.

American Jobs Act: Provisions for Hiring
Targeted Groups, Preventing Layoffs, and
for Unemployed and Low-Income Workers

Karen Spar, Coordinator
Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division Research Coordinator
September 30, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42033
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008


.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Summary
In response to continuing high rates of unemployment and a weak economy, President Obama
announced his American Jobs Act on September 8, 2011. The proposal was introduced, by
request, in the Senate on September 13, 2011 (S. 1549) and in the House on September 21, 2011
(H.R. 12). As stated by the President, the proposal aims to “put more people back to work and
more money in the pockets of those who are working.” The Administration estimates the
legislation would result in spending of $447 billion, to be offset by revenue provisions included in
the bill or savings achieved by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
This report describes provisions in the American Jobs Act that fall into three major categories:
• provisions to promote hiring and prevent layoffs among teachers, law
enforcement officers, firefighters, veterans, and the long-term unemployed;
• provisions to assist unemployed workers through unemployment compensation
and reemployment services; and
• provisions to expand workforce development opportunities for low-income adults
and youth.
The report does not discuss tax provisions (except for specialized tax credits intended as hiring
incentives) or proposals related to infrastructure (except for School Modernization grants).
The American Jobs Act would promote hiring and aim to prevent layoffs of teachers, law
enforcement officers, and firefighters, through formula or competitive grants to government
entities totaling $35 billion. (The act also would provide $30 billion for school modernization.)
The act would promote hiring of veterans and long-term unemployed individuals through tax
credits to employers, costing an estimated $8 billion. It also would prohibit employment
discrimination on the basis of an individual’s unemployed status.
The act focuses on the income and reemployment needs of unemployed workers, particularly the
long-term unemployed. In addition to provisions that would extend certain temporary
compensation programs, the act would authorize a new Reemployment NOW program, to help
states address the reemployment needs of eligible individuals, and would expand federal funding
for state-administered short-time compensation (or “work sharing”) programs. In total, these
provisions would cost an estimated $49 billion.
The workforce development needs of low-income adults and youth also are a focus of the act,
which would provide a total of $5 billion for three grant programs collectively called the
Pathways Back to Work Act. Formula grants to states would support subsidized employment for
low-income adults and summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth.
Competitive grants would support strategies and activities of “demonstrated effectiveness” to
provide unemployed, low-income youth or adults with skills that would lead to employment.
Although they are not discussed in this report, tax reductions for employers ($70 billion) and
employees ($175 billion)—largely through payroll tax cuts—form the largest single category of
spending under the American Jobs Act. Another $75 billion would go to infrastructure projects,
including transportation ($50 billion), an infrastructure bank ($10 billion), and grants to
rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant properties ($15 billion), in addition to $30 billion for school
modernization.
Congressional Research Service

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the American Jobs Act ................................................................................................ 2
Promoting Hiring and Preventing Layoffs....................................................................................... 3
Teacher Stabilization (Title II, Subtitle B)................................................................................. 3
Distribution of Funds to States............................................................................................ 3
Application Process............................................................................................................. 4
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds.............................................. 4
Rainy-Day Funds and Debt Reduction................................................................................ 6
Fiscal Accountability Requirements.................................................................................... 6
Reporting Requirements...................................................................................................... 7
Current Status of the Education Jobs Fund ......................................................................... 8
First Responder Stabilization (Title II, Subtitle C).................................................................... 8
Law Enforcement Officers .................................................................................................. 8
Firefighters ........................................................................................................................ 10
Work Opportunity Tax Credits ................................................................................................ 10
Veterans Targeted Group (Title II, Subtitle A) .................................................................. 11
Long-Term Unemployed Targeted Group (Title III, Subtitle B) ....................................... 12
Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Unemployed Status (Title III, Subtitle
D).......................................................................................................................................... 12
Coverage ........................................................................................................................... 12
Prohibited Acts .................................................................................................................. 13
Enforcement and Remedies............................................................................................... 13
Compensation and Services for Unemployed Workers ................................................................. 14
Unemployment Compensation (Title III, Subtitle A, Part I) ................................................... 15
Extension of Temporary Provisions: EUC08, 100% EB Federal Financing,
EB Three-Year Lookback Trigger Option, and Increased Railroad
Unemployment Benefits................................................................................................. 15
Reemployment Services.................................................................................................... 16
Self-Employment Assistance............................................................................................. 17
Reemployment NOW Program (Title III, Subtitle A, Part II) ................................................. 17
Short-Time Compensation Program (Title III, Subtitle A, Part III)......................................... 18
Workforce Development for Low-Income Adults and Youth ........................................................ 19
Subsidized Employment for Unemployed, Low-Income Adults (Title III, Subtitle C,
Section 364).......................................................................................................................... 19
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 19
Eligibility and Administration........................................................................................... 20
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 20
Performance Accountability.............................................................................................. 22
Summer Employment and Year-Round Employment Opportunities for Low-Income
Youth (Title III, Subtitle C, Section 365) ............................................................................. 22
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 22
Eligibility and Administration........................................................................................... 23
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 24
Performance Accountability.............................................................................................. 24
Work-Based Employment Strategies of Demonstrated Effectiveness (Title III, Subtitle
C, Section 366)..................................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Research Service

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 25
Eligibility and Administration........................................................................................... 25
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 26
Performance Accountability.............................................................................................. 26
School Modernization.................................................................................................................... 26
Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization (Title II, Subtitle D, Part I) .................... 27
Distribution of Funds to States and 100 Largest LEAs..................................................... 28
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds............................................ 28
Private School Participation .............................................................................................. 29
Potential Issue of Grant Size ............................................................................................. 30
Community College Modernization (Title II, Subtitle D, Part II) ........................................... 30
Distribution of Funds to States.......................................................................................... 30
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds............................................ 31

Tables
Table A-1. Estimated State Grants and Jobs Supported Under the Teacher Stabilization
Program and Competitive Grants for First Responders, as Proposed by the American
Jobs Act....................................................................................................................................... 32
Table A-2. Estimated State Grants Supported Under the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Modernization Grants and Community College
Modernization Program, as Proposed by the American Jobs Act............................................... 34
Table A-3. Estimated Grants to the 100 Largest LEAs Supported Under the Elementary
and Secondary Schools Modernization Grants, as Proposed by the American Jobs Act............ 36
Table A-4. Examples of Estimated Modernization, Renovation, and Repair Costs in
Alabama, Wyoming, and Illinois ................................................................................................ 39

Appendixes
Appendix. Related Tables .............................................................................................................. 32

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 40
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 40
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 41

Congressional Research Service

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Introduction
In response to continuing high rates of unemployment and a weak economy, President Obama
announced his American Jobs Act on September 8, 2011, before a joint session of Congress, and
submitted formal legislation the following week.1 The proposal was introduced, by request, in the
Senate on September 13, 2011 (S. 1549), and in the House on September 21, 2011 (H.R. 12). The
President stated the purpose of the legislation is to “put more people back to work and more
money in the pockets of those who are working.” 2 The Administration estimates the legislation
would result in spending of $447 billion, to be offset by revenue provisions included in the bill or
savings achieved by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.3
This report describes provisions in the American Jobs Act that fall into three major categories:
• provisions intended to promote hiring and prevent layoffs among selected
categories of workers, including teachers, law enforcement officers, firefighters,
veterans, and the long-term unemployed;
• provisions to assist unemployed workers through unemployment compensation
and reemployment services; and
• provisions to expand workforce development opportunities for low-income adults
and youth.
The report does not discuss tax provisions (except for specialized tax credits intended as hiring
incentives) or proposals related primarily to infrastructure (except for School Modernization
grants).

To assist readers interested in provisions of the American Jobs Act that are not discussed
in this report, the following section provides an outline of the act with footnotes
referencing relevant reports. In addition, a Key Policy Staff table at the end of this report
identifies CRS analysts and their areas of expertise, for major policy areas covered by the
act. For a targeted list of CRS reports related to the broad issues of economic recovery
and job creation, readers are referred to Issues in Focus: Economic Recovery and Jobs on
the CRS website: http://www.crs.gov/pages/subissue.aspx?cliid=489&parentid=4&
preview=False.

1 White House documents related to the American Jobs Act, including state-by-state fact sheets, can be found at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact.
2 For a discussion of unemployment issues and policy options facing Congress, see CRS Report R41578,
Unemployment: Issues in the 112th Congress, by Jane G. Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Linda Levine.
3 The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25),
and charged with a goal of reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the FY2012-FY2021 period. If Congress does not
pass a bill developed by the Joint Committee that achieves at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by January 15, 2012,
an automatic spending reduction process will be triggered. For background, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget
Control Act of 2011
, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Overview of the American Jobs Act
The American Jobs Act has four titles, as shown below.4 (Note that the body of this report is not
organized in the sequence of the act, but rather by the three major topic areas identified above.)
Title I—Relief for Workers and Businesses—would extend and expand the existing temporary
payroll tax reduction for 2012 and establish a tax credit for employers for increased payroll
attributed to certain workers.5 The title includes other tax relief for businesses, including
provisions related to bonus depreciation6 and tax withholding requirements for government
contractors.7 (Title I provisions are not discussed in this report.)
Title II—Putting Workers Back on the Job While Building and Modernizing America—includes
subtitles that would create hiring incentives for veterans (through the Work Opportunity Tax
Credit); authorize grants to prevent layoffs and create jobs for teachers, law enforcement officers,
and firefighters; and provide funding for the modernization, repair, and renovation of schools and
colleges. (These provisions are all discussed in the body of this report.)
Title II also includes subtitles related to infrastructure development,8 including transportation
infrastructure grants; establishment of an American Infrastructure Financing Authority; Project
Rebuild to be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the
purpose of rehabilitating and refurbishing foreclosed and vacant properties; and a National
Wireless Initiative to expand access to high-speed wireless. (These provisions are not discussed in
this report.)
Title III—Assistance for the Unemployed and Pathways Back to Work—includes an extension of
certain temporary Unemployment Compensation (UC) provisions. The title also would create a
Reemployment NOW program for beneficiaries of Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(EUC08); and would clarify existing law and make grants for short-time compensation programs.
The title would create incentives for employers to hire long-term unemployed workers through
the Work Opportunity Tax Credit; and would create a Pathways Back to Work program to assist
unemployed, low-income adults and youth. Finally, the title includes a provision intended to
prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s unemployed status. (All Title
III provisions are discussed in this report.)

4 In addition to the four titles that comprise the substantive body of the legislation, introductory sections include Buy
American (Section 4) and wage rate (Section 5) requirements as well as the short title, table of contents, etc.
5 See CRS Report R41648, Social Security: Temporary Payroll Tax Reduction in 2011, by Dawn Nuschler and CRS
Report R41034, Business Investment and Employment Tax Incentives to Stimulate the Economy, by Thomas L.
Hungerford and Jane G. Gravelle. For a discussion of the effects of tax policy as stimulus, see CRS Report R41578,
Unemployment: Issues in the 112th Congress, by Jane G. Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Linda Levine.
6 See CRS Report R41034, Business Investment and Employment Tax Incentives to Stimulate the Economy, by Thomas
L. Hungerford and Jane G. Gravelle and CRS Report RL31134, Using Business Tax Cuts to Stimulate the Economy, by
Jane G. Gravelle.
7 See CRS Report R41924, Tax Gap: Should the 3% Withholding Requirement on Payments to Contractors by
Government Be Repealed?
, by James M. Bickley.
8 For a general discussion of the job-creation potential of public works infrastructure investments, see CRS Report
R42018, The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery, by Claudia Copeland, Linda Levine, and
William J. Mallett.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Title IV—Offsets—includes tax provisions intended to offset costs of the American Jobs Act.9
The title also would increase the deficit reduction goal and automatic spending reduction trigger
established in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 111-125). (These provisions are not discussed
in this report.)
Promoting Hiring and Preventing Layoffs
The American Jobs Act contains several provisions to promote hiring and prevent layoffs of
selected categories of workers, specifically teachers, law enforcement officers, and firefighters,
through formula or competitive grant programs to government entities. The act also would
promote hiring of veterans and long-term unemployed individuals through tax credits to
employers. Finally, the act would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of an
individual’s unemployed status. These components of the act are discussed in the following
sections.
Teacher Stabilization (Title II, Subtitle B)10
The act would provide $30 billion for a Teacher Stabilization program, which would provide
formula grants to states to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in
public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education” for the current school year (2011-
2012 school year) and the following school year (2012-2013 school year). The Teacher
Stabilization program bears similarities to the Education Jobs Fund, which was authorized by P.L.
111-226 and received $10 billion for similar purposes. Those funds remain available through
September 30, 2012. The current status of the Education Jobs Fund is discussed at the end of this
section, and various provisions of the program are discussed where they are relevant to the
discussion of the Teacher Stabilization program.
Distribution of Funds to States
Of funds appropriated for the proposed Teacher Stabilization program, 0.5% would first be
reserved for the outlying areas, 0.5% would be reserved for the Secretary of Interior to carry out
activities in schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and up to $2
million would be reserved for administration and oversight of the program by the U.S.
Department of Education (ED). The Secretary of ED would then be required to provide the
remaining funds to state governors using a population-based formula. In determining these grants,
60% of a state’s grant would be based on its population of children ages 5 through 17 relative to
the overall U.S. population for this age group, and 40% would be based on the state’s overall
population relative to the overall U.S. population.11 Funds appropriated for the Teacher
Stabilization program would remain available to the Secretary until September 30, 2012. Table

