Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act of 2009

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's tough to see this bill either as a small business bill or as a jobs bill, and, specifically, I have three concerns:

One, it raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it tougher for Americans to find needed work.

Two, roughly 80 percent of the so-called tax relief in the bill is dedicated to State and local governments.

Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create the kind of private sector jobs that we need.

Three, the limited and very narrow tax provisions, even if well- intentioned, will not do enough to help employers create jobs.

Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed. That's the simple truth regarding the provision limiting treaty benefits for certain deductible payments. This is very similar to a provision offered previously by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and accounts for about 40 percent of the $19.4 billion in tax increases in the bill.

There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.

In case you need more evidence that the Democrat stimulus bill failed, just look at the $2.5 billion in ``emergency'' welfare spending that was added to this bill. This money will be paid out in the third fiscal year since stimulus money first started flowing. That's the third year. This bill increases spending, it increases taxes and will not create private sector jobs. In that respect, this is the ``Mini Me'' of the Democrats' stimulus bill.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have heard that this welfare expansion is about jobs. Frankly, it's not. Democrats propose to expand the welfare emergency fund that was contained in last year's failed stimulus bill by $2.5 billion. They just extend it for another year and add that money. But since this legislation doesn't really alter how the money is spent, we can only assume the new spending will be a lot like the current spending. So what has the money been spent on so far? Almost none of it has been spent on jobs. Almost all of it has been spent on more and larger welfare checks.

I would like to insert in the Record from the recent Congressional Research Service report on how the welfare emergency funds have been spent to date. As of March 18, 2010, only 13 percent of those funds have been spent on subsidized employment. Instead, 87 percent was spent on short-term aid and basic assistance. That is, on welfare checks.

[From the Congressional Research Service, Mar. 23, 2010]

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

(By Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy)

State and Tribal Use of TANF Emergency Funds

As of March 18, 2010, states and tribes have been awarded

$1.8 billion of the total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1

shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The

figure shows cumulative grant awards through March 18, 2010.

It shows that $848 million, a little less than half of the

total grant awards of $1.6 billion was to help finance

increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $726

million, 40% of the $1.8 billion, was for non-recurrent

short-term aid and $231 million, 13% of the total, was for

subsidized employment.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I place in the Record a letter to Mr. Levin and myself from the Organization for International Investment, a large association representing over 5 million Americans. It is an association of U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad which also accounts for one-fifth of all exports which says that the language in this legislation would override many of our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to retaliatory actions by other countries.

I would also note that during the markup of this legislation in committee, even the Obama administration's own witness, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy stated that the Treasury Department has, and I quote, ``Concerns about the specifics of this provision and whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.'' She also stated the administration prefers a more targeted approach.

Organization for

International Investment,

March 15, 2010.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp, On behalf of

the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am

writing to express concern with a tax provision included as

Section 401 of the discussion draft of the Small Business and

Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. While we recognize the

need for revenue, we must oppose Section 401 as an offset

because it represents a clear and harmful override of our

existing U.S. income tax treaties. Although positive changes

were made to this proposal since it was originally introduced

as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), OFII remains

opposed because it still uniquely discriminates against U.S.

subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad and clearly

violates many of our international agreements.

OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of

companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an

important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S.

economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million

Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S.

exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative

signal to international investors and may dissuade these

companies from choosing the United States as a location for

job creating investment.

As drafted, Section 401 would unilaterally override many of

our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to

retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our

treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting

international business transactions. The Senate has opposed

this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for

these reasons.

Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue

and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address

any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence

that existing safeguards, including the substantial and

restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called

``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in

most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are

ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,

the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax

Treaty which would avoid the negative consequences of

violating our international agreements.

Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the

Treasury has taken great strides to update the three

bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,

Hungary, Poland). A protocol adding an LOB provision to the

Iceland treaty was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the

Senate in 2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been

negotiated and initialed and could be ratified

this year. Treasury is expected to pursue a similar amendment

to the treaty with Poland during 2010-2011.

Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that

was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse

of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of

existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more

appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this

provision and we urge you to oppose including Section 401 in

the final version of the Small Business Jobs Bill. We would

be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in greater

detail.

Sincerely,

Nancy McLernon

President & CEO.

Organization for International Investment

OFII is the only business association in Washington D.C.

that exclusively represents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

companies and advocates for their non-discriminatory

treatment under state and federal law.

members

ABB Inc., ACE INA Holdings, Inc., AEGON USA, AgustaWestland

Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Airbus North America Holdings, Air

Liquide America L.P., Akzo Nobel Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon

Laboratories, Inc.

Alfa Laval Inc., Allianz of North America, ALSTOM, AMEC,

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, APL Limited,

AREVA, Inc., Astellas Pharma US, Inc., AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals.

BAE Systems, Barclays Capital, Barrick Goldstrike Mines,

Inc., BASF Corporation, Bayer Corp., BIC Corp., Bimbo Foods,

Inc., bioMerieux, Inc., BNP Paribas, Boehringer Ingelheim

Corp.

BOSCH, BP, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Brother

International Corp., Brunswick Group, BT, Bunge Ltd., Case

New Holland, CEMEX USA, Cobham.

