TOPICS
TOPICS
Senate passes bill creating federal spending database
Legislation that would produce a searchable Internet database of federal contracts, grants and loans passed the Senate Thursday night, pleasing government oversight groups that believe it would prompt improvements to existing federal databases.
The 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) directs the Office of Management and Budget to ensure the operation of an online database accessible to the public at no cost.
Passage of the bill was delayed by holds from Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. They cited the need for more time to review the measure.
A similar bill co-sponsored by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., (H.R. 5060) passed the House on June 21, but that system would include only grant information, not contracts.
The Senate legislation calls for the database to host a Google-like search engine that would gather information from existing federal databases, including the Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Assistance Award Data System and Grants.gov.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that updating existing databases and adding a central search engine would cost about $4 million in fiscal 2007 and $5 million in fiscal 2008. Another $2 million in annual appropriations would be needed thereafter to cover maintenance costs.
According to government oversight organizations, the information available on the existing sites frequently is inaccurate and incomplete. In September 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that an upgrade to the Federal Procurement Data System failed to improve data quality and user-friendliness.
"The current databases are woefully inaccurate," said Adam Hughes, director of federal fiscal policy for OMB Watch, a government watchdog group. "With the greater scrutiny from this new database, we're hoping that those [old] databases are improved."
Hughes said as public interest groups and journalists pore over information on contracts awarded to Halliburton and other major Defense Department contractors, the need for accurate information on the databases will increase.
"Nobody wants to be on a top 10 list [of poorly performing government contractors] so companies will apply pressure [to the agencies] to get the right data up there," Hughes said. "It's one thing to have access to the information but if the information stinks, it's no good."
Hughes said media outlets nationwide would likely use the database to report on federal contracts and grants awarded to local companies, and bloggers probably would use the data to draw attention to abuse of federal funds.
OMB Director Rob Portman praised the passage of the bill, saying, "Taxpayers benefit from having the necessary information to hold government accountable for results."
"OMB stands ready to work with federal agencies to establish a single, user-friendly Web site so the public can scrutinize how government is spending taxpayer dollars," Portman said.
Karen Evans, OMB administrator for e-government and IT, expressed support for the measure in August, stating that the bill aligns with the Bush administration's philosophy to avoid creating "one big database in the sky" and to focus on reaching out and gathering information from existing systems.
COMMENTS
- Taxpayer - If it were possible to build such a database, then we would also be able to certify financial reports with some degree of confidence at the end of each fiscal year. The real problem is that there is nothing, and never will be anything, that could accurately capture this information, and even if it could, it would be meaningless. Just think of the layers and layers and layers and layers. And the sheer numbers of people providing input. No way will the database be accurate. Government CFOs don't understand the complexity, Congress doesn't understand the complexity, and certainly John Q. Public would not get any useful information from such a database. This is just additional money down a rat hole for no good reason. GovExec.com reader Posted September 14, 2006 1:21 AM
- Typical of Congress -- don't give the public any real information about how Congress handles the financial house. The online database should cover all congressional appropriations and how they are obligated by agencies throughout the years. This should show what is spent directly, what goes on contracts and what goes for grants. This gives the taxpayer a transparent financial picture of the U.S. government and not just the partial picture that Congress proposes. Also, most of this information is currently available in existing databases throughout the government so the job simply would be to build a central database for everything but should provide sorting by agency, as well as by congressional appropriation. It also should show when the appropriation became available to the agency because generally Congress is very late in providing the appropriation, and in the Defense Department, the final distribution of the appropriation to the operators is even longer. Last fiscal year (fiscal 2006) the Congress actually appropriated money by the start of the year; however, Air Force headquarters did not distribute the money until the end of February. Then obligation was to be completed by the end of August. Thus, the Air Force gave its operators six months to distribute a year’s worth of appropriations because it could not operate efficiently. Then when the distributions came and funds were allocated, the Air Force financial operation was conducted improperly and incorrectly, resulting in several problems. Taxpayer Posted September 11, 2006 6:45 AM