9 See CRS Report RL32781, Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes, by Steven Maguire.
10 The American Jobs Act would also create a School Modernization grant program, to be administered by the
Department of Education, which is discussed later in this report. See “School Modernization” section.
11 Education Jobs Fund grants to states were made using a somewhat different population-based formula: 61% of each
state’s grant was based on the state’s relative share of the population of individuals ages 5 to 24, and 39% of each
state’s grant was based on the state’s relative share of the total population
Congressional Research Service
3

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

A-1 shows estimated state grants under the Teacher Stabilization program as calculated by the
White House.
Application Process
Funds would be awarded to state governors who had submitted an approvable application to the
Secretary within 30 days of the law’s enactment, in such a manner and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require. If a state governor failed to meet this
requirement, the Secretary would be required to provide the state’s share of funds to another
entity or entities in the state under terms and conditions established by the Secretary. The specific
entity or entities to whom these funds could be awarded is not defined in the legislation. The
same terms and conditions that would apply to other grant recipients under the Teacher
Stabilization program would also apply to any entity or entities that received funding in the
aforementioned situation. The Secretary would be prohibited from allocating funds to another
entity unless the governor provided an assurance that the state would meet the maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirements for FY2012 and FY2013 (see discussion below). However, the
Secretary would be permitted to allocate up to 50% of the funds available to a state to another
entity in the state if the state educational agency (SEA) demonstrated that the state would meet
the MOE requirements for FY2012, or if the Secretary determined the state would meet those
requirements or comparable requirements established by the Secretary. If a state does not receive
funds under the Teacher Stabilization program or only receives partial funding, the Secretary
would be required to reallocate the remaining funds to the remaining states based on the
aforementioned population-based formula.
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds
Of the funds received by a state, not more than 10% could be reserved to make grants to state-
funded early learning programs and not more than 2% could be reserved for administrative costs
associated with the Teacher Stabilization program.12 The American Jobs Act defines a state-
funded early learning program as one that “provides educational services to children from birth to
kindergarten entry” and that receives funding from the state. It is unclear whether a state-funded
program that fails to serve the entire age range specified in the definition could use funds under
the American Jobs Act. If states use funds to support state-funded early learning programs, the
funds could only be used for “compensation, benefits, and other expenses, such as support
services, necessary to retain early childhood educators, recall or rehire former early childhood
educators, or hire new early childhood educators to provide early learning services.” States would
be required to obligate all funds used for these purposes by September 30, 2013.
Within 100 days of the receipt of funds, states would be required to provide the remaining funds
to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support early childhood, elementary, and secondary
education. Funds would be awarded to LEAs based on two measures: (1) 60% of the funds would
be awarded on the basis of LEAs’ relative shares of enrollment; and (2) 40% of the funds would
be awarded based on an LEA’s relative share of funds received by LEAs in the state under Title I-
A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.13

12 Under the Education Jobs Fund, states were not permitted to reserve funds for early childhood education.
13 For more information about the Title I-A program, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer
, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

LEAs receiving funds under the Teacher Stabilization program would only be permitted to use the
funds for “compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to
retain existing employees, recall or rehire former employees, or hire new employees to provide
early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services.” LEAs would be
prohibited from using funds for “general administrative expenses” or for “other support services
or expenditures” as these terms are defined by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) for the Common Core of Data (CCD).14
Education Jobs Fund and Use of Funds
No additional information is provided in the American Jobs Act regarding exactly what
constitutes compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services. However, the
Education Jobs Fund had similar use of funds requirements, and ED issued guidance that
addressed this issue.15 While ED may or may not issue similar guidance for the Teacher
Stabilization program, given the similarities between the uses of funds between the two programs,
it may be informative to examine the guidance issued by ED regarding the use of funds for the
Education Jobs Fund.
According to guidance provided by ED, “compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as
support services” includes, among other items, “salaries, performance bonuses, health insurance,
retirement benefits, incentives for early retirement, pension fund contributions, tuition
reimbursement, student loan repayment assistance, transportation subsidies, and reimbursement
for childcare expenses.”16 Funds could be used to restore reductions in salaries and to provide
salary increases, as well as to cover salary and benefits costs associated with eliminating furlough
days.
With respect to which staff members may be supported with the funds, the guidance notes that the
funds could be used for “teachers and other employees who provide school-level educational and
related services.”17 The guidance goes on to include the following staff members as employees
who may be supported with program funds: “principals, assistant principals, academic coaches,
in-service teacher trainers, classroom aides, counselors, librarians, secretaries, social workers,
psychologists, interpreters, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists,
information technology personnel, nurses, athletic coaches, security officers, custodians,
maintenance workers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers.” The Education Jobs Fund money could
not be used to pay for contractual school-level services (e.g., maintenance workers employed by
an outside firm). For individuals that have both LEA-level and school-level responsibilities, only
the portion of their salary and benefits that is attributable to their work on allowable school-level
activities could be paid with funds from the Education Jobs Fund.
Statutory language specifically prohibits LEAs from using the Education Jobs Fund grants for
“general administrative expenses” or “other support service expenditures” as these terms are
defined for the CCD. In its guidance, ED indicated that prohibited administrative expenditures
include those related to the operation of the superintendant’s office or the LEA’s board of

14 For more information about the CCD, see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd.
15 U.S. Department of Education, Initial Guidance for States on the Education Jobs Fund Program, August 13, 2010,
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/educationjobsfund/applicant.html.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

education, including the salaries and benefits of administrative employees at the LEA level.18 ED
has also interpreted the prohibition on the use of funds for other support service expenditures to
prohibit the use of funds for “fiscal services, LEA program planners and researchers, and human
resource services.”
Rainy-Day Funds and Debt Reduction19
Similar to the Education Jobs Fund, the Teacher Stabilization program would include various
prohibitions related to state rainy-day funds and debt reduction. Under the Teacher Stabilization
program, states would be prohibited from using their funds to directly or indirectly establish,
restore, or supplement a rainy-day fund. Further, states would be prohibited from using funds to
reduce or retire state debt obligations. They would also be prohibited from supplanting state funds
in a manner that would effectively establish, restore, or supplement a rainy-day fund or reduce or
retire state debt obligations incurred by the state. The term “rainy-day fund” is not defined in the
American Jobs Act. While there may be a general understanding of what this term means, the
bill’s lack of a definition makes it difficult to predict how the prohibition would be applied across
states.
Fiscal Accountability Requirements
A long-standing principle of federal aid to elementary and secondary education is that federal
funding adds to, and does not substitute for, state and local education funding. That is, federal
funds are awarded to provide a net increase in financial resources for specific types of educational
services (such as the education of disadvantaged students or students with disabilities), rather than
effectively providing general subsidies to state and local governments. All of the fiscal
accountability requirements included in federal elementary and secondary education programs are
intended to ensure that all federal funds represent a net increase in the level of financial resources
available to serve eligible students, and that they do not ultimately replace funds that states or
LEAs would provide in the absence of federal aid.
Two fiscal accountability requirements that apply to major federal K-12 education aid programs
would also be relevant to the Teacher Stabilization program. The first requirement—maintenance
of effort—requires, for example, that recipient LEAs must have provided, from state and local
sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per student) in the preceding year that is at least a
specified percentage of the amount in the second preceding year. A second fiscal accountability
requirement provides that federal funds must be used to supplement, not supplant (SNS), state
and local funds that would otherwise be available for the education of students eligible to be
served under the federal program in question. SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from
using federal funds (1) to provide services that state and/or local funds have provided or
purchased in the past; (2) to provide services that are required to be provided under federal, state,
or local law; or (3) to provide services for some students (e.g., those eligible under specific
federal programs) that are provided to other students with non-federal funds. Similar to the
Education Jobs Fund, funds provided under the Teacher Stabilization program would not be
subject to supplement, not supplant requirements (except as noted above). Thus, for example, an

18 Ibid.
19 For additional information about the provisions discussed in this subsection, please contact Steven Maguire at
smaguire@crs.loc.gov or 7-7841.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

LEA could use funds provided through the Teacher Stabilization program to pay the salary of a
teacher currently being paid with state and local funds and shift the state and local funds to
another purpose.
The Teacher Stabilization program includes MOE requirements for FY2012 and FY2013.20 In
order to receive Teacher Stabilization funds for state FY2012, a state would be required to
provide an assurance to the Secretary that either
1. the state will maintain state support for early childhood, elementary, and
secondary education, in the aggregate, or based on per pupil expenditures, and for
public institutions of higher education (IHEs)21 at not less than the level of
support provided to each of these two levels of education, respectively, for state
FY2011; or
2. the state will maintain state support for early childhood, elementary, and
secondary education and for public IHEs22 at a percentage of the total revenues
available to the state that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for
state FY2011.
For state FY2013, the state would have to provide an assurance that similar MOEs would be met
with respect to funding provided or revenues available for FY2012. It should be noted that the
second MOE option available for both state FY2012 and state FY2013 does not require the state
to meet the requirement separately for each level of education.
The Secretary would be permitted to waive the MOE requirements if the Secretary determined
that a waiver would be equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances (e.g., natural
disaster) or a “precipitous decline” in the state’s financial resources.23
Reporting Requirements
Each state receiving funds under the Teacher Stabilization program would be required to submit
an annual report to the Secretary that includes a description of how the funds were expended or
obligated and how many jobs were supported by the state using funds provided under the
program. It should be noted that these requirements may not provide the type of detailed
information that Congress may want as it considers a subsequent program or possible extension
of the Teacher Stabilization program. For example, the reporting requirements may not result in
information being reported on the specific type of staff supported with the funds; the extent to
which funds were used for early childhood education, elementary education, and secondary
education; the extent to which funds were used to provide compensation or benefits to existing
employees versus rehiring employees or hiring new employees; or how funds were used in
individual LEAs. Without more detailed information, it may be difficult to make an accurate
determination about how many jobs were created versus supported, if this is information of
interest to Congress. Table A-1 includes estimates calculated by the White House of the number

20 The Education Jobs Fund also included MOE requirements.
21 This does not include support for capital projects or for research and development or tuition and fees paid by
students.
22 Ibid.
23 While the Secretary was not permitted to waive the MOE requirements under the Education Jobs Fund, the Secretary
is permitted to waive MOE requirements for ESEA programs based on authority provided under ESEA, Section 9521.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

of jobs (for both teachers and first responders) that would be supported by the Teacher
Stabilization state grants and First Responder Stabilization grants (described below).
Current Status of the Education Jobs Fund
As previously mentioned, P.L. 111-226 provided $10 billion for an Education Jobs Fund.24 Based
on data maintained by ED, of the $9.8 billion awarded to states, as of September 16, 2011 (most
recent data available), the cumulative outlays for states totaled $6.074 billion, meaning that about
$3.876 billion remained available to states.25 The percent of awarded funds drawn down by states
varied from about 5.3% in New Jersey to nearly 100% in several states.26 The differences in the
draw down rates may be attributed to several factors, including the timing of the grant awards
(funds were awarded after the start of the 2010-2011 school year), no requirement for states to
provide funds to LEAs within a certain time frame, and the ability to obligate funds through
September 30, 2012, which would permit their use during the 2011-2012 school year.
First Responder Stabilization (Title II, Subtitle C)
The American Jobs Act would provide $5 billion for a proposed Community Oriented Policing
Stabilization Fund (the fund), which would be used to “prevent layoffs of, and support additional
jobs for, law enforcement officers and other first responders.” Of the proposed appropriation for
the fund, $4 billion would be for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office for a
competitive grant program for hiring, rehiring, or retaining law enforcement officers. In addition,
$1 billion of the $5 billion appropriation for the fund would be transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant
program (discussed below).
Law Enforcement Officers
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.27 The mission of the COPS program is to
advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States.28 The COPS program
awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States so
they can hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase
and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing

24 For more information about the Education Jobs Fund, see CRS Report R41353, Education Jobs Fund Proposals in
the 111th Congress
, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Steven Maguire.
25 For more information, see http://www.educationjobsfund.gov/where-money-going/Pages/agency-info.aspx. The
September 16, 2011, data were the most recent data available as of September 21, 2011.
26 South Carolina did not receive funds under the Education Jobs Fund. Several of the outlying areas have drawn down
100% of their available funds. The following states had drawn down 98.5% of their funds: Georgia, Kansas, Missouri,
Montana, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
27 P.L. 103-322; 42 U.S.C. §3796dd et seq.
28 While there are different definitions of “community policing,” the COPS Office defines “community policing” as “a
philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-
solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime,
social disorder, and fear of crime.” U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office,
Community Policing Defined, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

strategies.29 COPS grants are managed by the COPS Office, which was created in 1994 by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to oversee the COPS program.
The American Jobs Act would require that grants be awarded in accordance with the conditions
set forth in the authorizing legislation for the COPS program.30 However, the matching
requirement31 and maximum grant award amount32 would be waived under the proposed program.
These waivers would allow the COPS Office to award grants to law enforcement agencies that
cover the entire cost of hiring, rehiring, or retaining a law enforcement officer, but it also likely
means that the COPS Office would award fewer grants than it would if both the matching and
maximum grant amount conditions were left in place. While the matching and maximum grant
amount requirements would be waived under this program, the COPS Office would still be
required to ensure that, unless all eligible applicants receive awards, every state receives no less
than 0.5% of the total appropriation33 and that half of the total appropriation goes to law
enforcement agencies serving jurisdictions of 150,000 or fewer.34
In evaluating the current proposal, it might be useful to examine how the COPS Office awarded
the funding it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L.
111-5). The COPS Office established the COPS Hiring Recover Program (CHRP) to award the
funds it received under ARRA. The COPS Office acknowledged that it had a statutory
requirement to promote community policing, but that the intent of the ARRA was to preserve and
create jobs and promote economic recovery; to assist those most impacted by the recession; and
to stabilize state and local government budgets.35 As such, applicants for funding under the CHRP
were required to submit data on their community’s fiscal health,36 crime rate, and planned
community policing activities.37 The COPS Office used the data to develop a score for each
application whereby 50% of the final score was based on fiscal health factors and the other 50%
was based on the applicant’s crime rate and planned community policing activities. Given that the
purpose of the proposed American Jobs Act program is to prevent layoffs and support additional
jobs for law enforcement officers, which would imply that funding should be targeted to areas
where there is some level of fiscal distress, it is possible that the COPS Office could use the
CHRP methodology as a blueprint for awarding grants under the proposed program. However,

29 U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office, About Community Oriented Policing
Services Office, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=35.
30 42 U.S.C. §3796dd et seq.
31 Under current law (42 U.S.C. §3796dd(g)), recipients of a COPS grant are required to provide 25% of the cost of
hiring a law enforcement officer. However, the matching requirement can be waived by the Attorney General.
According to the COPS Office, the local match must be a cash match and the source of the funds may not be federal
unless authorized by federal statute. The local match funds must be in addition to funds previously budgeted for
specific law enforcement purposes and may not have come from other COPS grants. See U.S. Department of Justice,
Community Oriented Policing Services Office, Local Match, at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=174.
32 Under current law (42 U.S.C. §3796dd-3(c)), the COPS Office cannot award more than $75,000 to a law
enforcement agency for the cost of hiring a law enforcement officer.
33 42 U.S.C. §3796dd(f).
34 42 U.S.C. §3793(a)(11)(B).
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office, CHRP Background and Award
Methodology
, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2267.
36 Questions about the community’s fiscal health were related to unemployment, poverty, foreclosure rates, and
changes in budgets for law enforcement agencies and local governments. Ibid.
37 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

nothing in the current bill would require the COPS Office to use the CHRP methodology when
selecting applications for funding.
Firefighters
As mentioned above, $1 billion of the proposed Community Oriented Policing Stabilization Fund
would be transferred to a First Responder Stabilization Fund, from which the Secretary of
Homeland Security would be directed to make competitive grants for the hiring, rehiring, or
retention of firefighters. These grants would be competitively awarded through the existing
SAFER grant program, currently housed at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SAFER
grants are awarded directly to applying fire departments through a peer-review process that makes
award decisions based on the merits of the applications received.38
There are two categories of SAFER grants. Hiring grants (constituting about 90% of SAFER
funding each year) helps career and combination fire departments meet the costs of employing
firefighters. Recruitment and retention grants help volunteer and combination fire departments
finance activities related to the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. The SAFER
program was established by the 108th Congress in Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136), and is codified as Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a). From FY2005 (the SAFER program’s initial year)
through FY2011, Congress has appropriated a total of $1.5 billion to SAFER.
The SAFER statute, as it currently stands, does not allow fire departments to use SAFER grants
to supplant local budget shortfalls. However, since FY2009, Congress has added provisions in
appropriations legislation giving DHS the authority to waive these and other SAFER statutory
requirements and restrictions that may impede the ability of some local fire departments to
participate in the program. The American Jobs Act would include this waiver authority for the
additional $1 billion in grant money to be made available for FY2012. Specifically, this waiver
authority would allow SAFER grants to be used to retain and rehire firefighters, and to fill
positions eliminated through attrition. Additionally, the waivers would give DHS authority to
eliminate cost-share requirements, remove the five-year requirement for the duration of the grant,
and permit the amount of funding per position at levels exceeding the current limit of $100,000.
Work Opportunity Tax Credits
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a non-refundable tax credit for employers who hire
individuals of certain targeted groups. The credit is calculated as 40% of the first-year wages paid
to the qualifying individual, up to a maximum amount of wages. For most qualified individuals,
the maximum amount of first-year wages for calculating the WOTC is $6,000.
The American Jobs Act would expand the WOTC for certain veterans and long-term unemployed
persons. Under current law an employer may claim the WOTC on up to $12,000 of first-year
wages paid to certain qualified veterans. A qualified veteran is:

38 For more information on the SAFER grant program, see CRS Report RL33375, Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program
, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
10

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

1. a member of a family receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) benefits for at least 3 months in the year prior to the date the veteran is
hired; and
2. eligible for disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), and:

(a) was hired within one year of discharge or release from active military duty, or

(b) had aggregate periods of unemployment in the one-year period prior to being
hired of six months or more.
Under current law there is no targeted group for long-term unemployed for the WOTC.
Veterans Targeted Group (Title II, Subtitle A)
The American Jobs Act would expand the targeted group for qualified veterans and change the
amount of first-year wages that can be claimed for the WOTC, such that
• for veterans who are members of a family receiving SNAP benefits for at least
three months in the year prior to being hired, the maximum wages for the credit
would be $6,000;
• for veterans who have been unemployed for an aggregate of at least four weeks,
but less than six months, in the year prior to being hired, the maximum wages for
the credit would be $6,000;
• for veterans eligible for disability compensation from the VA and within one year
of discharge or release from active military duty when hired, the maximum
wages for the credit would be $12,000;
• for veterans who have been unemployed for an aggregate of at six months or
more in the year prior to being hired, the maximum wages for the credit would be
$14,000; and
• for veterans who are eligible for disability compensation from the VA and have
been unemployed for an aggregate of six months or more in the year prior to
being hired, the maximum wages for the credit would be $24,000.
The act also would make the WOTC refundable for certain non-profit employers. For these non-
profit employers, the refundable credit would be the lesser of the calculated WOTC for hiring
veterans who qualify for the WOTC based on unemployment, or the payroll taxes paid by the
non-profit. For this comparison, the credit rate for the calculated WOTC would be 26% rather
than 40%. Non-profit employers eligible for the refundable credit would be 501(c) tax-exempt
organizations and public higher education institutions.
The American Jobs Act also would extend the WOTC for qualified veterans to U. S. possessions39
with a tax system that mirrors the U.S. tax system, with the Secretary of the Treasury paying to

39 Possessions include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service
11

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

the possession the amount lost to the possession in taxes because of the expansion of the WOTC
for qualified veterans.
Long-Term Unemployed Targeted Group (Title III, Subtitle B)
The American Jobs Act would also expand the WOTC by adding a new targeted group for
individuals who are not students and have aggregate periods of unemployment of 6 months or
more in the year prior to being hired. The maximum wages for calculating the WOTC for
qualified long-term unemployed persons would be $10,000.
As stated above with regard to veterans, the act would make the WOTC refundable for certain
non-profit employers who hire from the long-term unemployed targeted group. For these non-
profit employers, the refundable credit would be the lesser of the WOTC for hiring qualified
long-term unemployed or the payroll taxes paid by the non-profit. For this comparison, the credit
rate for the calculated WOTC would be 26% rather than 40%. As noted above, non-profit
employers eligible for the refundable credit would be 501(c) tax-exempt organizations and public
higher education institutions.
The act also would extend the WOTC for long-term unemployed to U. S. possessions40 with a tax
system that mirrors the U.S. tax system, with the Secretary of the Treasury paying to the
possession the amount lost to the possession in taxes because of the expansion of the WOTC for
long-term unemployed.
Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Unemployed Status
(Title III, Subtitle D)

The American Jobs Act would establish the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011, which
would prohibit employment discrimination against the unemployed. Designed to eliminate the
economic burdens imposed by discrimination against the unemployed, the act would prohibit
such discrimination in job advertising and hiring practices. The act appears to be modeled on Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, or religion.41 Specifically, much of the enforcement authority
appears to be borrowed from Title VII and related statutes, as do the definitions for several of the
terms in the act.
Coverage
Like Title VII, the Fair Employment Opportunity Act would prohibit employers and employment
agencies from discriminating on the basis of unemployment status. Most public and private
employers would be covered, although private employers who have fewer than 15 employees
would be exempt. Like Title VII, the act would define “employer” to exclude “bona fide private
membership” clubs that qualify for federal tax exemptions.