Covidien, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Daiichi Sankyo,

Inc., Daimler, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Deutsche Post World

Net USA, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, Inc., EADS, Inc., EDF

International North America.

Eisai Inc., Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Electrolux Home

Products, Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ericsson, Evonik Degussa

Corporation, Experian, Finmeccanica North America,

Flextronics International, Food Lion, LLC.

France Telecom North America, Garmin International, Inc.,

GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Inc., Generali USA, Givaudan,

GKN America Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, Hanson North America,

Hitachi, Ltd., Holcim (US) Inc.

HSBC North America Holdings, Huhtamaki, Hyundai Motor

America, Iberdrola Renewables, ING America Insurance

Holdings, InterContinental Hotels Group, John Hancock Life

Insurance Co., Lafarge North America, Lenova, Logitech Inc.

L'Oreal USA, Inc., Louisiana Energy Service (LES),

Louisville Corporate Services, Inc., LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis

Vuitton, Macquarie Aircraft Leasing Services, Macquarie

Holdings Inc., Maersk Inc, Magna International, Marvell

Semiconductor, McCain Foods USA.

Michelin North America, Inc. Miller Brewing Company,

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, Munich Re, Nestle USA,

Inc., The Nielsen Company (US), Inc., Nokia, Inc., Novartis

Corporation, Novelis Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals.

Oldcastle, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pearson

Inc., Pernod Ricard USA, PetroBras North America, Philips

Electronics North America, QBE the Americas, Randstad North

America, Reed Elsevier Inc., Rexam Inc.

Rio Tinto America, Roche Financial USA, Inc., Rolls-Royce

North America Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, SABIC Innovation

Plastics, Saint-Gobain, sanofi-aventis, SAP America,

Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schott North America.

SGL Carbon LLC, Shell Oil Company, Siemens Corporation,

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sodexo, Inc., SolarWorld USA, Solvay

America, Sony Corporation of America, Square D Company,

Sumitomo Corp. of America.

Sun Life Financial U.S., Swiss Re America Holding Corp.,

Syngenta Corporation, Takeda North America, Tate & Lyle North

America, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Thales USA, Inc.,

The Tata Group, Thomson Reuters, ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc.

Tim Hortons, Toa Reinsurance Company of America, Tomkins

Industries, Inc., TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Toyota Motor

North America, Tyco International (US), Inc., Tyco

Electronics, UBS, Umicore USA, Unilever.

Vivendi, Vodafone, Voith Holding Inc., Volkswagen of

America, Inc., Volvo Group North America, Inc., Welspun,

Westfield LLC, White Mountains, Inc., Wolters Kluwer U.S.

Corporation, WPP Group USA, Inc., XL Global Services, Zausner

Foods Corporation, Zurich Insurance Group.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to the gentleman and to those on the floor, to say this is the same proposal that occurred in the previous administration is really an oversimplification. The previous administration really wanted to have a more targeted approach to this. They wanted to, certainly through treaty amendments, targeted domestic law provisions, that would address the problem of potential abuses under this area of law. But they didn't want to damage our treaty relationships with all of the other countries.

And as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, this would damage our treaty relationships with over 60 countries. We have a letter in the record from the organization overseeing nearly 5 million U.S. workers and companies headquartered abroad. The Treasury testified at the committee that this is not the approach they want to take. They would much prefer to take similar approaches to the Bush administration. So in terms of tax policy, we actually have the Treasury Department wanting to do the same thing.

This is outside of that. This is overbroad. It would hurt our relationships.

I reserve my time.

I reserve at this time.

I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. From this debate, I think it's difficult to see whether this legislation is either a small business bill or a jobs bill. Frankly, it's neither one. The reason is the tax increases in this bill will hurt an already weak economy. To raise taxes on employers during a recession makes it even harder for Americans to find work.

Second, roughly 80 percent of the tax relief in this bill goes to State and local governments and to pay State and local governments. To borrow more money, as this bill does, is not what America needs right now.

Lastly, I would say there are some tax provisions, very small ones, that have received bipartisan support. But, frankly, those good things are outweighed by the structure of the bill and the way the bill is drafted, because even those well-intentioned measures will not do enough to help employers create jobs; and, particularly, the provision that would override our tax treaties with 60 countries, that even the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, when testifying before the committee, said she had concerns over, and also which has been rejected by the Senate, which means the almost $7 to $8 billion they are using to fund this bill will not see its way across the floor of the United States Senate. So I think we would do better to come back and try to do something that would actually potentially do something about job creation and see its way to the President's desk for signature.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

In its current form.

Madam Speaker, today we begin to repeal some of the most troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. This Republican motion is straightforward. It strikes troubling tax increases, it maintains tax relief for small businesses, repeals unpopular provisions of the health care bill that force middle class families to pay more taxes and more for their health care, and is fully paid for in compliance with the PAYGO rules.

To meet the PAYGO rules, the motion eliminates the so-called emergency welfare spending and closes the Black Liquor tax loophole that's repeatedly passed the House but has yet to become law.

