[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6570-H6572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RETURNING RECLAIMED BROADBAND STIMULUS FUNDS TO U.S. TREASURY
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1343) to return unused or reclaimed funds made available for
broadband awards in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
to the Treasury of the United States, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1343
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BROADBAND STIMULUS FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service or the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information shall take prompt and appropriate action to
terminate for cause any award made under the Broadband
Initiatives Program or the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, respectively, established pursuant to the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, if the Administrator
or Assistant Secretary determines that cause exists to
terminate the award. Such cause may include an insufficient
level of performance, wasteful spending, or fraudulent
spending.
(b) Deobligation and Return of Funds to Treasury.--
(1) Deobligation.--Upon terminating an award under
subsection (a), the Administrator or the Assistant Secretary
shall immediately deobligate an amount equivalent to such
award, less allowable costs, to the extent funds with respect
to such award are available in the account relating to the
Broadband Initiatives Program or the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program, respectively. If the Administrator or
the Assistant Secretary subsequently recovers any additional
amounts from such award, the Administrator or the Assistant
Secretary shall deobligate such additional amounts
immediately upon receipt.
(2) Return to treasury.--Not later than 30 days after
deobligating an amount under paragraph (1), the Administrator
or the Assistant Secretary shall, without exception, return
such amount to the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States.
(3) No expenditures during termination process.--The
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary shall promptly
pursue available corrective measures to ensure that funds
received through an award terminated under subsection (a) are
not expended during the termination process.
(4) Accounting by award recipient.--The Administrator or
the Assistant Secretary shall direct the recipient of an
award terminated under subsection (a) to provide to the
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary a complete and
accurate accounting, which may include an independent
accounting, for any award funds that, as of the date of
termination, the recipient has received but has not expended
on allowable costs.
SEC. 2. DISPOSITION OF UNUSED FUNDS.
The Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service or the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information shall return to the general fund of the Treasury
of the United States an amount equivalent to any award, less
allowable costs, made under the Broadband Initiatives Program
or the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,
respectively, established pursuant to the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, if such award has been returned
to the Administrator or Assistant Secretary or disclaimed by
the award recipient at any time after the date of enactment
of such Act.
SEC. 3. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Action on Information From OIG or GAO.--If the
Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service or the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
receives information from an official described in subsection
(b) with respect to an award made under the Broadband
Initiatives Program or the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, respectively, established pursuant to the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and such information
pertains to material noncompliance with the award terms or
provisions or improper usage of award funds, the
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary shall--
(1) immediately review such information; and
(2) not later than 30 days after receiving such
information, determine whether cause exists to terminate such
award under section 1(a), unless the official who provided
such information recommends that the Administrator or the
Assistant Secretary limit or not make such a determination.
(b) Officials Described.--The officials described in this
subsection are the following:
(1) With respect to the Broadband Initiatives Program, the
Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture.
(2) With respect to the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce.
(3) The Comptroller General of the United States.
(c) Congressional Notification.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 days after making a
determination described in subsection (a)(2), the
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary shall provide a
notification of such determination to--
(A) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture of the
Senate or the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate, respectively; and
(B) the official who provided the information described in
subsection (a).
(2) Contents of notification.--The notification required by
paragraph (1) shall include an explanation of--
(A) the determination described in subsection (a)(2); and
(B) any action taken as a result of the determination or
why no action was necessary.
(3) Confidential notification under certain
circumstances.--In the case of a determination by the
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary under subsection
(a)(2) that cause does not exist to terminate the award, the
Administrator or the Assistant Secretary may make the
congressional notification required by paragraph (1)(A) on a
confidential basis, if the Administrator or the Assistant
Secretary determines, after consultation with the official
who provided the information described in subsection (a),
that--
(A) there is no merit to such information; and
(B) notification on a public basis would cause irreparable
harm to any person the information is regarding.
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Section 6001(i)(4) of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (47 U.S.C. 1305(i)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(2) by striking ``, and award these funds competitively to
new or existing applicants consistent with this section''.
