if that state’s IUR has fallen below 4%. If the state’s IUR
remains above 4% and continues to meet the 120% criterion, the state will 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 cease accepting new TEUC claims on May 31, 2003).
Individuals who exhaust their initial 13-week TEUC extension while their state is
classified as a high unemployment state are eligible to receive TEUC-X.
TEUC-X. The TEUC-X program temporarily lowers the IUR trigger rate from
5% to 4%. As long as the state’s IUR remains above 4%, individuals in that state are
eligible to receive TEUC-X. A check of the DoL TEUC trigger notice for the week
of January 19, 2003 reveals that only three states (Alaska, Washington and Oregon)
are eligible for the second tier of benefits, TEUC-X. Between the week of enactment
of P.L. 107-147 and the week of January 19, 2003 a total of 13 states had, at some
point, triggered on to TEUC-X. When the TEUC legislation was initially passed, it
was believed that TEUC-X would provide up to an additional 13-weeks of benefits
in more states than actually triggered.
Legislative Developments in the 108th Congress
The TEUC program had originally been scheduled to end December 28, 2002.
Near the end of the 107th Congress members debated whether or not to extend and/or
expand TEUC benefits. The 107th Congress adjourned without passing an extension
of the program. The TEUC program technically expired December 28, 2002.
However, 11 days later Congress passed, and the President signed, S. 23 (P.L. 108-1)
extending the program so that there would not be a lapse in benefits for eligible
TEUC beneficiaries.
On January 8, 2003, S. 23 (P.L. 108-1) was signed into law, extending the
TEUC program through the week ending May 31, 2003, and including a gradual a
phase-out period through August 30, 2003. Those with existing TEUC or TEUC-X
claims as of May 31, 2003, will be able to receive the remainder of their entitlement
through the week ending August 30, 2003. No new TEUC claims will be accepted
after May 31, 2003. P.L. 108-1 does not provide additional weeks of benefits to
individuals once they have exhausted their initial TEUC entitlement.
Several other bills containing provisions to extend or expand the TEUC program
were introduced on January 7, 2003 (H.R. 17, S. 35, H.R. 162, H.R. 209, H.R. 228).
H.R. 17 would extend the program through the week ending June 28, 2003, and
proposes a phase-out period through December 31, 2003. H.R. 17 would augment
the first tier of TEUC benefits by providing 26 weeks of benefits to all individuals
24 U.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-16
eligible for TEUC. This would include those individuals who have already
exhausted 13 weeks of TEUC benefits. H.R. 17 also would reduce the amount of
TEUC-X benefits in high-unemployment states from 13 weeks to 7 weeks. H.R. 17
proposes two additional triggers: an adjusted insured unemployment rate (AIUR)
trigger; and a total unemployment rate (TUR) trigger that would apply to all states
(including states that do not currently have the TUR trigger included in state law).
S. 35 would extend the TEUC program to May 31, 2003, and proposes a phase-
out period through December 31, 2003. S. 35 would also provide 26 weeks of
benefits to all individuals eligible for TEUC. Under S. 35, TEUC-X benefits for
high-unemployment states would remain at a 13 week maximum. H.R. 162 would
provide all TEUC recipients who exhaust either (or both) their TEUC or TEUC-X
benefits with another allotment of benefits equal to their original TEUC entitlement,
and would extend the program to January 1, 2004. H.R. 209 would extend the
TEUC program through April 1, 2003. H.R. 228 would extend the program to April
1, 2003, and proposes a new TUR trigger. This new trigger would allow states to
trigger on to TEUC-X if the state’s seasonally adjusted average TUR for fiscal year
2002 exceeds the seasonally adjusted average TUR in all states for the same period.
S. 106, introduced January 9, 2003, would extend the TEUC program to July 1, 2003
and proposes a phase-out period through the week ending September 27, 2003.
Legislative History in the 107th Congress
Proposals to Provide Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation. 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 related industries.25
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.
Broad proposals also included H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery
Act of 2001, passed by the House on October 24, 2001. H.R. 3090 provided for the
distribution of $9 billion from a federal trust fund account (EUCA) to the state
unemployment accounts. These funds could have been used for regular UC benefits,
or states could have elected 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 contained
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
25 For 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-17
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 have provided 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 have transferred $9 billion in surplus federal
unemployment (Reed Act) funds to the states. These Reed Act funds could have
been 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
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.
Proposals to Amend the TEUC Program. Several bills were introduced
that would have amended various aspects of the TEUC program (these bills expired
with the end of the 107th Congress). S. 2714 was introduced July 9, 2002, and H.R.
5089 was introduced July 10, 2002. Both bills would have extended the first tier of
TEUC benefits to equal the lesser of the number of weeks an individual received
under regular UC or 26 times the individual’s average weekly benefit amount. S.
2714 and H.R. 5089 would also have extended the availability of the TEUC program
by 6 months to June 30, 2003.
S. 2892 was introduced August 1, 2002. S. 2892 would have extended the
availability of TEUC benefits by 6 months to June 30, 2003. S. 2892 would have
provided all eligible TEUC recipients with 26 weeks of first tier benefits. Under S.
2892, all individuals exhausting their regular UC benefits would have been eligible
for 26 weeks of TEUC benefits, regardless of their regular UC benefit entitlement.

