[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14833-14836]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 14834]]

     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 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.

[[Page 14835]]

       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. 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

[[Page 14836]]

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.

                              {time}  1250

  I obviously support this bill, this so-called stimulus package. We 
hear this all the time: We are going to have a stimulus package. It 
said to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
which is NTIA. They said, You have the responsibility for overseeing 
almost $5 billion of broadband technology opportunities, giving out 
this money. They tasked the Rural Utilities Service with overseeing 
about $2.5 billion of broadband initiative. Altogether, that's a whole 
lot of money, and all the awards were made by September 30, 2010.
  But my colleagues, the nationwide broadband map was not launched 
until February 17, 2011. Think of that. They gave out all this money, 
but they didn't even have the map in place until October, November, 
December, January, almost 5 months later. It seems to me they shouldn't 
have done anything until they at least mapped this out so they knew the 
proper places to put this stimulus money.
  Many of us in Congress, including the chairman, warned of the danger 
of spending the money before mapping was done and that allocating funds 
before maps of unserved areas were in place almost guaranteed that the 
money wouldn't be used effectively. Some cable and phone companies 
believe awards had been issued for projects that substantially 
duplicate--duplicate--their existing service areas. Remember, this is 
stimulus money.
  Any time that much taxpayer money is given away so quickly and 
subject to political pressure, vigilant oversight is required.
  H.R. 1343 clarifies the obligations of the agencies and keeps 
Congress informed to ensure taxpayers' interests are protected when 
problem awards are identified. Otherwise, as was the case, as the 
chairman mentioned with Solyndra, red flags are ignored, cash is rushed 
out the door, and Congress is told all along that everything is fine.
  Today's bill clarifies 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. That's 
good.
  This is a responsible and necessary bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
1343, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleague from Florida who has made some terrific 
comments regarding this legislation about the importance of oversight. 
I know my colleague from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) has been very keenly 
involved in the oversight efforts as well.
  Let me just say, as chair of the Communications and Technology 
Subcommittee, that we will be doing oversight on how this program is 
working. We hear some reports that there have been problems getting 
access to fiber because of the earthquake in Japan that may have slowed 
build out. We understand that some of the smaller companies may have 
run into all kinds of problems working their way through rights-of-way 
issues that have delayed the build out of getting this broadband build 
out into many of our communities, especially those who don't have 
broadband today.
  So I think it's incumbent upon us, and I won't presume to speak for 
the minority, but I assume they would agree as well, we need to keep an 
eye on this just to see how is it working and what impediments are we 
running into, and are we going to see this broadband actually get built 
out as it was envisioned. The grants have been issued. The money is 
obligated, hasn't been spent.
  So it looks to me like we have two tasks here. One is to make sure we 
get what we're paying for as the American taxpayer, and the money that 
isn't going to get spent comes back or, if there's any kind of fraud 
developed, all that money we can recover will come back and that there 
is a very surefire method, without question, that it comes back to the 
Treasury; and that, also, to take a look at what are the impediments to 
building out. I know we run into it where I am at, that we do have 
problems sometimes getting these permits, getting through the various 
regulations that really impede our opportunity.
  I would encourage Members on both sides of the House to approve this 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1343, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________