Here's what we keep: the few provisions that directly help small businesses, including an exclusion from capital gains tax on investments and qualifying small businesses; new protections for small businesses from excessive penalties if they unknowingly fail to disclose certain information related to their participation in tax shelters; and a temporary increase in the amount of small business start-up costs that can be immediately expensed.

In addition to this tax relief, we begin today to repeal some of the troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. Today we seek to eliminate two of the tax increases in the health care bill that would hit middle class families and violate the President's pledge that you can keep the health care plan you have and like.

First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year under the health care bill starting in 2011.

FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care goods and services. Approximately 7 million Americans put more than $2,500 into their FSAs. According to the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation, the median income of an FSA holder in 2008 was just $55,000 a year. Repealing this provision would provide Americans with $15.6 billion in tax relief.

Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available. By repealing this provision, we'll not only provide $5.5 billion in tax relief, but we'll also help American families lower their health care bills.

This motion offers Members a clear choice. A vote against this motion is effectively a choice to close the Black Liquor loophole to pay for billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending. A vote in favor of this motion is a vote to close that Black Liquor tax loophole to pay for small business tax relief that will actually help create jobs and undo some of the harmful tax increases on American families passed by the House in the dark of night on Sunday.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before being recognized, would the gentleman please state his point of order.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, my point would be that we actually raise revenues in years 2010 and 2011. We do not reduce revenues, so I would suggest that the point of order is without merit.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard further on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I am informed that the underlying bill has a Budget Act problem, and the waiving of all points of order against the consideration of the bill in the full House, including 303, would make the gentleman's point of order unacceptable and would make his point of order invalid.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sorry for the confusion this evening.

Tonight I am joined by several of my colleagues from around the country who want to talk to you about the economy and how we are working hard here in Congress to set the record straight, but also, more importantly, to put our people back to work.

If you remember when we took office, Mr. Speaker, we were suffering from one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. In fact, many have called this the Great Recession. And ironically, of all commercials, there is a contemporary insurance commercial out on the airwaves today that says, ``How will we remember the time and our experience? Will we remember this time as the great recession or the recession that made us great?'' I think

tonight you are going to hear from my colleagues who say that we are going to be remembered for the recession that will once again make this country as great as it has been in the past by focusing on real things, real challenges, and offering up real solutions.

When we took office, Mr. Speaker, the economy was in freefall. We didn't know where we were going to land. Record job losses were across the airwaves, people were standing in lines waiting for unemployment checks, and we found out that it was the most significant job loss since the Great Depression.

Record job losses. We didn't know where the economy was going to fall. Two undeclared, unfunded wars. A banking system in chaos. Greed on Wall Street. It was a perfect prescription for a perfect storm, and one that has led us to where we now have enormous challenges in front of us. The job market was losing 750,000 jobs a month, and unemployment was climbing just as fast. The economy was contracting at a rate of over 6 percent, the worst in decades. Foreclosures were at record levels. Home prices had plummeted by 30 percent. The decline of home prices, stock values, pensions and other retirement plans had cost American households over $10 trillion in wealth.

In fact, since the Great Recession had started, Mr. Speaker, since 2007, Americans' wealth had plummeted by $17.5 trillion according to the Federal Reserve. Seventeen and a half trillion dollars of loss of wealth since the recession started in June of 2007. It didn't start to pick up until the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Now, we have heard a lot of hype about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We heard a lot about the fact that this was the largest investment of capital in our Nation's history. We have heard a lot about the fact that this was the largest tax reduction in our country's history. Faced with this economic meltdown that we were handed when we walked into the door here in the 111th Congress, it required swift action.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Members of Congress will be judged by two measures: by action or inaction. And the Congress took swift action to act as a backstop against further job loss, to create some jobs along the way. That is what the stimulus was about. And every economic expert you speak to today says that this brought us back from the brink of a great depression.

So I want to tell those detractors today that it wasn't until we enacted the stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that Americans' wealth started to grow again. And in fact we see pensions are starting to climb, we see the fact that Americans' IRAs and 401(k)s are back on the path towards prosperity, and in fact we have recognized a $5 trillion recovery since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus.

We are starting to create jobs, albeit not at the pace that I would like to see. But we have to understand the ditch that we are trying to climb out of. And I want to say to you that while we see manufacturing increasing, while we see home sales increasing, we need to see more and more people get back to work. And that is what my colleagues are focusing on here today.

Around the world over the last century the typical financial crisis caused jobless rates to rise almost 5 years, according to the economist Carmen Reinhart. Over the timeline our rate would still be rising by early 2012. And as Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, who were both Republicans, said, that many others warned in 2008 if dramatic action was not taken to break back the recession, the United States could spiral into another Great Depression. These are experts. These are economists. These are people who have distinction and recognition all around the world. It is important that we recognize that we had to take swift action here.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, the economy grew by almost 6 percent. Six percent. Job losses for the fourth quarter in 2009 were one-seventh of what they were when we took office, Mr. Speaker. The nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act kept more than 6 million Americans out of poverty and reduced the severity of poverty for more than 33 million more.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't enact a robust policy to extend unemployment benefits, to extend coverage for health care so folks could keep their health care during this time of great need? Could you imagine if we didn't help our people what kind of condition we would find the people that we represent?