CRS-18
S. 2892 would also have reduced the TEUC-X benefit duration from 13 weeks to 7
weeks.
S. 2892 would have revised the definition of the IUR to include individuals who
had exhausted26 their regular UC benefit during the most recent quarter. The new
definition, adjusted insured unemployment rate (AIUR), would have counted
individuals who had exhausted their regular UC benefits along with those who had
filed an initial claim for regular UC benefits. Thus, the new trigger definition would
have been: the average weekly number of people filing claims plus the average
weekly number of people exhausting their regular UC benefits, divided by the
average monthly covered employment. S. 2892 would have established an additional
trigger for states to trigger on to TEUC-X. This trigger would have allowed states
to trigger on to TEUC-X if the TUR was equal to or greater than: (1) 6%; and (2)
110% of the TUR for the same period in either (or both) of the past two years. S.
2892 would also have repealed the TEUC eligibility requirement that individuals
must have worked the equivalent of 20 weeks of full-time insured employment.
S. 3009 and H.R. 5491 were introduced September 26, 2002. Both bills would
have provided all eligible TEUC recipients with 26 weeks of first tier benefits and
would have reduced the TEUC-X benefits (second tier) in high-unemployment states
to 7 weeks. As with S. 2892, both S. 3009 and H.R. 5491 would have adjusted the
definition of IUR to include individuals who had exhausted their regular
unemployment compensation in the most recently completed quarter. This new
trigger mechanism would have allowed states to be classified as ‘high-
unemployment’ if their AIUR was equal to or greater than 4% and 120% of the prior
2-year average AIUR for the same period. S. 3009 and H.R. 5491 would also have
provided an additional extended benefit trigger based on the seasonally adjusted 3
month average TUR in all states. Under this provision, any state could have triggered
on to TEUC-X if their TUR was equal to or greater than 6% and 110% of the TUR
for the same period in either or both of the past 2 years. Both bills would have
extended the TEUC program until the last week of June 2003.
H.R. 5587, introduced October 9, 2002, proposed to extend the TEUC program
for high-unemployment states, and to allow individuals whose TEUC or TEUC-X
entitlement would otherwise be cut off by the December 28, 2002 expiration date of
the original TEUC legislation, to receive their full benefit entitlement. The bill
would have allowed those individuals who exhausted their TEUC allotment after
December 28, 2002 in high-unemployment states to receive an additional 13 weeks
of benefits. The bill would not have provided additional weeks to individuals who
exhausted regular UC, TEUC, or TEUC-X benefits after December 28, 2002 in states
that did not meet the high-unemployment triggers established by the original TEUC
legislation (P.L. 107-147). H.R. 5587 would not have provided benefit payments for
any weeks of unemployment after the week of April 1, 2003.
November 14, 2002, the Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 3529 that
contained provisions to extend the TEUC program through March 31, 2003, with a
26 Exhaustions are defined as the number of claimants drawing the final payment of their
original entitlement to a given program.