SEC. 5. AWARD DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``award'' includes grants and loans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
General Leave
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire,
Charlie Bass, who has really worked hard on this issue to bring about
greater accountability and oversight of how American taxpayer dollars
are being allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
especially to make sure that when the money comes back that it's really
clear with these agencies that it goes back to pay down the deficit and
doesn't end up in some sort of slush fund, and my colleague Mr. Bass
has played a real leadership role in both crafting this legislation and
making sure it comes to the House at this time.
Mr. Speaker, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated
approximately $7 billion in taxpayer
[[Page H6571]]
money to two broadband-related grant and loan programs. One was
administered by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration and the other by the Rural Utility Service. The wisdom
of creating these programs and whether the money should have been
better targeted to unserved households has been the subject of ongoing
debate. There is, however, general consensus on the importance of
oversight, as evidenced by the bill, H.R. 1343, unanimously passed out
of subcommittee and the full Energy and Commerce Committee by voice
vote. I, for one, want to make sure these programs do not produce some
sort of Solyndra problem. I want to thank our ranking members, Waxman
and Eshoo, and their staffs for working with us on this bill. We
incorporated a number of their suggestions, and the bill is better
because of it.
Because the NTIA and RUS have already awarded all $7 billion, the
bill does not automatically revoke any money. To do so would not only
be unfair to the grant and loan recipients that are abiding by their
award terms, it would also likely cost the government more in legal
fees than it would save.
The vast majority of the money is yet to be spent by the awardees,
however. So, what H.R. 1343 does is clarify the responsibility of the
NTIA and the RUS going forward to terminate failed or failing grants
and loans and to return to the U.S. Treasury any rescinded or
relinquished funds. The bill also improves oversight of the broadband
programs. Among other things, the bill requires the NTIA and the RUS
either to terminate an award within 30 days of receiving information
from their respective Inspectors General or the Comptroller General
regarding material in noncompliance with award terms, or to explain to
Congress why they don't. It would require the NTIA and RUS to
deobligate and return to the Treasury funds from terminated awards as
well as return unused funds from any relinquished awards. Finally, it
would require award recipients to provide an accounting of funds
received but not yet expended, if the NTIA or RUS terminate those
awards.
The number of NTIA and RUS awards that have already been returned,
and the fact that more than 90 percent of the money the ARRA allocated
for broadband still remains obligated but unspent, makes this
legislation all the more important. Of 233 NTIA awards worth
approximately $3.94 billion, recipients had only spent $480 million
through June of this year, despite claims that the stimulus act
generally would focus on ``shovel ready'' projects. Clearly, that
hasn't happened here. Four of the 233 awards worth approximately $40
million have already been rescinded or returned. The RUS has issued 320
awards, consisting of $2.3 billion in grants and $87 million leveraged
for $1.2 billion in loans. Yet recipients had only spent $250 million
by the middle of July, and 28 of the 320 awards, worth $123 million in
grants and $35 million in loans, had already been returned or
rescinded.
Some of my colleagues, as they did in committee, may say that the
legislation is really unnecessary. I would disagree. The Department of
Commerce Inspector General, the Department of Agriculture Inspector
General, and the Government Accountability Office have all flagged
concerns with the programs and identified them as high risk, including
in testimony at the Communications and Technology Subcommittee's
February 10, 2011, hearing.
A number of statutory shortcomings further demonstrate the need for
this legislation. For example, existing law leaves the NTIA and the RUS
too much discretion in deciding whether to deobligate and return funds
from failed or failing awards. Section 6001(i)(4) of the stimulus law
establishing the NTIA program stipulates only that the Assistant
Secretary ``may'' deobligate awards in cases of waste, fraud, or
insufficient performance. The statutory language provides even less
guidance to the RUS, remaining silent on the issue of deobligation and
return of funds. Commerce Assistant Secretary Strickling agreed in an
April 2011 hearing that the bill would create more certainty. That was
our effort.