Well, it is disappointing because the challenges that confront us, Mr. Speaker, aren't Democrat or Republican challenges. They are not conservative or liberal challenges. They are not even moderate challenges. They are American challenges. And it is so frustrating to me that we have got to find the courage to stand up and confront these together. That is why I am so disappointed in my colleagues who didn't lend their support to help America recover in her greatest time of need.

A few more facts before I ask some of my colleagues to be recognized here.

According to economists polled in a recent USA Today survey, unemployment would have hit 10.8 percent higher than December's 10 percent rate without the Recovery Act. The difference would have translated into another 1.2 million jobs lost. These problems were years in the making, and they are not going to be fixed overnight. In fact, I can argue it is a decade of failed economic policies that have led us here.

A lot of our colleagues on the other side like to talk about the national debt. You know, when President Clinton left office, our country was facing a $5.6 trillion surplus, a $5.6 trillion surplus, and when President Bush left office, we were facing almost a $13 trillion deficit. So it is very clear that after two tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, after two undeclared, unfunded wars and a prescription drug plan that left a huge doughnut hole for average working families and seniors, we have a deficit now that has put us on the brink. And that's why we had a quick reaction and that is why we passed the American Recovery Act.

Now I want to call on my colleague from California, because she is going to talk about how this has impacted one of the largest States in the country, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

I thank the gentlelady from California who made some very compelling arguments about why California needs to have this investment.

While we are joined by several of my colleagues tonight, let me just say a little bit about what we are doing to create jobs in Ohio.

In Ohio's 16th Congressional District, we have had some good news recently. Rolls Royce, an international company, has announced that they are going to move their fuel cell research from Singapore to Stark County, Ohio. They are going to expand their fuel cell research and development activities, investing $3 million in equipment, creating up to 60 jobs and retaining 32, while offering apprenticeship and training programs with the local college.

Barbasol Shaving Cream invested $7.2 million to buy land and a new plant in Ashland, Ohio; a 78,000-square-foot plant to start, 30 new employees, and grow up to about 75.

Scotts Miracle-Gro is opening a manufacturing plant in Orrville, where they are expected to create nearly a hundred jobs in the next several months.

Shearer's Foods, they make potato chips, and they are mighty good, I might add. They broke ground earlier this summer to build a new production facility in Massillon's Northeast Commercial Park. They will hire as many as a hundred employees in the first phase of development. These are the type of success stories that have been helped, if not augmented, by the efforts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Well, I thank the senior gentleman from Virginia.

I just want to be clear about your chart. It looks as if we stabilized the job losses in this country and started to grow them again after the Recovery Act was passed.

Well, these are exciting numbers. We have got to get people back to work. And I concur with the gentleman from Virginia.

Let me revisit for just a moment exactly what the Recovery Act and the stimulus bill included.

Thirty-seven percent of the package was tax cuts. $288 billion was given to small businesses so that they could help grow and invest in our new economy. In my opinion, that is going to be our investment in energy. $288 billion was invested back so small businesses could start growing again and investing back.

Largest tax cut in America's history, largest tax cut for working middle class families. In fact, 95 percent of middle class families in our country got some tax relief through their employer. $144 billion, or 18 percent of the Recovery Act, was allocated to State and local fiscal relief. More than 90 percent of the State aid is going to help folks who are finding themselves on Medicaid rolls. Fighting to make sure that we didn't have double-digit increases in tuition across State universities and so that our local school districts could keep teachers hired and we could keep custodians in the building. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we understand that we help bring our economy back from the brink of a great recession.

As that contemporary commercial says today, How will we remember this time? How will we remember it? Will we remember it as the great recession or the recession that made us great? I think with these key investments into our people, into our workforce, and into our country, we are definitely making our country stronger.

I want to take a moment to recognize a distinguished gentleman that I have a lot of respect for. Not only do we share a common heritage, but we share a common belief that we should invest in our people, in our country, and in

our way of life. Congressman Pascrell from New Jersey is a man who I have a lot of respect for, and I would like to yield him some time so that he can talk about exactly what we're doing to help put America back to work. Congressman Pascrell, my friend, you have the floor.

The gentleman from New Jersey has some very good ideas, which we have got to look at very seriously, about putting our country back to work and about long-term investments.

You know, I have often said that we have got to be the producers of wealth, not just the movers of wealth, and that we have got to build things here.

In 1950, over half the jobs in our country were in manufacturing. Today, one out of 10 of our jobs is in manufacturing. We are actually building. Some of that has been because of the fact that we have gained in productivity and because we have gained in efficiency. Yet we have still outsourced too many of our jobs. In States like New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois, we have seen some of those manufacturing jobs go overseas.

Our great trade imbalance that we have, the trade deficit that we have every year, is very troubling to me. We have a trade imbalance with China--$280 billion every year. We have a trade imbalance with oil-producing countries because they send $330 billion of oil over to the United States. Those two account for some of the largest imbalances our country has ever known in terms of our trade policy.