40 Possessions include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.

41 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
Congressional Research Service
12

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

The act would also adopt Title VII’s definition of “employment agency” with some modifications.
Like Title VII, an employment agency would include any person (and his or her agents) who
regularly seeks to procure employees for an employer or to procure opportunities for individuals
to work as employees for an employer. The act, however, would significantly broaden the
definition to also include any person who maintains a website or print medium that publishes
advertisements or announcements regarding job openings for covered employees.
Likewise, most public and private employees would be protected, including employees covered
by the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 and the Congressional Accountability Act of
1995.42 Because the act is intended to prohibit discrimination against the unemployed, it would
cover not only employees but also other affected individuals, defined to include any persons who
were subject to an unlawful employment practice solely because of their status as unemployed.
Under the act, the term “status as unemployed” would be defined to include individuals who, at
the time of application for employment or at the time of the alleged violation, do not have a job,
are available for work, and are searching for employment.
Prohibited Acts
Under the act, it would be unlawful for employers to: (1) publish an advertisement or
announcement stating that individuals who are unemployed are not qualified for the employment
opportunity or indicating that the employer will not consider or hire an unemployed individual for
the employment opportunity; (2) fail or refuse to consider, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual
because of that individual’s status as unemployed; and (3) direct or request that an employment
agency disqualify unemployed individuals from consideration, screening, or referral to the
employer.
Likewise, the act would prohibit employment agencies from: (1) publishing an advertisement or
announcement stating that individuals who are unemployed are not qualified for the employment
opportunity or indicating that the employment agency or employer will not consider or hire an
unemployed individual for the employment opportunity; (2) screening, failing or refusing to
consider, or failing or refusing to refer for employment an individual because of that individual’s
status as unemployed; and (3) limiting, segregating, or classifying an unemployed individual in
any manner that would limit or tend to limit the individual’s access to information about jobs. In
addition, the act would bar both employers and employment agencies from interfering with or
retaliating against individuals who exercise their rights under the act.
The act clarifies that it is not intended to preclude an employer or employment agency from
considering an individual’s employment history or examining the reasons behind an individual’s
unemployed status when making employment decisions about an individual. Such consideration
or examination may include an assessment of whether the individual’s previous employment in a
similar position is job-related or consistent with business necessity.
Enforcement and Remedies
Enforcement procedures under the act would parallel the enforcement provisions of Title VII.
Thus, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would enforce the act against state and local governments,

42 Id. at § 2000e-16; 2 U.S.C. § 1301.
Congressional Research Service
13

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

and administrative enforcement with respect to private employment would be delegated to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which would have the same authority to
receive and investigate complaints, to negotiate voluntary settlements, and to seek judicial
remedies as it currently exercises under Title VII. Similarly, in devising remedies for
unemployment discrimination under the act, a federal court would have the same jurisdiction and
powers as the court has to enforce Title VII. In general, federal courts possess broad remedial
discretion under Title VII, including the ability to enjoin the unlawful employment practice and to
“order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to,
reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay ... or any other relief as the court
deems appropriate.”43
Individuals who sue for violations of the advertising provisions of the act could be awarded the
following remedies: an injunction prohibiting the unlawful employment practice; reimbursement
of costs; liquidated damages not to exceed $1,000 for each day of the violation; and reasonable
attorney’s fees.44 Remedies for other violations of the act would be patterned on Title VII’s
remedial provisions. Under Title VII, victims of discrimination may seek equitable relief,
including limited back pay awards for wage, salary, and fringe benefits lost as the result of
discrimination. Private employers who intentionally discriminate in violation of the statute may
be liable for capped compensatory and punitive damages,45 while plaintiffs may seek awards of
compensatory, but not punitive, damages against federal, state, and local governmental agencies.
Unlike Title VII, the act would limit damages to $5,000 for cases in which wages, salary,
employment benefits, or other compensation has not been lost.
Finally, the act would waive the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for
unemployment discrimination against employees or applicants within any state program or
activity that receives federal financial assistance.46
Compensation and Services for Unemployed
Workers

The American Jobs Act focuses on the income and reemployment needs of unemployed workers,
particularly the long-term unemployed who might qualify for benefits under the temporary
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program, or the Extended Benefits (EB)
program that provides benefits beyond the usual Unemployment Compensation (UC) maximum

43 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).
44 Section 375(c)(1)(D) specifies that “no person identified in Section 103(a) of this Act shall be eligible to receive
attorney’s fees” but such section does not appear to exist.
45 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b).
46 The Eleventh Amendment provides states with immunity from claims brought under federal law in both federal and
state courts. U.S. Const. amend. XI. Although Congress may waive the states’ sovereign immunity by “appropriate”
legislation enacted pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, the scope of congressional
power to create a private right of action against the states for monetary damages has been substantially narrowed by a
series of Supreme Court decisions. See, e.g., Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001); Kimel v.
Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706
(1999); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). For more
information on these rulings and on waiver of state sovereign immunity more generally, see CRS Report RL30315,
Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
Congressional Research Service
14

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

of 26 weeks.47 In addition to provisions that would extend certain temporary programs and
expand services for certain EUC08 claimants, the act also would authorize a new Reemployment
NOW program, that would provide formula grants to states to address the reemployment needs of
eligible individuals, and would expand federal funding for state-administered short-time
compensation (or “work sharing”) programs. These provisions are discussed in the following
sections.
Unemployment Compensation (Title III, Subtitle A, Part I)
Extension of Temporary Provisions: EUC08, 100% EB Federal Financing,
EB Three-Year Lookback Trigger Option, and Increased Railroad
Unemployment Benefits

The American Jobs Act proposes to extend several temporary federal provisions related to
unemployment benefits and programs that are otherwise scheduled to expire.48 In general, basic
income support for unemployed workers is provided through the joint federal-state UC program,
which generally pays up to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits may be extended at the state level by the permanent EB program if high
unemployment exists within the state. Once regular unemployment benefits are exhausted, the EB
program may provide up to an additional 13 or 20 weeks of benefits, depending on worker
eligibility, state law, and state economic conditions.49 Under permanent law (P.L. 91-373), the EB
program is funded 50% by the federal government and 50% by the states. The 2009 stimulus
package (P.L. 111-5, as amended, most recently by P.L. 111-312) temporarily provides for 100%
federal funding of the EB program until January 4, 2012.
In addition to extending the temporary 100% federal financing of EB, P.L. 111-312 also allows
states to temporarily use lookback calculations based on three years of unemployment rate data
(rather than the current lookback of two years of data) as part of their EB triggers if states would
otherwise trigger off or not be on a period of EB benefits. Using a two-year versus a three-year
EB trigger lookback is an important adjustment because some states are likely to trigger off their
EB periods in the near future despite high, sustained—but not increasing—unemployment rates.
This temporary option to use three-year EB trigger lookbacks expires the week ending on or
before December 31, 2011.
The American Jobs Act would provide a year-long extension of the 100% federal financing of the
EB program through calendar year 2012. In addition, it would extend authorization for states to
use three-year lookbacks for state EB triggers during this period. It would not create additional
weeks of EB benefits.
It is projected that the impact of maintaining the three-year lookback for state EB triggers would
be that the effective maximum availability of unemployment benefits from all programs would

47 For background on these and related programs, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and
Benefits
, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.
48 See CRS Report R41508, Upcoming Unemployment Insurance Benefit Expirations, by Katelin P. Isaacs.
49 Additional details on the EB program may be found in CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs
and Benefits
, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.
Congressional Research Service
15

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

likely decrease from 99 weeks to 79 by mid-year for almost all states.50 This projection reflects
current economic models that have most states continuing to experience high unemployment rates
that are not increasing—and, thus, failing to be 10% higher than in any of the previous three
years.
To supplement UC and EB benefits and respond to the most recent recession, Congress created a
temporary unemployment insurance program, the EUC08 program. The EUC08 program began
in July 2008. EUC08 has been amended by Congress eight times (most recently by P.L. 111-312),
and is scheduled to expire the week ending on or before January 3, 2012. Currently, the EUC08
program provides up to four tiers of additional weeks of unemployment benefits to certain
workers who have exhausted their rights to regular UC benefits. Tiers I (up to an additional 20
weeks) and II (up to an additional 14 weeks) are available in all states. Tier III (up to an
additional 13 weeks) is available in states with a total unemployment rate of at least 6%. Tier IV
(up to additional six weeks) is available in states with a total unemployment rate of at least
8.5%.51
The act would provide a year-long extension of the EUC08 authorization through calendar year
2012. However, the act would not expand the number of weeks of unemployment benefits
available to the unemployed beyond what is currently available. (For example, it would not
authorize a “tier V” of EUC08 benefits.)
The proposed American Jobs Act would also extend the temporary increased railroad
unemployment benefits—authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5, as amended)—for an additional year through June 30, 2012. The funds would
continue to be financed with funds still available under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312).52
Reemployment Services
The proposal would impose new federal requirements and appropriate new federal funds for
states to provide reemployment and eligibility assessments to certain EUC08 claimants. The
proposal would require states to enter into agreements with the Department of Labor (DOL) and
require new EUC08 claimants to report to or check in with their local One-Stop Career Centers.53
The American Jobs Act would provide $200 per unemployed worker in federal funding for states
to conduct Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments in order to review new EUC08 claimants’
eligibility for benefits and provide an assessment of their work search efforts.

50 For a visual representation and breakdown of the up to 99 week maximum UI benefits, see Appendix A in CRS
Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.
51 For full details on EUC08, including the program’s legislative history, see CRS Report RS22915, Temporary
Extension of Unemployment Benefits: Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08)
, by Katelin P. Isaacs and
Julie M. Whittaker.
52 For more details on unemployment benefits for railroad workers, see CRS Report RS22350, Railroad Retirement
Board: Retirement, Survivor, Disability, Unemployment, and Sickness Benefits
, by Alison M. Shelton.
53 For background on One-Stop Centers, see CRS Report R41135, The Workforce Investment Act and the One-Stop
Delivery System
, by David H. Bradley.
Congressional Research Service
16

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Self-Employment Assistance
The Jobs Act also would authorize states to enter into new agreements with DOL to pay Self-
Employment Assistance (SEA) benefits for up to 26 weeks to individuals receiving EUC08
benefits who (1) have at least 26 weeks of EUC08 remaining benefits and (2) are participating in
entrepreneurial training activities. The new SEA proposal is distinct from the existing
authorization for states to set up SEA programs under state laws that are available to individuals
receiving regular, state Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits.54
Under this proposal, SEA benefits would be identical in amount to EUC08 benefits and be paid in
lieu of EUC08 benefits, for up to 26 weeks to individuals who choose to participate and are
currently eligible for EUC08 benefits in states that enter into DOL agreements. SEA participants
would be exempt from the work availability and work search requirements under EUC08.
Instead, individuals receiving SEA benefits would be required to engage in activities related to
starting their own businesses. SEA benefits would be available to up to 1% of all EUC08
recipients in each participating state. An individual receiving SEA benefits would be able to stop
participation and receive any remaining EUC08 benefits at any time (since an individual’s total
EUC08 entitlement—from all tiers of EUC08 available in his or her state—may not exceed 26
weeks). States with agreements to pay SEA benefits would be able to use Reemployment NOW
funds (see description below) to finance SEA administrative, start-up costs, if specified in an
approved state Reemployment NOW plan.
Reemployment NOW Program (Title III, Subtitle A, Part II)
The act would establish a “Reemployment NOW” program with $4 billion in direct
appropriations. These federal funds would be allotted to states based on a two-part formula: (1)
two-thirds would be distributed to states based upon each state’s share of the U.S. total number of
unemployed persons and (2) one-third would be distributed to the states based on each state’s
share of the long-term unemployed (measured as unemployment spells of at least 27 weeks). Up
to 1% of the funds would be available for program administration and evaluation.
To receive a Reemployment NOW allotment, a state would have to submit a plan describing (1)
activities to assist the reemployment of eligible individuals; (2) performance measures; (3)
coordination of efforts with Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the Wagner-Peyser
Act, and other appropriate federal programs; (4) timelines for implementation; (5) estimates of
quarterly enrollments; (6) assurances that the state will provide appropriate reemployment
services to any participating EUC08 claimants; and (7) assurances that the state will provide
information to DOL relating to the fiscal, performance, and other matters, including employment
outcomes and program impacts that DOL determines is necessary to effectively monitor the
activities. DOL would be required to provide Congress and the public with both guidance as well
as program evaluation for activities conducted with Reemployment NOW funds.

