When the Senate took up the $819 billion House-passed economic stimulus package (H.R. 1) the week of Feb. 2, not only did the chamber modify myriad spending and tax measures, but it also altered the bill's transparency and accountability provisions. The Senate's version of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), contains less detail on specific data the Obama administration must provide on stimulus spending. Neither version provides the level of detail that may be needed to collect and disseminate information about the type of jobs that are created or preserved, the wages paid to workers, or information about who may be getting such jobs. The assumption is that the Obama administration, through its Recovery.gov website, will tackle these thorny implementation issues.
While much of the transparency and accountability language found in the chambers' bills is virtually identical, there are notable differences. OMB Watch has analyzed the differences in the two versions of ARRA and put together a side-by-side comparison of the bills. The analysis finds that the provisions in both bills are broadly similar, with each mandating that the federal government make available online certain stimulus spending on a designated website. The largest gap between the two bills is specification of who would be required to report detailed information on stimulus-funded projects.
The Senate bill would require that all recipients, except for individuals, of stimulus funds report on a quarterly basis to the federal agency that authorized those funds:
The House bill would require similar, but not identical, reporting for infrastructure projects only. That bill would require the federal, state, or municipal agency funding the project to post on the stimulus website a notice to the public of the infrastructure project, with the notice including: a description, purpose, and total cost of the infrastructure investment funded; the rationale of the agency funding the project; and contact information for the person at the government agency in charge of the project. For funds authorized for “operational purposes,” the federal, state, or local authority would be required to publish on the website “a description of the intended use of the funds, including the number of jobs sustained or created.” The Senate bill does not differentiate between infrastructure and operational expenditures.
Additionally, the House and Senate bills also take different approaches to contracting and oversight. The House bill contains a provision that would require, “to the maximum extent possible,” contracts to be fixed-price and competitively bid. Contracts that are not would be posted in a special section of the stimulus website. The House bill also would require inspectors general to investigate concerns raised by the public regarding stimulus spending and to make available on the stimulus website any findings, audits, or reports resulting from an investigation. The Senate bill omits these two oversight provisions but does include a provision identical to one found in the House bill that requires the Comptroller General to conduct bimonthly reviews, and prepare reports on such reviews, of the use of stimulus funds by selected states and localities.
The stimulus oversight provisions in the House and Senate versions of ARRA, while unprecedented and greatly welcome, leave unanswered many questions. For example, what will be the role of USASpending.gov, a congressionally mandated website that provides information about nearly all government spending? Given that USASpending.gov is required to provide information about subgrants and subcontracts but has not accomplished this task, how will Recovery.gov do it? Given a large sum of money will go through states and be subcontracted, will states also be required to post information on their websites about spending within the state? Will the Recovery.gov website incorporate newer Web 2.0 technologies that make access to and use of the underlying data easier for all? These types of questions are not likely to be answered in the legislation, but rather by the Obama administration.
For a detailed comparison of the two bills, see our analysis here.
Please note that we reserve the right to remove site comments that contain threats, excessive profanity, or commercial advertisements.
Comments Policy |
Privacy Statement | Standards of Quality | Press Room | OMB Watch Logos | Contact OMB Watch
OMB Watch • 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20009
202-234-8494 (phone) | 202-234-8584 (fax)
© 2012 | Please credit OMB Watch when redistributing this material.
Combined Federal Campaign #10201