We know that 95 percent of the marketplace is outside the United States, and Ohio is leading the Nation. Some of our local municipalities have begun to start exporting some of their goods overseas, creating their own trade relationships. We need more help here from the American Government, from the Federal Government, so that States like Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania can help make those needed investments into our local communities.

We have to be the producers of wealth. We have to build things again in this country. It's not only a matter of our economic security. It's a matter of our national security. That's why it is so key and strategic that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invests in our people, in our country and in our future, and that we also lay the groundwork for future prosperity by investing in energy.

Energy is a key component of our Nation's economy, but it is very troubling when we import 66 percent of our oil from overseas and 40 percent from the Middle East. We see that the largest user of energy in our country is our Nation's military. The Department of Defense is the largest user of energy in our country. So it is very key, not only to our economic interests but to our national security interests, that we move away from our dependence on foreign oil, that we invest and create jobs here that cannot be outsourced, and that we make sure that we put our people back to work. That's why it is so important that we make these needed investments.

According to Andrew Stettner, I have to say--he is a deputy director of the National Employment Law Center--14.9 million jobless Americans have been out of work for an average of 30 weeks, which is the highest level since the government began keeping those records in the 1950s. It is the highest record.

We have some on the other side who are suggesting that we shouldn't have extended unemployment benefits. I've even heard some who have had the audacity to say that we shouldn't be giving them government/ taxpayer money because they don't want to work. Are you kidding me? We have millions of people out of work in this country who are now just being called back to work. In fact, some of my friends on the other side voted against an extension of unemployment benefits which would have helped 11,600 Ohioans who have found themselves struggling just to put bread on their tables for their families.

To me, we have got to invest in our people. If we can spend $1 trillion on war, we can spend money to invest in our people, in our country, and we can put Americans back to work.

I want to yield some time before we close today, Mr. Speaker, to a good friend of mine from Virginia, a gentleman who has the passion and vigor to take on the challenges of our great country, Tom Perriello.

Congressman Perriello, enlighten us for a few moments, sir.

I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. We have seen almost a flip from a 6 percent job loss, when we began the 111th Congress in January of 2009, to nearly a 6 percent job growth in our gross domestic product. Yet we know that this is not about the GDP. This is about the j-o-b-s. We have got to put people back to work. That's why we are focusing on doing that.

There are some things that we have done for our small businesses, to help struggling small businesses stay open:

There is the net operating loss carry-back. We have also extended tax credits for renewable energy production because, as my colleague and I know, the cheapest energy is the energy we never use. Small businesses can save a lot by writing that off. They can save by weathering their businesses and by weathering their homes. That's what is going to save money in the long term.

We are also going to give bonus appreciation, which extends to businesses

that are buying equipment, such as computers. It speeds up the appreciation through 2009. That is helping our small businesses write off those losses so that they can get folks back to work.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he is exactly right. The gentleman from Virginia is exactly right that we have got to invest in our people, in our country, in our way of life. As that contemporary commercial says on the airwaves, Is this going to be remembered as the great recession or the recession that makes us great?

I believe that we can do this if we work together, if we invest in our people. Again, if we can spend $1 trillion on war, we can certainly spend money to make sure that we invest in our people and do the things that are going to set us on the track towards prosperity.

We are starting to begin to see the glimmers of light. We are starting to see the glimmers of hope that people once again are going to be on to a path of prosperity.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, because he believes that our greatest days are still yet to come. We will be stronger, we will be more robust, and we will be smarter on how we handle these future downturns. This is the time that we cannot let go away from us. We have got to invest in our people, in our country, and that is why I am so proud of the gentleman from Virginia, who stands with me saying that we will again be the producers of wealth, not just the movers of wealth.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1205, I call up the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

In addition, the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the modifications that were made to H.R. 4849 by the rule.

This technical explanation supplements the Committee Report 111-454, with information on the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind these modifications. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document numbered JCX-21-10.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our most distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local governments looking to advance infrastructure programs.

Mr. Camp talks about the number of States--I think you referred to 47--where jobs have been lost. I think every one of those States--it's 47--has benefited from the Build America Bonds program. The money goes to local communities for infrastructure, and that creates jobs. That's what finance experts have said about BABs. It's one of the economic recovery effort's biggest successes. As I mentioned, as of March 1, 2010, State and local governments have used BABs to finance more than $78 billion in infrastructure programs.

Now, as to small business. The legislation excludes 100 percent of capital gains on small business stock to help encourage immediate investments in growth. It will, in turn, help our small businesses hire new workers and continue fueling our economic recovery. Also included are provisions to remove onerous penalties from small businesses so they can create more jobs. Also, there's a provision, an important one, to reduce the barrier of startup expenses on new businesses.

The bill would also extend, for 1 year, the TANF emergency contingency fund. The Governors Association has said this fund helps ``speed economic recovery through subsidized employment and training programs.''