54 See CRS Report R41253, The Self-Employment Assistance (SEA) Program, by Katelin P. Isaacs, for additional
information on the permanent-law state option to provide SEA benefits to individuals eligible for regular, state-
financed UC.
Congressional Research Service
17

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Allowable program uses of Reemployment NOW funds would include the following:
• The “Bridge to Work” program would allow individuals to continue to receive
EUC08 benefits as wages for work performed in a short-term work experience
placement. The Bridge to Work placement would last up to eight weeks and
would be required to compensate claimants at a rate equivalent to the minimum
wage. The state would be permitted to augment the EUC08 benefit with
Reemployment NOW funds to meet this criteria. For individuals participating at
least 25 hours per week in a Bridge to Work program, work search requirements
would be suspended during the participation and wages paid would not offset
EUC08 benefit amounts. Any earnings acquired during program participation
would not be considered earnings for the purposes of employment taxes, but
would be treated as unemployment benefits for tax purposes.
Wage insurance would authorize states to provide an income supplement to
EUC08 claimants who secure reemployment at a lower wage than their separated
employment. The benefit level would be determined by the states, although it
could not be more than 50% of the difference between the worker’s wage at the
time of separation and the worker’s reemployment wage. States would also
establish a maximum benefit amount that an individual could collect. The
duration of wage insurance payments would be limited to two years. Wage
insurance under this proposal would also be limited to individuals who (1) are at
least 50 years of age; (2) earn not more than $50,000 per year from
reemployment; (3) are employed on a full-time basis as defined by the state; and
(4) are not employed by the employer from which the individual was separated.
Enhanced reemployment services would allow states to use funds to provide
EUC08 claimants and individuals who have exhausted all entitlements to EUC08
benefits with reemployment services that are more intensive than any
reemployment services provided by the states previously (for instance, one-on-
one assessments, counseling, or case management).
Start-up of SEA state programs would authorize states to use funds for any
administrative costs associated with the start-up of SEA agreements (as described
above).
Additional innovative programs would allow states to use funds for programs
other than the programs described above. These programs would be required to
facilitate the reemployment of EUC08 claimants, among other requirements.
Short-Time Compensation Program (Title III, Subtitle A, Part III)
The American Jobs Act would clarify requirements related to short-time compensation (STC or
“work sharing”) programs and provide temporary federal financing to support state work sharing
programs.55 This proposal would temporarily federally finance 100% of STC benefits for up to

55 Work sharing is a program within the federal-state UC system that provides pro-rated unemployment benefits to
workers whose hours have been reduced in lieu of a layoff. In a typical example of work sharing, a firm that needs to
reduce its 100-person workforce by 20% would, in lieu of laying off 20 workers, instead reduce the work hours of the
entire workforce by 20%, on a temporary basis. For additional details, see CRS Report R40689, Compensated Work
Sharing Arrangements (Short-Time Compensation) as an Alternative to Layoffs
, by Alison M. Shelton.
Congressional Research Service
18

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

three years in states that meet the new definition of an STC program, with a transition period for
states with existing STC programs that do not meet the new definition (currently 22 states have
STC programs). States without existing STC programs would be allowed to enter into an
agreement with DOL for up to two years in order to receive federal reimbursement for
administrative expenses, as well as temporary federal financing of 50% of STC payments to
individuals, with employers paying the other 50% of STC costs. Under this proposal, if a state
that enters into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor subsequently enacts a law providing for
STC, that state would be eligible to receive 100% of federal financing. The proposal would award
DOL grants to eligible states, with one-third of each state’s grant available for implementation
and improved administration purposes and two-thirds of each state’s grant available for program
promotion and enrollment of employers. The maximum amount of all grants to states would be
$700 million. Finally, the proposal would provide $1.5 million for DOL to submit a report to
Congress and the President, within four years of enactment, on the implementation of this
provision, including a description of states’ best practices, analysis of significant challenges, and
a survey of employers in states without STC programs.
Workforce Development for Low-Income Adults
and Youth

Title III, Subtitle C of the American Jobs Act would authorize the Pathways Back to Work Act of
2011 (Pathways Act), which would provide funds for three grant programs to promote the
employment of unemployed low-income adults and youth. Overall, the Pathways Act would
provide $5 billion for these initiatives through a combination of formula and competitive grants.
Funds provided under the Pathways Act would remain available for obligation by the Department
of Labor (DOL) until December 31, 2012, and would remain available for expenditure by
grantees until September 30, 2013. For all three Pathways Act initiatives, the Secretary of Labor
would be allowed to reserve up to 1% of the allocated funding for each initiative to provide
technical assistance, evaluations, and administration. The three grant programs are described in
the following sections.
Subsidized Employment for Unemployed, Low-Income Adults
(Title III, Subtitle C, Section 364)

The first of the three Pathways Act programs would provide $2 billion for the purpose of
subsidizing employment of unemployed, low-income adults.
Purpose
Funds provided under the subsidized employment initiative of the Pathways Act would be used
by state and local entities for two main purposes.
First, administering entities would be authorized to use a range of strategies to recruit employers
and identify employment opportunities. Priority would be for opportunities likely to develop into
unsubsidized employment within in-demand or emerging occupations in the relevant local area.
State and local entities would have the authority to determine the level (i.e., the percentage of
Congressional Research Service
19

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

wages and costs that the employer would receive for providing employment) and duration of the
subsidy.
Second, funds provided under this initiative would be available for support services, such as
transportation and child care, that would assist individuals in obtaining and keeping subsidized
employment.
Eligibility and Administration
To be eligible to participate in activities supported by this initiative, individuals would have to be
• at least 18 years of age;
• without employment and seeking assistance under the American Jobs Act; and
• low-income, generally defined as an individual with an income or a member of a
family with an income below the poverty level.56
With regard to the low-income requirement, the proposal would provide an exception to this
general definition of a low-income individual. Specifically, Section 368(6)(C) of the American
Jobs Act would allow state and local entities administering the grant funds to increase the
threshold for eligibility to 200% of the poverty line.
States would have the option of administering funds for subsidized employment activities through
state and local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), entities responsible for administering the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or a combination of these entities.
To receive formula allotments (described below) under the subsidized employment initiative, a
state would be required to submit a plan to the Secretary of Labor that includes, at a minimum,
strategies to provide subsidized employment opportunities; requirements the state will apply for
participant eligibility; administration plans; performance outcomes expected to be achieved;
coordination strategies with WIA Title I (state formula grant programs), TANF, and other relevant
state and local programs; implementation timelines and estimates of placement in subsidized
employment by quarter; and assurances of effective program monitoring and compliance.
Similarly, local entities must submit plans to the Governor of the state, containing the same
elements in the state plan, in order to receive allotments from the state.
Funding
Each state with a plan approved by the Secretary of Labor would receive an allotment from the $2
billion provided for subsidized employment activities. For purposes of this section, the term
“State” refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Of the total appropriated
amount of $2 billion, the Secretary of Labor would make two reservations before allotting to
states. One, up to 0.25% of the total appropriated would be reserved for outlying areas to provide

56 “Low-income” in this part of the American Jobs Act is defined by reference to Section 101(25) of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA; P.L. 105-220), which generally defines low-income as an individual having an income,
or being part of a family with an income, below the poverty line.
Congressional Research Service
20

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

subsidized employment opportunities.57 Two, 1.5% of the total appropriated would be reserved
for Native American programs to provide subsidized employment opportunities.58
Following these reservations, the remainder of funds would be allocated to states on the basis of
the following factors:
• one-third of the funds would be allocated on the basis of each state’s relative
share of total unemployment in areas of substantial unemployment (ASU);59
• one-third of the funds would be allocated on the basis of each state’s relative
share of excess unemployment; and60
• one-third of the funds would be allocated on the basis of each state’s relative
share of economically disadvantaged adults and youth.61
For any state that did not submit a state plan or receive approval of a state plan by the Secretary
of Labor, the amount of funding that the ineligible state would have received would go to the
competitive grant program authorized under Section 366 of the proposed Jobs Act. Likewise, for
any locality that did not submit a local plan or receive approval of a local plan by the governor,
the amount of funding that the ineligible locality would have received would be reallocated to
eligible local entities under the same grant formula.
After funds are allotted to states, the governor of each state would be allowed to reserve up to 5%
of the state’s allotment for administration and technical assistance. The remaining funds would
then be allocated to the entities chosen to administer the subsidized employment programs. If the
state chose to administer Pathways Act programs through WIBs, funds would be allocated by the
same formula used to allot funds to states (with “local workforce investment areas” in place of
“states” in the formula factors). Each local area would be allowed to reserve up to 10% of the
allocated funds for administration. If the state chose to administer the Pathways Act programs

57 “Outlying areas” refers to the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
58 Specifically, the funds reserved for Native American programs would go to grantees of programs authorized under
Section 166 of WIA.
59 For purposes of the proposed American Jobs Act, the term ASU would be defined as any contiguous area with a
population of at least 10,000 and that has an average rate of unemployment of at least 6.5% for the most recent 12
months. This concept is similar to that used in the WIA Title I state grant formulas for Youth and Adult Activities. As
defined in Sections 127(b)(2)(B) and 132(b)(1)(B)(v)(III), an ASU is “any area that is of sufficient size and scope to
sustain a program of workforce investment activities carried out under this subtitle and that has an average rate of
unemployment of at least 6.5 percent for the most recent 12 months.”
60 This concept is the same as that used in the WIA Title I state grant formulas for Youth and Adult Activities. That is,
excess unemployment is defined (in Sections 127(b)(2)(D) and 132(b)(1)(B)(v)(VI)) as the higher of “the number that
represents the number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor force in the state” or “the
number that represents the number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor force in
areas of substantial unemployment in such state.”
61 This concept is similar to the one used for the Title I state grant formulas for Youth and Adult Activities, except that
the proposed American Jobs Act combines the youth and adult populations to cover ages 16 to 72. For the state formula
grants for WIA Youth Activities, “disadvantaged youth” is defined (in Section 127(b)(2)(C)) as an “individual who is
age 16 through 21 who received an income, or is a member of a family that received a total family income, that, in
relation to family size, does not exceed the higher of the poverty line or 70 percent of the lower living standard income
level."83 Similarly, a “disadvantaged adult” in WIA is defined (in Section 132(b)(1)(B)(v)(IV)) the same as a
disadvantaged youth with the exception that the reference individual is age 22 to 72.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

through the TANF program, funds would be allocated to local entities in a way the state
determines appropriate.
Performance Accountability
As with programs authorized under WIA, the proposed Pathways Act programs would require
grantees to collect and report performance measures. All three proposed Pathways Act
initiatives—subsidized employment, youth employment, and work-based strategies—would
require grantees to provide the following information:
• number of individuals participating in and completing participation in grant-
funded activities;
• expenditures of grant funds;
• number of jobs created through grant-funded activities; and
• demographic characteristics of participants in grant-funded activities.
In addition to the common reporting requirements listed above, grantees under Section 364 would
be required to report the following performance outcomes for participants:
• entry into unsubsidized employment;
• retention in unsubsidized employment; and
• earnings in unsubsidized employment.62
Summer Employment and Year-Round Employment Opportunities
for Low-Income Youth (Title III, Subtitle C, Section 365)

The second of the three Pathways Act programs would provide $1.5 billion for the purpose of
providing employment opportunities for low-income youth.
Purpose
Funds provided under the youth employment initiative of the Pathways Act would be used by
state and local WIBs for two main purposes.
First, WIBs would be authorized to provide summer employment opportunities to low-income
youth (ages 16 to 24). These employment opportunities would be required to have direct linkages
to academic and occupational learning. Funds provided under this initiative would be available
for support services, such as transportation and child care, that would assist eligible youth in
obtaining and keeping employment.
Second, WIBs would be authorized to provide year-round employment opportunities to low-
income youth (ages 16 to 24). These opportunities could be combined with youth activities

62 These performance measures are nearly identical to those required under the performance accountability provisions
in WIA Section 136(b)(2)(A)(i).
Congressional Research Service
22

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

authorized under Section 129 of WIA. For year-round employment opportunities, priority would
be given to out-of-school youth who are high school dropouts or who have a high school degree
or equivalent but are basic skills deficient.
Priority in both summer and year-round programs would be for opportunities within in-demand or
emerging occupations in the relevant local area or in the public or non-profit sectors that meet
community needs and for opportunities that link year-round participants to activities that would
provide youth with industry-recognized certificates or credentials.
Eligibility and Administration
To be eligible to participate in activities supported by this initiative, individuals would have to
• be between the ages of 16 and 24;
• be low-income, generally defined as an individual with an income or a member
of a family with an income below the poverty level;63 and
• meet one of more of these characteristics: deficient in basic literacy skills; a
school dropout; a homeless, runaway or foster child; pregnant or a parent; an
offender; an individual requiring additional assistance to complete an educational
program or secure and hold employment.64
With regard to the low-income requirement, the act would provide an exception to the general
definition of a low-income youth. Specifically, Section 368(4)(B) would allow local WIBs
administering the grant funds to increase the threshold for eligibility to 200% of the poverty line.
Funds provided under the youth employment section of the Pathways Act would be administered
through state and local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs).
To receive formula allotments (described below) under the youth employment initiative, a state
would be required to submit a modification of the state plan required under Section 112 of WIA
to the Secretary of Labor that includes, at a minimum, strategies to provide summer and year-
round employment opportunities; requirements the state will apply for participant eligibility,
including targeting assistance to certain low-income youth; performance outcomes expected to be
achieved; implementation timelines and estimates of placement in summer and year-round
employment by quarter; and assurances of effective program monitoring and compliance.
Similarly, local WIBs would be required to submit modifications to local plans required under
Section 118 of WIA to the governor of the state, describing the strategies and activities to
implement summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth, in order to
receive allotments from the state.