While Dodd-Frank added rescission provisions to the ARRA, it is
unclear whether the terms ``withdraw'' and ``recapture'' in Dodd-Frank
have the same meaning as ``deobligate'' in section 6001 of the ARRA,
leaving unclear how the Dodd-Frank provisions would be interpreted and
applied to the broadband grants.
When Congress uses billions of dollars to subsidize broadband in
competition with the private sector, especially when 95 percent of the
country already has access, it bears all the more responsibility to
police those dollars. For this and all the reasons that I have
mentioned, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for his leadership
on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for the opportunity to
review the text of H.R. 1343, to return unused or reclaimed
funds made available for broadband awards in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the
United States, for provisions of the bill that fall within
the jurisdiction of this Committee.
Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation and
in maintaining the continued consultation between our
Committees on these matters, I agree to discharge H.R. 1343
from further consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I
do so with the understanding that by discharging the bill,
the Committee on Agriculture does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over this or similar matters. In
addition, in the event a conference with the Senate is
requested on this matter, the Committee on Agriculture
reserves the right to seek appointment of conferees, if it
should become necessary.
I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters
into the Congressional Record during consideration of this
measure on the House floor.
Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look
forward to continued cooperation between our respective
committees.
Sincerely,
Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lucas: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 1343, to return unused or reclaimed funds made available
for broadband awards in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the United
States. As you noted, there are provisions of the bill that
fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Agriculture.
I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 1343.
I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee
on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of conferees
or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1343 on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
{time} 1240
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of H.R. 1343. This
legislation directs the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Agriculture
Department's Rural Utility Service to do what they are already, to a
great degree, doing--returning deobligated broadband Recovery Act funds
to the U.S. Treasury.
As Mr. Walden just said, H.R. 1343 was reported by the Energy and
Commerce Committee with broad bipartisan support, and we should always
take every step possible to improve oversight and ensure that U.S. tax
dollars are spent wisely. So that is a good reason to support this
bill, but I think it's also important today not to lose sight of the
fact that the Recovery Act has been a true success for broadband
deployment.
The $7 billion in allocated broadband spending is bringing real
economic, educational, and civic benefits to communities throughout the
country. It's bridging the middle-mile gap, bringing high-speed
Internet to small businesses and rural entrepreneurs. For businesses to
grow, they need to expand their markets and enhance their realtime
capabilities.
Broadband enables these successes. Broadband also connects patients
with health care specialists thousands of miles away, and it enables
doctors to monitor the vital signs of a heart patient while the patient
sits at home.
[[Page H6572]]
Importantly, broadband brings the world's reference materials to the
fingertips of our students in classrooms in big urban cities and in
rural communities alike.
Simply put, broadband is no longer a luxury; it is a real necessity.
That's why so many of my colleagues advocated for broadband applicants
in our congressional districts. From coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, our
colleagues joined us in understanding the necessity of broadband
deployment, and there were tremendous success stories.
In my home State of California, for example, the Digital 395
Broadband Project is deploying broadband in rural communities up and
down the eastern edge of the State. We're seeing community colleges
expand their learning centers to provide outreach, training, and
learning support services to increase the digital literacy skills of
low-income residents. They are learning the critical skills needed to
be full participants in our digital economy.
Across the country, the large-scale public-private Internet2 project
is working to connect 121,000 community anchor institutions to a
dedicated national fiber backbone. Colleges, universities, libraries,
major veterans and other health care facilities, as well as public
safety entities, are all benefiting from this Recovery Act broadband
project.
As I said earlier, we must make sure that taxpayer dollars are always
spent wisely; and that's why, to counter waste, fraud and abuse, the
Recovery Act built oversight directly into the structure of the law.
The two agencies overseeing the broadband programs, the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, were provided $16 million
and $22.5 million respectively to oversee audit programs, grants, and
activities funded by the Recovery Act.