This bill is completely offset and will not add a dime to the Federal deficit. The bill is offset with provisions to ensure compliance with our tax laws, close down a loophole that allows paper companies to claim a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for highly corrosive fuel waste products, and it does crack down on foreign tax haven corporations that are taking advantage of the U.S. tax treaty network in order to dodge U.S. taxes. And to just say you're opposed to any tax increases? Tax increases on people who are avoiding paying legitimate taxes. I have a chart here, in very simple terms, that spells out how these companies, these foreign corporations that are not part of a tax-treaty country, how they evade taxes through a gimmick. And to oppose this because of that, I think, is very, very inappropriate.

So, in a word, this bill is another significant step towards helping our country continue down the path of economic recovery and job creation. It should be a bipartisan bill. In the markup that we held, there wasn't a single amendment offered by the minority to strike a specific jobs provision here. This Congress will continue to take additional targeted and effective steps to accelerate economic recovery for American families. And I

say with sadness, as I hear Mr. Camp speak, that it looks like it will not receive the bipartisan support it so fully deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to another senior member of our committee, Mr. McDermott of the great State of Washington.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, my friend John Lewis.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) who is such an active member of this committee on the issues before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

To the gentleman who just spoke, this bill is paid for unlike bills you voted for. And also let me say to the distinguished gentleman, you are opposed to this bill because it isn't big enough or it is too small. It's not clear. The recovery program is beginning to work. This will make it work better, and yet you are standing here opposed to it.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I am glad to now yield 1 whole minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this. I really urge my colleagues on the minority side to think not twice, but to think thrice before voting against this bill. I don't think everyone has to march in a partisan way in this place, especially on a bill that will help create jobs.

I have a letter regarding the contingency fund from a Republican Governor and a Democratic Governor, which states that, ``currently, 23 States are drawing down the fund for subsidized jobs, with several more State applications pending approval. Many of these programs take time to develop and implement. By allowing States more time to access these funds, Congress can help maximize the impact of TANF ECF in providing crucial skill development and training to our workers.''

Regarding the Build America Bonds, almost every State has taken advantage of these. It's for local communities and States to build--to build. Who builds roads? Who builds bridges? Not robots. Basically, it's human beings. So if you come here and vote ``no,'' you are voting against jobs for human beings.

In terms of the pay-for, the only entities that will pay taxes will be those who are evading them, who are essentially using tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

I think the Senate will take a second look at this. I think this can become law, and we should join together to help make this become law. We owe it to the people of this country. This is a jobs bill.

Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how inconsistent can he be?

He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for, but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order.

And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's going on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The Black Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate, awaiting action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting is, take it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation, and put it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it.

``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the need to pay for bills.

We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach here is a sleight of hand.

I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you it is.

So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote against.

Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on, and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're paying for something when you're not.

So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad.

Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law.

Point of Order

So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be glad to repeat it once or twice.

I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

If I could speak briefly.

It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate section 303.

I ask that the point of order be upheld.

Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.

Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what the rules of the House are.

Therefore, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation, and I now withdraw the point of order.

I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the substance of the motion to recommit.

I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust will pass fairly soon.

That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed and now is in the Senate for its consideration.

So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the data, it is clear that since the start of the Obama administration and the passage of the Recovery Act-- which you've heard depicted by the three former speakers--we are stemming the number of job losses per month; there is no doubt about that. But we need to do everything we can to actually start gaining jobs instead of just losing fewer. It would seem like the charts, it would seem by the facts that in the next several months we will see, finally, for the first time in several years a plus in terms of the creation of jobs.

The U.S. jobs deficit has reached millions. Our unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. That is an intolerable rate. The problem we are facing is how to address the shortfall in employment opportunities and articulate a new strategy that targets and engages our small businesses and American workers. Mr. Speaker, we simply need jobs.

Which brings me to what I think is the most obvious answer. It was obvious many years ago, it's obvious now: Our infrastructure. Our infrastructure is in disrepair. And it's not just our roads, and it's not just our bridges that are falling down. Earlier this year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's wastewater systems and water systems the lowest grade of any infrastructure category, a D-minus. I want to have our viewers in the House see this. This is a rotted water main pipe, much like the pipes in many of our districts and many of our communities. I like to call these the out-of- sight, out-of-mind pipes; you don't see them until you have a problem with your water main. But as we have learned over the last couple of years, just because our infrastructure needs are not visible doesn't mean that they are not deteriorating.

A quick look at the recent news headlines across the country illustrates the state of our water infrastructure, and I can only list a few because time does not permit: ``Franklin Water Main Break Closes Roads and Schools''; ``Boil your water,'' says Franklin, New Jersey''; ``Lancaster Water Main Breaks''; ``Sinkhole Swallows Car in California''; ``Water Main Break in Manhattan Causes Evacuations in Traffic, Subway Disruptions in New York City''; ``Water Main Break Cuts Off Water Service to the Medical Center in West Virginia.''

Here we have an illustration of the water main break on River Road in Bethesda, Maryland, watching people airlifted out of their cars. We're not making this stuff up; this is real. In metropolitan D.C. on Christmas Eve, 2008, it was quite a spectacle. One headline actually read, ``Water main break forces dramatic rescue of nine.'' The road literally exploded.