63 “Low-income” in this part of the American Jobs Act is defined by reference to Section 101(25) of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA; P.L. 105-220), which generally defines low-income as an individual having an income,
or being part of a family with an income, below the poverty line.
64 These characteristics are from Section 101(13)(C) of WIA.
Congressional Research Service
23

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Funding
Each state with a plan approved by the Secretary of Labor would receive an allotment from the
$1.5 billion provided for youth employment activities. For purposes of this section, the term
“State” refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Of the total appropriated
amount of $1.5 billion, the Secretary of Labor would make two reservations before allotting to
states. One, up to 0.25% of the total appropriated would be reserved for outlying areas to provide
summer and year-round employment opportunities to low-income youth.65 Two, 1.5% of the total
appropriated would be reserved for Native American programs to provide summer and year-round
employment opportunities to low-income youth.66
Following these reservations, the remainder of funds would be allocated to states on the basis of
the same three equally weighted factors used for the subsidized employment for low-income
adults initiative, described above.
For any state that did not submit a state plan or receive approval of a state plan by the Secretary
of Labor, the amount of funding that the ineligible state would have received would go to the
competitive grant program authorized under Section 366 of the proposed Act. Likewise, for any
local WIB that did not submit a local plan or receive approval of a local plan by the governor, the
amount of funding that the ineligible local WIB would have received would be reallocated to
eligible local workforce investment areas under the same grant formula.
After funds are allotted to states, the governor of each state would be allowed to reserve up to 5%
of the state’s allotment for administration and technical assistance. The remaining funds would
then be allocated to local WIBs by the same formula used to allot funds to states (with “local
workforce investment areas” in place of “states” in the formula factors). Each local area would be
allowed to reserve up to 10% of the allocated funds for administration.
Performance Accountability
As with programs authorized under WIA, the proposed Pathways Act programs would require
grantees to collect and report performance measures. As noted above, the three proposed
Pathways Act initiatives—subsidized employment, youth employment, and work-based
strategies—would require grantees to provide the following information:
• number of individuals participating in and completing participation in grant-
funded activities;
• expenditures of grant funds;
• number of jobs created through grant-funded activities; and
• demographic characteristics of participants in grant-funded activities.
In addition to the common reporting requirements listed above, grantees under both the youth
employment (Section 365) and work-based strategies initiatives (Section 366, described below)

65 “Outlying areas” refers to the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
66 Specifically, the funds reserved for Native American programs would go to grantees of programs authorized under
Section 166 of WIA.
Congressional Research Service
24

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

would be required to report the following performance outcomes for low-income youth
participating in summer employment:
• work readiness skill attainment; and
• placement in or return to secondary or postsecondary education or training, or
entry into unsubsidized employment.
For youth participating in year-round employment, under activities authorized by Section 365 or
Section 366, grantees would be required to report
• placement in or return to post-secondary education;
• attainment of a high school diploma or equivalent;
• attainment of an industry-recognized credential; and
• entry into unsubsidized employment, retention in unsubsidized employment, and
earnings in unsubsidized employment.
Work-Based Employment Strategies of Demonstrated Effectiveness
(Title III, Subtitle C, Section 366)

The third of the three Pathways Act programs would provide $1.5 billion in funding for
competitive grants to eligible entities to provide a range of activities and strategies for the
purpose of providing employment opportunities for unemployed, low-income adults and youth.
Purpose
Funds provided under the work-based strategies initiative of the Pathways Act would be used by
eligible entities to carry out strategies and activities of “demonstrated effectiveness” to provide
unemployed, low-income youth or adults with skills that would lead to employment. These
activities and strategies could include
• on-the-job training;
• sector-based training;
• employer- or labor-management based partnership involving a work-experience
component;
• attainment of industry-recognized credentials in fields with demand or growth
potential;
• connections to immediate work opportunities, including subsidized employment;
• career academies; and
• adult basic education.
Eligibility and Administration
Entities eligible to apply for and receive funding under this section of the Pathways Act would
include local elected officials (e.g., mayors) in collaboration with a local WIB or an entity eligible
Congressional Research Service
25

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

to receive funding under Section 166 of WIA (Native American programs). These eligible entities
would be allowed to include partners, including employers, adult or postsecondary educational
providers (including community colleges), community-based organizations, joint labor-
management committees, work-related intermediaries, or other appropriate organizations.
Funding
The $1.5 billion in funding appropriated for work-based strategies would be distributed on a
competitive grant basis following the submission of applications from eligible entities to the
Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor would develop the application but elements would
include a description of work-based strategies to be carried out, strategies for targeting assistance
to meet the needs of the local population and local employers, a description of the expected
outcomes, evidence that grant funds would be spent expeditiously and efficiently, strategies for
coordination with other government programs, evidence of employer commitment to participate,
and assurances of effective program monitoring and compliance.
Priority in awarding grants would be given to eligible entities applying from areas of high poverty
and high unemployment.
Performance Accountability
As with programs authorized under WIA, the proposed Pathways Act programs would require
grantees to collect and report performance measures. As stated earlier, the three proposed
Pathways Act initiatives—subsidized employment, youth employment, and work-based
strategies—would require grantees to provide the following information:
• number of individuals participating in and completing participation in grant-
funded activities;
• expenditures of grant funds;
• number of jobs created through grant-funded activities; and
• demographic characteristics of participants in grant-funded activities.
In addition to the common reporting requirements listed above, grantees under Section 366 would
be required to report the same information for youth participants as required of grantees under
Section 365 (described above), and the following performance outcomes for low-income adults
participating in grant-funded activities:
• attainment of an industry-recognized credential; and
• entry into unsubsidized employment, retention in unsubsidized employment, and
earnings in unsubsidized employment.
School Modernization
The American Jobs Act would authorize two new grant programs for the modernization,
renovation, and repair of education facilities. Part I of Title II, Subtitle D would authorize a new
elementary and secondary education school facilities grant program. Part II of Title II, Subtitle D
would authorize a new grant program of federal assistance for eligible postsecondary education
Congressional Research Service
26

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

facilities. Currently, the majority of federal support for education facilities is attributable to
interest exemptions and tax credits on bonds.67 The federal government also provides grant and
loan support for facilities serving certain populations, facilities with specific needs, and facilities
serving particular purposes.
Under the proposed two programs, funds could be used for the modernization, renovation, and
repair of eligible facilities. Funds could not be used for routine maintenance costs or for stadiums
or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which
admission is charged to the general public. Elementary and secondary education facilities funds
could not be used for new construction. Postsecondary education facilities funds could not be
used on facilities used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of
divinity; or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a
religious mission. Modernization, renovation, and repair would include activities such as facilities
assessments, roofing, installation of heating systems, code compliance, and reducing or
eliminating hazards.
The use of funds under both programs would also be required to adhere to the wage rates in the
Davis-Bacon Act, as amended.68 In addition, funds used on elementary, secondary, or
postsecondary facilities would have to use American iron, steel, and manufactured goods, unless
waived. Funds for each program would be used to supplement, not supplant (SNS), other federal,
state, and local funds that would otherwise be used for the modernization, renovation, and repair
of eligible facilities.
Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization
(Title II, Subtitle D, Part I)

The proposed Americans Jobs Act would appropriate a one-time amount of $25 billion for
obligation by the Secretary of Education (Secretary) through FY2012 for early learning,
elementary, or secondary education facilities. The program would provide a 0.5% set-aside for
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools, a 0.5% set-aside for the outlying areas,69 and a
set-aside of an amount deemed necessary for the Department of Education’s National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) to conduct a survey of public school construction, modernization,
renovation, and repair needs. The Administration has estimated that the survey may require $5
million (see Table A-2). The act does not suggest a methodology for distributing the funds among
the BIE-funded schools or outlying areas.

67 For a description of federal programs that support education facilities, see CRS Report R41142, School Construction
and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs
, by Cassandria Dortch.
68 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, requires that all laborers and mechanics employed in construction projects and
minor remodeling projects assisted under any applicable program shall be paid at wage rates not less than those
prevailing in the locality for similar work as determined by the Secretary of Labor. See CRS Report R40663, The
Davis-Bacon Act and Changes in Prevailing Wage Rates, 2000 to 2008
, by Gerald Mayer.
69 The outlying areas are the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
Congressional Research Service
27

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Distribution of Funds to States and 100 Largest LEAs
The remainder of funds after the set-asides would be allocated by formula to states and 100 local
educational agencies (LEAs) in the same manner that funds were allocated for qualified school
construction bonds (QSCBs)70 in CY2009 and CY2010. The 100 LEAs are those with the largest
numbers of children aged 5-17 living in poverty (hereafter referred to as the 100 largest LEAs).
The states, which include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would each receive an
allocation of 100% of the remaining funds in proportion to their FY2011 allocations under Title I-
A of the ESEA, reduced by the amount received by the largest LEAs in the state (see Table A-
2
).71 The 100 largest LEAs would receive 40% of the remaining funds in proportion to their
FY2011 allocations under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (see
Table A-3).72 The states and 100 largest LEAs would have to obligate their funds within 24
months of enactment of the AJA.
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds
Of the funds received by the state and the largest LEAs in the state, the lesser of 1% or $750,000
could be reserved by the state for administrative costs associated with the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Modernization program. After the administrative reservation, states, in turn,
would award both competitive and formula subgrants to LEAs, including charter schools that are
their own LEAs but excluding the 100 largest LEAs. Formula subgrants would be awarded from
50% of the state’s remaining allocation in proportion to the FY2011 ESEA Title I-A allocation of
each LEA that was not one of the 100 largest LEAs.73 The minimum LEA formula subgrant
would be $10,000. LEAs would have to obligate their formula funds within 24 months of
enactment.
States would award competitive grants to LEAs, which are not one the 100 largest LEAs, from
the other 50% of the state’s remaining allocation based on “objective criteria” with priority for
project need and rural LEAs.74 States would be required to give priority to the use of green
building/energy rating standards.75 LEAs would have to obligate their competitive funds within
36 months of enactment.

70 Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs; 26 U.S.C. § 54F) were authorized as a new tax credit bond program
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). QSCBs made bond proceeds
available for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of, or for the acquisition of land for, K-12 public school facilities.
The national bond volume cap for QSCBs was $11 billion in each of CY2009 and CY2010. In addition, the Department
of Treasury allocated $200 million in each of 2009 and 2010 to the U.S. Department of the Interior for Indian tribal
governments to construct or repair BIE-funded schools.
71 Funds for states that do not apply for their allocation, that apply for less than their full allocation, or that do not use
their full allocation in a timely way could be redistributed by the Secretary to the other states or the LEAs in the state.
72 Funds for LEAs that do not apply for their allocation, that apply for less than their allocation, or that do not use their
full allocation in a timely manner could be redistributed by the Secretary to the state in which the LEA is located.
73 Funds for LEAs that do not apply for their allocation, that apply for less than their allocation, or that do not use their
full allocation in a timely manner could be redistributed by the state to the other LEAs in the state that are not one of
the 100 largest LEAs.
74 An LEA could receive both a formula and competitive award.
75 The green building/energy rating standards would have to be certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, Energy
Star, the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) Criteria, Green Globes, or an equivalent program that
includes a verifiable method to demonstrate compliance with such program.
Congressional Research Service
28

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

All LEAs, including the 100 largest LEAs, could use the funds to support direct costs, interest on
newly issued bonds, or payments for other newly issued financing instruments for modernization,
renovation, and repair or a combination of these uses.
Private School Participation76
The proposal would require that the equitable participation requirements for private school
students authorized under section 9501 of the ESEA apply to the funding provided for the
Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization program.77 Section 9501 requires that LEAs
(or other grantees under relevant programs) shall “after timely and meaningful consultation with
appropriate private school officials provide to those children and their teachers or other
educational personnel, on an equitable basis, special educational services or other benefits that
address their needs under the program.” Under the American Jobs Act, equitable participation
requirements for private school students would only apply to students enrolled in private
nonprofit elementary and secondary schools with child poverty rates of at least 40%. In addition,
all services, benefits, material, and equipment provided would be required to be secular, neutral,
and nonideological. The services provided would be equitable in comparison to services provided
to public school students and staff, and would be required to be provided in a timely manner. The
expenditures for private school students would be required to be equal to those for public school
students, taking into account the number and educational needs of the children to be served.
Under the proposal, expenditures for services would be considered equal if the per-pupil
expenditures under the Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization program for students
enrolled in eligible private schools were consistent with the per-pupil expenditures for children
enrolled in the public schools of the LEA receiving funds under the program, unless there is
insufficient need in the eligible private schools.
Eligible private schools would be able to use funds for:
• modifications of school facilities necessary to meet the standards applicable to
public schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.);
• modifications of school facilities necessary to meet the standards applicable to
public schools under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794); and
• asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyls abatement or removal from school
facilities.
When implementing the provisions of section 9501 for ESEA programs, the control of funds used
to provide services and the title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with those funds
remains with a public agency. For the purposes of the Elementary and Secondary Schools
Modernization program, however, these requirements would not apply, and private schools
receiving funds under the program would retain the title to their property.