CRS-19
phase-out period continuing through June 28, 2003. The phase-out period would
have allowed anyone eligible for, or receiving benefits before March 31, 2003, to
finish out their TEUC entitlement. Under H.R. 3529, individuals who exhausted
either regular compensation, or the first tier of TEUC after March 31, 2003, would
not have been eligible to receive any further TEUC or TEUC-X benefits.
H.R. 5063 was passed by the House on November 14, 2002. H.R. 5063 would
have extended the TEUC program only in high-unemployment states, and allowed
individuals whose TEUC or TEUC-X entitlement would have been cut off by the
December 28, 2002 expiration date of the original TEUC legislation, to continue to
receive their TEUC allotment until February 2, 2003. Under H.R. 5063 (as under
H.R. 5587) individuals who exhausted regular UC (in a state not-classified as a high-
unemployment state) after December 28, 2002, would not have been eligible for any
additional weeks of benefits under the TEUC program.
H.R. 5731 was introduced in the House with provisions extending the TEUC
program through April 1, 2003, and introducing an alternative trigger mechanism for
states to qualify for the TEUC-X benefit tier. This alternative trigger mechanism
would have compared a state’s seasonally adjusted TUR with the average seasonally
adjusted TUR in all states during the same fiscal year. If an individual state’s
seasonally adjusted TUR was greater than the average of the national average
seasonally adjusted TUR, then the state would have been considered a high-
unemployment state and triggered TEUC-X.

CRS-20
Appendix. Detailed History and Benefit Structure
for the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Program
Table 3. EUC Legislative History and Benefit Structure
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)
Dates in
Law
Benefit tier
effecta
Emergency Unemployment
20 weeks: States with TUR of 9.5% or higher, or
Superseded
Compensation Act (P.L.
AIUR of 5% or higher
by P.L.
102-164) signed November
102-182
15, 1991
13 weeks: States with AIUR of 4% or higher or
AIUR of 2.5% or higher and UC
exhaustion rate of 29% or higher
6 weeks:
All other states
Termination of Application
33 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or higher, or
November
of Title IV of the Trade Act
AIUR of 5% or higher
17, 1991-
of 1974 to Czechoslovakia
June 13,
and Hungary (P.L. 102-
26 weeks: All other states [NOTE: P.L. 102-182
1992
182) signed December 4,
authorized benefit periods of 20 and 13
1991, and Emergency
weeks; P.L. 102-244 authorized an
Unemployment Benefits
additional 13 weeks for each tier]
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 (P.L.
March 6,
102-318) signed July 3,
20 weeks: All other states
1993
1992
Emergency Unemployment
Claims filed before September 12, 1993:
March 7,
Compensation
26 weeks: States with TUR of 9% or higher or
1993-
Amendments of 1993 (P.L.
AIUR of 5% or higher
October 2,
103-6) signed March 4,
1993
1993
20 weeks: All other states
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 higher, or
October 3,
Compensation
AIUR of 5% or higher
1993-
Amendments of 1993 (P.L.
February 5,
103-152) signed November
7 weeks:
All other states
1994c
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-21
Table 4. EUC Benefit Duration (in weeks) by State and Lawa
P.L. 102-164,
State
P.L. 102-244
P.L. 102-318
P.L. 103-6
P.L. 103-152
P.L. 102-182
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
California
5, 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,
7, March 27,
26, August 30, 1993--15, June
1994 EB on
Maine
20
33
1992--20
27, 1993--10
(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

CRS-22
P.L. 102-164,
State
P.L. 102-244
P.L. 102-318
P.L. 103-6
P.L. 103-152
P.L. 102-182
New Hampshire
13
26
20
10
7
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
7, October 3,
26, September
1993--EB on
27, 1992--20
(13) February
13,
January 31,
15, July 11,
26, 1994--EB
Oregon
1/12/92--20
33
1993--26
1993--10
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-23
Table 5. EUC Benefit Data, 1991-1994
Number of First
Number of Weeks
Number of
Benefits paid
State
Paysa
Compensated
Exhaustees
($ 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

CRS-24
Number of First
Number of Weeks
Number of
Benefits paid
State
Paysa
Compensated
Exhaustees
($ millions)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
(in thousands)
South Dakota
4
3
44
1
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”.