We cannot turn a blind eye to two realities: America needs jobs, and our infrastructure cannot put people to work fast enough. As a former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, I understand the significance of local water and wastewater systems. A strong water infrastructure is essential to the community's public health and economic vitality.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the General Accounting Office estimate that community water systems will require $500 billion above their expected rate of investment in order to meet safe drinking water standards and sanitation needs just over the next 20 years.

As Congress struggles with historic deficits, I strongly believe that we must leverage private capital investment and look at options for public-private partnerships. That is what we are talking about this evening.

In order to encourage this possibility, I introduced the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act, H.R. 537, which will generate significant investment through the use of tax-exempt bonds for water infrastructure, and that is water and wastewater projects.

Congress already exempts airports, intercity rail, and solid waste disposal sites from those bond caps. My bill would remove water infrastructure projects from the cap as well.

By exempting water projects from the bond cap, we can get people working on the very projects to my right in 90 to 120 days. This isn't hot air; this is real relief. This is real jobs. Standard & Poor's estimates that $180 billion in new money infrastructure is available for investment. This capital cannot be deployed until a private activity bond cap exemption is crested.

This legislation aims to repair our crumbling water infrastructure while leveraging private capital to create jobs. Every dollar invested in public water and sewer infrastructure will add $8.97 to the national economy. This is a win-win situation. Economists estimate a $1 billion investment in water infrastructure will create 28,500 local jobs. You cannot in any manner, shape or form produce any other job plan that is going to do what this can do, because these are our needs. These need to be done because things are only going to get worse.

That pipe, which I showed you before, is not going to cleanse itself. It has led that pipe and many other pipes like it to this particular situation of people being airlifted, to rescue workers having to go to a particular community and, of course, to vehicles that have been raised in the air because of the explosion of our water mains.

This would be 28,500 jobs in 1 year. This is bipartisan legislation. Both sides of the aisle have signed onto this. It could put Americans in every State to work within 120 days of its enactment. It is time to focus on creating jobs and on building a strong infrastructure for future generations. Let's stop talking about what needs to get done, and let's actually get this done.

There are huge economic benefits that come with water and wastewater infrastructure projects. In fact, a recent study found that every $1 billion invested in water and wastewater infrastructure creates 27,000 new jobs with average annual earnings of more than $50,000. Each $1 billion invested generates approximately $82.4 million in State and local tax revenue at a time when States and localities need it most.

This chart shows how construction dollars ripple through local communities. Right here, an estimated 20,000 to 26,669 jobs can result from a national investment of $1 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure--everything from construction, to real estate, to retail, to legal services, to the management of companies and enterprises, to private households, and to maintenance and repair. This chart shows how these construction dollars ripple through our entire communities.

Let's face it: as of this unemployment situation that we are in today, 40 percent of those jobs will never return, and 40 percent of those jobs that have been lost--get this--are by people who have been out of work for more than 6 to 8 months. They will not return to those jobs. We need to invest with the private community in order to do things that must be done that communities cannot afford. We have found that every $1 billion invested in these projects creates jobs in 325 other industries, and they are listed.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take action to support this legislation and to push its passage for measures that will empower American workers and that will provide them with opportunities.

Eligible and essential public health and environmental projects approved for 2010 are waiting for funding. They are waiting for private and public investment, which we can leverage with a very small amount of money. The resulting jobs are important. In California, 285,000 jobs can be created and, in Illinois, 133,950 jobs. In New Jersey, $1.8 billion will mean 51,300 jobs on projects that are needed. In every State we go over, this is the case.

There are 60 different organizations which support this legislation-- from engineers to waterworks associations, to equipment manufacturers-- Caterpillar, Coca Cola, Design-Build Institute of America. There are 60 different organizations which support this bipartisan legislation that will create jobs and not hot air. We have had a lot of hot air in Washington. I think this legislation is what we need.

My good friend, Mr. Boccieri, I thank you for bringing us together tonight.

America needs jobs. This is our priority. I have presented an idea which, I hope, will be accepted. I hope that America can get back to work again. Our people need jobs--jobs that will be needed and that are needed so that we don't have to make work. Remember school? Make work. Keep the kids busy. These are things we need. We understand this, but we don't look at it because these waterworks, whether they are sewers, whether they are water or whether they are watersheds, are all mostly under the ground. It's not a romantic or a sexy thing to talk about, but I have presented to the House a way to put people to work. These jobs need to be done, and the private and public sectors must be brought together.

With that, I yield back. I thank you for allowing me to share in this important evening.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Congressional Jobs Working Group. Together, we are proposing solutions to our job crisis. In fact, one of those proposals is H.R. 4564, the Emergency Jobs Program and Assistance for Families Act. This bill extends an extremely successful employment program that we call Jobs NOW. It has created over 156,000 jobs over 29 States and is still developing more.

In Palmdale, California, Jobs NOW helped Jody, a single mother of two, find a job at a local coffeehouse working as a barista. The regular paycheck puts food on the table and is helping her get through a rough patch. Her boss is impressed with her work and plans to permanently hire her and the other three subsidized employees they brought in. It is this kind of success story that makes Jobs NOW such a model for job creation. Without it, the coffeehouse would not have been able to grow its business or take on new employees. Jody would not have had a chance to learn new skills and support her family.