76 For more information about how these provisions would apply with respect to the American Jobs Act, please contact
Becky Skinner at rskinner@crs.loc.gov or 7-6600.
77 For more information about the section 9501 provisions, see CRS Report R41445, Selected Church-State Issues in
Elementary and Secondary Education
, by Cynthia Brougher and Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
29

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Potential Issue of Grant Size
The minimum LEA formula subgrant of $10,000 may not be of sufficient size to support
substantial modernization, renovation, or repair. Table A-4 provides examples of construction,
modernization, renovation, and repair project estimates from the Alabama Department of
Education, the Wyoming School Facilities Department, and Illinois State Board of Education.
Community College Modernization (Title II, Subtitle D, Part II)
The American Jobs Act would appropriate $5 billion for obligation by the Secretary in FY2012 to
modernize, renovate, or repair existing facilities used by postsecondary students pursuing two-
year and less-than-two-year degrees/certificates. The program would provide a 0.25% set-aside
for tribally controlled colleges and universities and a 0.25% set-aside for the outlying areas.78 The
act does not suggest a methodology for distributing the funds among the tribally controlled
colleges and universities and outlying areas.
Distribution of Funds to States
The remainder of funds after the set-asides would be allocated by formula to the states, including
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, that have approved applications using a formula based
on a combination of postsecondary enrollment and degree/certificate awards (see Table A-2). In
determining these grants, each grant would be based on the sum of
• the numbers of students enrolled in two-year public and two-year private not-for-
profit institutions of higher education (IHEs)79 in the state; and
• the estimated number of students who are pursuing two-year and less-than-two-
year degrees/certificates and who are enrolled in four-year public IHEs that
award a “significant number”80 of two-year and less-than-two-year
degrees/certificates in the state (see formula below).
The estimated number of students at four-year IHEs would be calculated as the total enrollment at
four-year public IHEs that award a significant number of two-year and less-than-two-year
degrees/certificates multiplied by the ratio of two-year and less-than-two-year degrees/certificates
awarded at such IHEs to all degrees/certificates awarded at such IHEs. The proposal would
require the Secretary to use data from the Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) to determine grant amounts. The minimum state grant amount is
$2.5 million.


78 The outlying areas are the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
79 Institution of higher education (IHE) is as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act, as amended.
80 “Significant number” is not defined in the proposed legislation.
Congressional Research Service
30


.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions


Where:
NP2E = Two-year public and two-year private not-for-profit IHE enrollment
Pub4E = Four-year public IHE enrollment
2YrDeg = Total of two-year and less-than-two-year degrees/certificates awarded at public four-
year IHEs
AllDeg = Total of all degrees/certificates awarded at public four-year IHEs
APP = Program allocation after set-asides
∑ = Sum (for all approved states)
The proposal would require each state application to include estimated start dates for each
project. Although many states have capital plans and capital project priority lists for public IHEs,
states may need to solicit similar information from the private IHEs, develop a process for
verifying cost estimates, and establish standards for estimating costs.
States receiving a grant would be required to report annually on the use of funds to the Secretary
starting on September 30, 2012.81 The report would include a description of projects funded and
planned for funding, subgrant amounts, and the number of jobs created. The Secretary would in
turn consolidate the state reports annually for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Distribution of Funds to the Local Level and Uses of Funds
Of the funds received by the state, the lesser of 1% or $750,000 could be reserved for
administrative costs associated with the Community College Modernization program. The
proposal does not establish a methodology or process for further distributing funds to eligible
IHEs, except that states would be required to consider the extent to which IHEs plan to use green
building/energy rating standards.82 Grants could only be made to eligible IHEs—two-year public
IHEs, two-year private not-for-profit IHEs, and four-year public IHEs.
IHEs could use the funds to modernize, renovate, or repair existing facilities used by
postsecondary students pursuing two-year and less-than-two-year degrees/certificates. Four-year
IHEs could not use the funds for facilities that are not available to students pursuing two-year and
less-than-two-year degrees/certificates. IHEs would have to obligate their funds within 36 months
of enactment.

81 States would be required to continue to report annually until their program funds were exhausted.
82 The green building/energy rating standards would have to be certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, Energy
Star, the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) Criteria, Green Globes, or an equivalent program that
includes a verifiable method to demonstrate compliance with such program.
Congressional Research Service
31

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Appendix. Related Tables
Table A-1. Estimated State Grants and Jobs Supported Under the
Teacher Stabilization Program and Competitive Grants for First Responders,
as Proposed by the American Jobs Act
Estimated State Grant Under the
Teacher Stabilization Program
and Competitive Grants for First
Estimated Number of Educator
State
Responders
and First Responder Jobs
Alabama $451,500,000

7,000
Alaska $70,500,000

900
Arizona $625,500,000

9,700
Arkansas $278,300,000

4,100
California $3,621,300,000

37,300
Colorado $478,600,000

7,000
Connecticut $336,300,000

3,800
Delaware $83,000,000

1,100
District of Columbia
$45,100,000
500
Florida $1,669,500,000

25,900
Georgia $956,700,000

12,800
Hawaii $122,300,000

1,500
Idaho $159,800,000

2,500
Illinois $1,235,500,000

14,500
Indiana $629,300,000

9,100
Iowa $287,200,000

4,100
Kansas $278,500,000

4,300
Kentucky $406,500,000

6,100
Louisiana $434,400,000

6,300
Maine $117,300,000

1,800
Maryland $541,700,000

6,000
Massachusetts $591,800,000

6,300
Michigan $945,500,000

11,900
Minnesota $504,400,000

6,900
Mississippi $290,300,000

4,600
Missouri $565,200,000

9,100
Montana $90,100,000

1,400
Nebraska $176,100,000

2,800
Nevada $258,300,000

3,600
New Hampshire
$120,900,000
1,700
Congressional Research Service
32

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Estimated State Grant Under the
Teacher Stabilization Program
and Competitive Grants for First
Estimated Number of Educator
State
Responders
and First Responder Jobs
New Jersey
$831,100,000
9,300
New Mexico
$200,100,000
3,100
New York
$1,769,800,000
18,000
North Carolina
$900,300,000
13,400
North Dakota
$59,900,000
1,000
Ohio $1,093,800,000

14,200
Oklahoma $359,600,000

5,900
Oregon $350,700,000

4,600
Pennsylvania $1,155,300,000

14,400
Rhode Island
$94,300,000
1,100
South Carolina
$429,500,000
6,400
South Dakota
$77,600,000
1,600
Tennessee $596,000,000

9,400
Texas $2,565,500,000

39,500
Utah $303,000,000

5,100
Vermont $55,500,000

800
Virginia $742,300,000

10,800
Washington $627,800,000

8,500
West Virginia
$162,800,000
2,600
Wisconsin $536,000,000

7,400
Wyoming $52,500,000

700
Total $29,334,800,000

392,400
Source: Table prepared by CRS, September 21, 2011, based on White House estimates of the effect of the
American Jobs Act on states; individual state-by-state fact sheets are available online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobsact#overview.
Notes: The total appropriation for the Teacher Stabilization program is $30 billion. These funds would be
distributed to states using a population-based formula. Grants for first responders authorized by Title II, Subtitle
C of the American Jobs Act would be provided as competitive grants and do not appear to be included in the
estimates above, despite the assertion in White House fact sheets that the funds were for both purposes. After
required and optional set-asides under the Teacher Stabilization program (i.e., for the outlying areas ($150
million), Bureau of Indian Education ($150 million), and administration and oversight ($2 million)) are added to
the state grant total shown in this table, the difference between that total and the total $30 billion appropriation
for the Teacher Stabilization program equals $363.2 million, which could be Puerto Rico’s grant amount. The
estimated number of jobs included in this table represent the White House’s estimate of the number of educator
and first responder jobs that would be supported by the two grants. It is not possible to discern how many of
the estimated number of jobs would be for educators versus first responders.


Congressional Research Service
33

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Table A-2. Estimated State Grants Supported Under the Elementary and
Secondary Schools Modernization Grants and Community College
Modernization Program, as Proposed by the American Jobs Act
(Dollars in millions)
Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization Grants
Community
State Amount Reduced by
College
Total for 100
Amounts Received by 100
Total State
Modernization
State/Entity
Largest LEAs
Largest LEAs
Amount
Grants
Alabama 88.7 301.6 390.3
67.5

Alaska
0
62.0
62.0
2.5
Arizona
148.0
396.4
544.4
116.6
Arkansas
0
270.7
270.7
42.4
California
1,297.6
1,515.0
2,812.6
1,131.1
Colorado
75.5
189.6
265.1
57.5
Connecticut
0
185.0
185.0
38.0
Delaware
0
73.3
73.3
11.6
District of
0
84.7
84.7
2.5
Columbia
Florida
1,090.7
189.6
1,280.3
288.4
Georgia
408.7
500.8
909.5
140.6
Hawai
0
82.2
82.2
18.9
Idaho
0
93.6
93.6
11.2
Illinois
609.0
502.6
1,111.6
212.7
Indiana
74.1
369.3
443.4
79.8
Iowa
0
132.6
132.6
56.7
Kansas
48.5
142.9
191.4
45.3
Kentucky
75.1
315.8
390.9
54.7
Louisiana
227.6
289.2
516.8
40.7
Maine
0
90.7
90.7
12.8
Maryland
212.0
103.8
315.8
93.9
Massachusetts
92.4
286.2
378.6
68.8
Michigan
347.8
578.5
926.3
157.7
Minnesota
107.5
167.0
274.5
87.8
Mississippi
35.0
300.2
335.2
63.1
Missouri 106.2 316.0
422.2
69.1

Montana
0
77.1
77.1
5.7
Nebraska
45.3
61.4
106.7
21.4
Nevada
153.9
14.5
168.4
39.1
New Hampshire
0
70.1
70.1
8.7
Congressional Research Service
34

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization Grants
Community
State Amount Reduced by
College
Total for 100
Amounts Received by 100
Total State
Modernization
State/Entity
Largest LEAs
Largest LEAs
Amount
Grants
New Jersey
70.7
447.9
518.6
123.8
New Mexico
63.1
133.7
196.8
49.2
New York
1,754.2
265.8
2,020.0
235.3
North Carolina
234.4
441.3
675.7
163.1
North Dakota
0
58.9
58.9
6.5
Ohio
356.6
628.9
985.5
148.3
Oklahoma
83.9
183.5
267.4
57.5
Oregon
0
253.2
253.2
71.2
Pennsylvania
440.4
503.6
944.0
113.2
Puerto Rico
0
896.6
896.6
7.9
Rhode Island
0
85.6
85.6
12.7
South Carolina
80.2
301.2
381.4
70.8
South Dakota
0
75.6
75.6
4.7
Tennessee
191.3
283.4
474.7
61.8
Texas
1,211.9
1,120.2
2,332.1
458.4
Utah
0
138.7
138.7
37.1
Vermont
0
57.5
57.5
5.3
Virginia
0
425.3
425.3
110.1
Washington
0
365.1
365.1
83.9
West Virginia
0
161.2
161.2
15.4
Wisconsin
168.9
199.8
368.7
79.9
Wyoming
0
56.3
56.3
11.7
BIE-funded schools
NA
NA
125.0
NA
Outlying areasa NA
NA
125.0 12.5

