 On June 23rd, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5060, sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Rep. Tom Davis (R–VA). The Blunt/Davis bill updates existing federal grants databases to make them more accessible to the public. While House passage of the Blunt/Davis bill is an encouraging step towards greater transparency in federal spending, the Blunt/Davis bill is not nearly as comprehensive as the leading bipartisan bill in the Senate (S. 2590), sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). In short, the Coburn/Obama bill requires the creation of a single, searchable website – available to the public at no cost to access – that will allow American taxpayers to search for comprehensive data about how their money is spent. The Coburn/Obama bill has already received the overwhelming support of more than 70 organizations of all ideological affiliations across the country. The full text of the Coburn/Obama bill. Unlike the Blunt/Davis bill, the Coburn/Obama bill shines a light on both federal grants and federal contracts. The Blunt/Davis bill does not increase the transparency of federal contracts, which now total upwards of $350 billion each year. Full transparency of federal grants is indeed a laudable and worthy goal, but taxpayers also deserve to know if their hard-earned dollars are wasted through the mismanagement of federal contracts. Hurricane Katrina, in particular, has highlighted the need for greater transparency in the use of federal contracts for recovery and reconstruction along the Gulf Coast. Every dollar that is wasted is a dollar that cannot be used to help somebody in need. The Coburn/Obama bill also requires detailed reporting of sub-contracts and sub-grants. The complexity and opacity of the current system makes it nearly impossible for American taxpayers to determine who is ultimately spending taxpayer money and how much is exactly being spent. The Blunt/Davis bill requires identification of sub-grantees, but does not explicitly require the disclosure of information about the amount of taxpayer dollars actually spent by sub-grantees. The Blunt/Davis bill also does not require any reporting by sub-contractors about how they’re spending taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers deserve to know if they’re being overcharged by middlemen or bureaucrats. To those concerned about the sensitivity of certain national security information that may be available through some contracts, the Coburn/Obama bill explicitly address the issue and does not require the disclosure of information that could be reasonably expected to cause damage to national security. Finally, the Blunt/Davis bill does not include any of the public feedback provisions that are included in the Coburn/Obama bill. A useful mechanism to receive public input is absolutely necessary to ensure that American taxpayers have easy access to federal funding information. The Blunt/Davis bill is a good first step towards greater transparency in federal spending, but the more comprehensive approach embodied by the Coburn/Obama bill is the best way to provide American taxpayers with a means to investigate how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent by the federal government. A list of supporters of the Coburn/Obama transparency bill is shown below. American Association of Law Libraries June 20, 2006
Dear Senators, We are writing to offer our strong endorsement for your bill, the Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590). This bill creates a solution to a long-standing problem of access to information about how the government distributes federal funds. We believe it is vital for the public and Congress to have easy access to federal contract and grant information to track and assess how federal resources are being allocated. The need for such a tool has been particularly apparent in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as it has been nearly impossible to track how large amounts of federal funds are being spent. Many important questions about who receives the money, how the resources are spent, whether the contracts are competitive, and many other crucial questions are either extremely difficult to answer or remain locked away far from public view. These questions are quite reasonable--and the public has a right to have easy access to the information needed to answer them, both after emergencies and throughout the regular course of government spending. We thank you for recognizing this crucial fact and for supporting citizen access to this information. We share your hope that the result of S. 2590 will be greater accountability, efficiency, and oversight of federal funds. Sincerely, American Association of Law Libraries |