I first learned of this innovative program in Los Angeles County. One of the supervisors, Don Knabe, created 11,000 jobs over the last year, using stimulus funds to create subsidized jobs.

How does it work? Eligible participants are placed into subsidized jobs in all sectors of the economy, from nonprofits to government agencies to private businesses, and are matched with jobs that complement their employment goals. The employer must provide supervision equal to 20 percent of the wage cost and ensure that the job does not displace an existing employee or replace someone who was to be promoted. This means the county is paying for 80 percent or more of payroll costs in Recovery Act funds.

Some examples of these jobs include park rangers, receptionists, teacher assistants, dental assistant trainees, customer service clerks, and child care workers. Workers get paid $10 per hour for up to 40 hours per week. Jobs NOW allows businesses to succeed and the employee to succeed.

I have spoken to countless people in my district about this program, and I keep hearing about how this program is a win/win. It works for both workers and businesses. Workers benefit beyond the paycheck by getting hands-on experience in a setting where they earn wages, develop new skills, and enhance existing skills. Businesses benefit by getting the help they need to grow or expand while temporarily reducing payroll costs. Companies may ultimately decide to hire these subsidized workers permanently as the economy improves. The jobs generated by this program can help businesses expand in these difficult times by reducing their economic risk and need for expensive loans.

California is leading the Nation in creating these subsidized jobs. For instance, V-Cube, a high-tech firm in Torrance, California, hired two subsidized employees with very little experience. Very quickly, these two employees showed they were motivated and quick to learn. Now one of the employees runs Web seminars and the other is a project coordinator. It is only through Jobs NOW that V-Cube and other businesses feel secure in taking on new workers in this economic environment.

You can see that across California, in this map here, many, many jobs were created. In Fresno, 1,000 jobs were created. In San Francisco, over 1,500 jobs were created. In Los Angeles, an astonishing 11,000 jobs were created by the country's Jobs NOW program in less than a year. The State predicts that 25,000 jobs will be created through the Jobs NOW program by the end of present funding.

However, we must act quickly or the job placements will stop when the program expires on September 30. Because subsidized employment programs often run for at least 6 months, many localities are planning to discontinue their jobs program between March and June of this year in anticipation of the emergency funds expiration date. Almost 60,000 jobs will disappear if the fund expires.

In California, L.A. County will stop placing participants in new jobs in June. San Bernardino County has to stop creating new jobs in April. Sacramento County will stop putting people in 6-month-long jobs in March. It will pay people for shorter periods until June 2010, and then stop the program altogether.

But the full amount of funding has yet to be claimed by the States. The Recovery Act authorized $5 billion for Jobs NOW employment subsidization programs, but actually less than $1.5 billion has been accessed by the States. And the program is still in the process of expanding. That's why I am proposing, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a bill that will allow more States to help residents get back on their feet and into a job.

In fact, all across the country there have been programs such as this. We can see that all across the country in the dark green spots there have been successful programs.

In Tennessee, the State focused on rural Perry County, which was hard hit by a plant closure. The unemployment rate had risen to 27 percent. Tennessee brought local workforce development and human service agencies and the business community together and developed a subsidized employment program for over 500 individuals.

In Mississippi, the State has developed the Steps Program, which uses Jobs NOW money to create private sector jobs that transition into permanent employment. The State begins by funding all of the wages of a new employee and steadily reduces its commitment until the business can support the employee on its own.

As you can see, 29 States across the country have implemented programs that created subsidized jobs, and even more want to jump on the bandwagon. That's why people on each side of the aisle are in strong support of this proposal. President Obama is a strong supporter. Besides its funding in the Recovery Act, he has proposed a $2.5 billion increase and a year-long extension for this upcoming year's budget.

But it is not just the President who thinks this is a good idea; there is deep bipartisan support. The American Enterprise Institute's Kevin Hassett recently wrote in Business Week that this program should be renewed and said, ``Given the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any sensible person could oppose such a move.''

Jobs NOW allows States to be in the driver's seat for this program, and that is why the National Governors Association also supports this, urging Congress to pass an extension because of the outsized benefits to the States.

The human cost of the recession has been high. It is easy to think of unemployment in terms of numbers and statistics, but numbers cannot describe the anxiety and fear a person feels when they are unemployed. Numbers can't show the hope and pride a person feels when they find a job.

I was moved by the words of Ms. Taylor in Los Angeles about the Jobs NOW program and its effect on her life. Ms. Taylor is a mother of two children, one with autism. She has been living on her aunt's couch because she couldn't find work. Because of a job through Jobs NOW, she was able to get back on her feet and into her own apartment. She told California Social Services, ``You guys gave me a chance when the whole world seemed like they were saying `No, not this time.' Without this program, I could not have paid my rent, and my babies and I would be on the streets.''

She is not the only one. There are millions of economically disadvantaged people on the front lines of this economy. They are struggling every day. The Jobs NOW emergency fund gives them a chance to find work and start moving towards a future. It helps businesses expand in these tough times.

I strongly urge the House leadership and my colleagues not to forget the thousands of people who need this help. We must pass H.R. 4564 for Jobs NOW.