Tribally controlled
NA NA NA
12.5
collegesb
NCES survey
NA
NA
5.0
NA
Totalc 9,898.0
15,102.0
25,000.0
5,000.0
Source: Table prepared by CRS, September 21, 2011, based on White House estimates of the effect of the
American Jobs Act on states, available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/13/fact-
sheet-repairing-and-modernizing-americas-schools.
Notes: NA means not applicable.
a. The outlying areas are the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
b. The eligible tribally controlled colleges and universities are as defined in section 316 of the Higher Education
Act, as amended.
c. Total may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
35

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Table A-3. Estimated Grants to the 100 Largest LEAs Supported Under the
Elementary and Secondary Schools Modernization Grants, as Proposed by the
American Jobs Act
(Sorted alphabetical y by state and then LEA)
Estimated Elementary and Secondary
Schools Modernization Grant
State
100 Large Local Educational Agenciesa
(dollars in millions)
Alabama
Birmingham City School District
35.2
Alabama
Mobile County School District
53.5
Arizona
Mesa Unified District
58.8
Arizona
Phoenix Union High School District
32.7
Arizona
Tucson Unified District
56.5
California
Bakersfield City Elementary School District
34.7
California
Fresno Unified School District
97.5
California
Long Beach Unified School District
75.5
California
Los Angeles Unified School District
743.5
California
Oakland Unified School District
42.4
California
Sacramento City Unified School District
46.9
California
San Bernardino City Unified School District
60.3
California
San Diego City Unified School District
91.8
California
San Francisco Unified School District
29.8
California
Santa Ana Unified School District
36.2
California
Stockton Unified School District
39.0
Colorado
Denver County School District 1
75.5
Florida
Brevard County School District
30.0
Florida
Broward County School District
125.3
Florida
Dade County School District
267.0
Florida
Duval County School District
80.8
Florida
Escambia County School District
30.2
Florida
Hillsborough County School District
122.8
Florida
Lee County School District
34.8
Florida
Marion County School District
28.2
Florida
Orange County School District
87.3
Florida
Palm Beach County School District
98.4
Florida
Pasco County School District
32.4
Florida
Pinel as County School District
54.0
Florida
Polk County School District
61.3
Florida
Volusia County School District
38.2
Georgia
Atlanta City School District
78.6
Congressional Research Service
36

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Estimated Elementary and Secondary
Schools Modernization Grant
State
100 Large Local Educational Agenciesa
(dollars in millions)
Georgia
Clayton County School District
37.5
Georgia
Cobb County School District
42.9
Georgia
DeKalb County School District
86.3
Georgia
Fulton County School District
45.8
Georgia
Gwinnett County School District
79.2
Georgia
Richmond County School District
38.4
Illinois
Chicago Public School District 299 609.0

Indiana
Indianapolis Public Schools
74.1
Kansas
Wichita Unified School District 259
48.5
Kentucky
Jefferson County School District
75.1
Louisiana
Caddo Parish School District
40.1
Louisiana
East Baton Rouge Parish School District
51.6
Louisiana
Jefferson Parish School District
50.2
Louisiana
Orleans Parish School District
85.7
Maryland
Baltimore City Public Schools
114.2
Maryland
Montgomery County Public Schools
46.5
Maryland
Prince George’s County Public Schools
51.3
Massachusetts
Boston School District
92.4
Michigan
Detroit City School District
347.8
Minnesota
Minneapolis Public School District
53.0
Minnesota
St. Paul Public School District
54.5
Mississippi
Jackson Public School District
35.0
Missouri
Kansas City School District
34.2
Missouri
St. Louis City School District
72.0
Nebraska
Omaha Public Schools
45.3
Nevada
Clark County School District
153.9
New Jersey
Newark City School District
70.7
New Mexico
Albuquerque Public Schools
63.1
New York
Buffalo City School District
67.6
New York
New York City
1,630.6
New York
Rochester City School District
56.0
North Carolina
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
82.3
North Carolina
Cumberland County Schools
32.3
North Carolina
Forsyth County Schools
31.5
North Carolina
Guilford County Schools
42.3
North Carolina
Wake County Schools
46.0
Congressional Research Service
37

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Estimated Elementary and Secondary
Schools Modernization Grant
State
100 Large Local Educational Agenciesa
(dollars in millions)
Ohio
Cincinnati City School District
61.1
Ohio
Cleveland Municipal School District
129.6
Ohio
Columbus City School District
111.6
Ohio
Toledo City School District
54.3
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City Public Schools
47.2
Oklahoma
Tulsa Public Schools
36.7
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia City School District
395.6
Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh School District
44.8
South Carolina
Charleston County School District
34.2
South Carolina
Greenville County School District
46.0
Tennessee
Memphis City School District
123.5
Tennessee
Nashville-Davidson County School District
67.8
Texas
Aldine Independent School District
50.4
Texas
Alief Independent School District
44.8
Texas
Arlington Independent School District
39.1
Texas
Austin Independent School District
69.3
Texas
Brownsville Independent School District
60.0
Texas
Corpus Christi Independent School District
28.2
Texas
Dal as Independent School District
191.6
Texas
Edinburg Consolidated Independent School
32.8
District
Texas
El Paso Independent School District
66.2
Texas
Fort Worth Independent School District
84.9
Texas
Garland Independent School District
30.8
Texas
Houston Independent School District
233.6
Texas
La Joya Independent School District
34.8
Texas
Laredo Independent School District
37.3
Texas
Northside Independent School District
35.1
Texas
Pasadena Independent School District
33.0
Texas
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School
31.6
District
Texas
San Antonio Independent School District
69.1
Congressional Research Service
38

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Estimated Elementary and Secondary
Schools Modernization Grant
State
100 Large Local Educational Agenciesa
(dollars in millions)
Texas
Ysleta Independent School District
39.3
Wisconsin
Milwaukee School District
168.9
Totalb
9,898.0

Source: Table prepared by CRS, September 21, 2011, based on White House estimates of the effect of the
American Jobs Act on states, available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/13/fact-
sheet-repairing-and-modernizing-americas-schools.
a. The 100 largest local educational agencies have the largest numbers of children aged 5-17 living in poverty.
The American Jobs Act does not define Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico as local educational agencies.
b. Total may not add due to rounding.
Table A-4. Examples of Estimated Modernization, Renovation, and Repair Costs in
Alabama, Wyoming, and Illinois
Entity
Project description
Project budget ($)
Shelby County, Alabama
Door replacement at single school
6,500 - 35,000
Albertville City, Alabama
Install generator
20,000 - 35,000
Montgomery County, Alabama
Air conditioning and heat for the lunchroom
50,000
Mountain Brook City, Alabama
Replace Roof
75,000 - 450,000
Big Horn, Wyoming
LEED Certification
126,000
School district total, Illinois by
Fire protection (detectors, alarms, etc.)
168,457
building
Jefferson County, Alabama
Replace cooling tower
181,000
School district total, Illinois by
Asbestos abatement
205,019
building
School district total, Illinois by
Technological upgrading
217,964
building
Campbel County, Wyoming
Upgrade electrical system and lighting in high school
248,275
School district total, Illinois by
Accessibility measures
434,436
building
Central High School, Wyoming
Building renovations to high school
755,204
Vestavia Hills City, Alabama
Re-model lunchroom
988,303
Goshen High School, Wyoming
Renovations to high school
1,241,519
Birmingham City, Alabamaa
HVAC Controls Upgrade: District Wide
1,500,000
Jefferson County, Alabama
Renovate high school
2,243,817
Birmingham City, Alabamaa
Technology Refresh District wide to include
22,000,000
Printers, Copiers, Desktop Computers, Interactive
Board and Wireless system
Source: Alabama Department of Education, Capital Plan Five Year Plan As of 9/22/2011, available at
http://schools.alsde.edu/CapitalPlan/public_report.aspx and U.S. Department of Education, Common Core of
Data, 2009-2010 Total Students (UG, PK-12) (District), available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ on September 23,
2011; Wyoming School Facilities Department, available at http://www.wyoming.gov/loc/03302010_1/reports/
Congressional Research Service
39

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Pages/AnnualReports.aspx on September 26, 2011; and Illinois State Board of Education, Capital Needs
Assessment Survey Results, December, 2010, available at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/finance/pdf/cnas_FY11.pdf on
September 26, 2011.
Notes: These costs are based on publically available estimates of school renovation and repair. These examples
are illustrative and may not be representative of costs across the nation.
a. Birmingham City School District is one of the 100 largest LEAs. Under the Elementary and Secondary
Schools Modernization program, it would receive funds directly from the federal government.

Author Contact Information

Karen Spar, Coordinator
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Domestic Social Policy and Division
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Research Coordinator
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
kspar@crs.loc.gov, 7-7319
David H. Bradley
Christine Scott
Analyst in Labor Economics
Specialist in Social Policy
dbradley@crs.loc.gov, 7-7352
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366
Cassandria Dortch
Alison M. Shelton
Analyst in Education Policy
Analyst in Income Security
cdortch@crs.loc.gov, 7-0376
ashelton@crs.loc.gov, 7-9558
Jody Feder
Rebecca R. Skinner
Legislative Attorney
Specialist in Education Policy
jfeder@crs.loc.gov, 7-8088
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
Katelin P. Isaacs
Julie M. Whittaker
Analyst in Income Security
Specialist in Income Security
kisaacs@crs.loc.gov, 7-7355
jwhittaker@crs.loc.gov, 7-2587
Nathan James

Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264


Acknowledgments
Ann Lordeman, Specialist in Social Policy, assisted in constructing Appendix Tables A-1 through A-4.
Congressional Research Service
40

.
American Jobs Act: Selected Provisions

Key Policy Staff
The table below identifies CRS analysts and attorneys, listed in the general sequence of major policy areas
or proposals in the American Jobs Act. For a list of experts on the broader topic of economic recovery and
jobs, see CRS Report R40922, Economic Recovery and Jobs: CRS Experts, by Jane G. Gravelle.

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Buy American requirements
John Luckey
7-7897
jluckey@crs.loc.gov
Wage rate requirements
David Bradley
7-7352
dbradley@crs.loc.gov
Payrol tax provisions
Dawn Nuschler
7-6283
dnuschler@crs.loc.gov
Other business tax provisions
Jane Gravel e
7-7829
dnuschler@crs.loc.gov
Thomas Hungerford
7-6422
thungerford@crs.loc.gov
Gary Guenther
7-7742
gguenther@crs.loc.gov
Work Opportunity Tax Credits
Christine Scott
7-7366
cscott@crs.loc.gov
Teacher Stabilization
Rebecca Skinner
7-6600
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
First Responder Stabilization: COPS
Nathan James
7-0264
njames@crs.loc.gov
First Responder Stabilization: SAFER
Lennard Kruger
7-7070
lkruger@crs.loc.gov
School Modernization
Cassandria Dortch
7-0376
cdortch@crs.loc.gov
Transportation Infrastructure
Robert Kirk
7-7769
rkirk@crs.loc.gov
Infrastructure Bank
Steven Maguire
7-7841
smaguire@crs.loc.gov
William Mallett
7-2216
wmallett@crs.loc.gov
Project Rebuild
Eugene Boyd
7-8689
eboyd@crs.loc.gov
Spectrum license and related issues
Linda Moore
7-5853
lmoore@crs.loc.gov
Emergency Unemployment
Julie Whittaker
7-2587
jwhittaker@crs.loc.gov
Compensation and Extended Benefits
Katelin Isaacs
7-7355
kisaacs@crs.loc.gov
Self-Employment Assistance Program
Katelin Isaacs
7-7355
kisaaces@crs.loc.gov
Reemployment NOW Program
Julie Whittaker
7-2587
jwhittaker@crs.loc.gov
Katelin Isaacs
7-7355
kisaacs@crs.loc.gov
Wage Insurance
Benjamin Collins
7-7382
bcollins@crs.loc.gov
Short-Time Compensation Program
Alison Shelton
7-9558
ashelton@crs.loc.gov
Pathways Back to Work
David Bradley
7-7352
dbradley@crs.loc.gov
Prohibition of discrimination on basis
Jody Feder
7-8088
jfeder@crs.loc.gov
of unemployed status
Offsets (tax provisions)
Jane Gravelle
7-7829
jgravelle@crs.loc.gov
Thomas Hungerford
7-6422
thungerford@crs.loc.gov
Molly Sherlock
7-7797
msherlock@crs.loc.gov
Mark Keightley
7-1049
mkeightley@crs.loc.gov
Deficit reduction target and trigger
Bill Heniff, Jr.
7-8646
wheniff@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service
41