To further enhance oversight, the Pay It Back Act was passed as part
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. It makes clear, in no uncertain
terms, that all returned or deobligated funds must be promptly
transferred back to the Treasury. In fact, the Energy and Commerce
Committee heard testimony from Assistant Secretary Strickling and
Administrator Adelstein that they were already promptly returning
deobligated funds to the Treasury, and they saw no ambiguity in current
law that would prevent them from continuing to return deobligated
funds. Current law is clear: deobligated funds must be returned to the
Treasury.
So while I do support the bill before us, I must be honest and say
that I think it is a little redundant. Oversight was built into the
Recovery Act, into the broadband programs, and was reaffirmed with
Dodd-Frank. This bill simply reiterates what the NTIA and the RUS are
already doing--vigorously overseeing broadband projects and returning
all deobligated funds to the Treasury.
While this bill is not necessarily needed, I do not oppose it, and I
encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to
the author of the legislation, a very valuable member of our
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I want to thank my friend and colleague
from Oregon for yielding me time. I also want to thank my friend from
California for supporting this legislation and for speaking in support
of it.
Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a rural district, I understand
the challenges of increasing access to broadband Internet service. We
have many, many communities that suffer economically, as well as
culturally, due to the lack of access to broadband; and any effort
that's undertaken to improve that access is a good effort. At the same
time, however, Congress must act to protect the taxpayer and provide
oversight for the nearly $7.2 billion in funds appropriated by the 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
I would only note that a significant percentage of the obligated
funds are being expended by recipients who have little or no experience
in the business of designing and building broadband Internet and that
that, in and of itself, justifies the passage of this legislation,
which would provide much needed oversight for the broadband stimulus
funds and would ensure that the law is definitive and would be quick to
reclaim funds if there is reason to terminate an award for reasons of
waste, fraud, or insufficient performance. As my friend from Oregon and
my friend from California mentioned, it does not revoke any award that
has already been granted.
The GAO and Inspectors General have testified that the size and
complexity of the programs and the short turnaround time provided to
the NTIA and RUS to award the money has created substantial risk in
these programs. Thus far, nearly 30 awards for grants and loans worth
about $200 million have been returned to the Treasury. Many have
returned the awards because they've recognized that they won't be
successful. In those cases, we want to ensure that taxpayer exposure is
minimized, and we want to prevent throwing good money after bad for
projects that should be terminated for waste, fraud, or insufficient
performance.
During committee hearings, the administrators testified that the
decision to deobligate funds for awards that give rise to reason to
terminate is discretionary, according to the Recovery Act language. I
emphasize ``discretionary.'' The Inspectors General said the stimulus
bill does not make clear whether or when the NTIA and the RUS must
deobligate funds for troubled projects. This legislation removes that
ambiguity and makes clear that such problem awards must be terminated
and deobligated.
Moreover, the Inspectors General said current law does not ensure the
NTIA and RUS will be responsive to their oversight recommendations.
H.R. 1343 will provide important sunlight by requiring the
administrators to act on recommendations made by the IG or to respond
with their reasons for not acting.
While I wasn't in Congress for the Recovery Act's passage, now that
the funds have been awarded, I think it's common sense that Congress
should require an accounting of how these funds are being spent and
what the American taxpayer is getting for these expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to pass this important piece of
legislation.
Mrs. CAPPS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who chairs our very important
Oversight Subcommittee and who has done extraordinary work in looking
into some of these programs, not necessarily on the broadband side
here, but certainly on the energy loan side, where there has been a
problem.
Mr. STEARNS. First of all, let me say to my colleague from New
Hampshire that you weren't here when it was passed. I am sure glad as
heck that you're here today to provide this legislation and give
respectful oversight to the taxpayers and help them out with trying to
save money and being accountable. So it is a credit to you and your
initiative to get this bill on the floor.
I also want to thank the chairman of the Telecommunications
Subcommittee for his initiative in getting this on the floor. It's
something that, I think, we've wanted to do for a while; and between
the leadership of Mr. Bass and the leadership of Mr. Walden, we've got
this today.
____________________