Coalition offers DATA suggestions, prepares for lame-duck push

Our Coalition cheered last month when Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rob Portman (R-OH) re-introduced the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act). Nonprofit transparency advocates and the Professional Services Council, which represents federal contractors, also lauded the new bill. Though less ambitious than the version passed unanimously by the House of Representatives last spring, the DATA Act, if it becomes law, should push the executive branch toward publishing all spending data online and standardizing it so that it becomes electronically searchable.
Warner and Portman’s new version, S. 3600, could be considered by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) next month in the “lame duck” legislative session that follows this Tuesday’s elections. If that happens, we’ll be ready to show our support.
In the meantime, the Coalition is recommending a few key changes to improve and clarify the bill. You’ll find the full set of recommendations embedded below.
The document is a double redline. The underlying text shows existing law. The first set of edits (red) shows how the current Warner/Portman bill would change existing law. The second set (blue) adds the Coalition’s recommendations.
Naturally, our recommendations are in legalese. Here’s our best shot at a summary in English.
  • Clarify the data standards requirements – and make sure that the standards are fully imposed on’s data.  The central idea of the DATA Act is that all federal spending information should be published and standardized. Until now, it has been nobody’s job to establish consistent data standards for the diverse reports, databases, and websites that contain spending details. The Warner/Portman bill adds new paragraph 2(e)(2) to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which assigns the crucial standardizing task to the Department of the Treasury. We’ve recommended two changes to make sure the Warner/Portman bill succeeds. First, we’ve recommended a revision of that new paragraph. The revision clarifies what these standards will look like: common identifiers, such as the standard award ID that the White House has already told Congress it’s working on; and common data interchange formats like XML and XBRL. These standards, as much as possible, should be nonproprietary – the government should not be paying anyone for their use. Second, we’ve recommended language – paragraph 2(b)(5) and clause 2(e)(2)(E)(ii) (can you believe that reference?) – that will make sure that the standards are fully imposed on the information being published on, the federal spending transparency website that already exists (and was first mandated six years ago by FFATA). The lack of standardization is one reason why’s accuracy has been abysmal. Once standard identifiers and interchange formats are applied to’s data, it will be easier to check that data against other compilations to ensure accuracy.
  • Treasury and OMB should get public input as they implement this law. We’ve recommended a requirement for Treasury to seek input from standards experts and from the organizations that want to scrutinize federal spending data before it sets the standards (new subparagraph 2(e)(2)(D)). And we’ve recommended a requirement for the White House to set up an advisory committee, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to provide public advice on whether the goals of the DATA Act are being achieved (new subsection 2(i)).
  • The Recovery Board has already built the infrastructure. Let’s use it!  The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which Congress put in charge of spending and tracking stimulus money, proved that publishing and standardizing the government’s spending information can stop waste and fraud. The Recovery Board is winding down: under the stimulus law, it will expire on September 30, 2013. It has built the best accountability infrastructure in the government. For instance, according to the Recovery Board’s most recent monthly status report, its Recovery Operations Center has saved taxpayers $20 million in funds recovered from questionable recipients and $30 million by preventing grants and contracts from being paid in the first place. The government shouldn’t let these systems – which are already up and running! – and expertise go to waste. So we’ve recommended provisions that will transfer the Recovery Board’s assets, contracts, key staff, and any remaining funding to the Treasury Department (last two pages).
  • Clarify existing subaward reporting requirements. FFATA already requires grantees and contractors that award subgrants and subcontracts to report on those subawards. We’ve recommended additional language for paragraph 2(d)(2) of FFATA to ensure that (a) Treasury’s new data standards will be applied to these reporting requirements and (b) as much as possible, subaward reporting systems will prepopulate data to automate the reporting burden.
  • Geospatial analysis, bulk download capability, and more. Throughout the redline below you’ll find tweaks designed to ensure that the spending data being published on is as broadly useful and accessible as possible.
Thanks to the support of our members and vocal allies such as the American Institute of CPAs, the Sunlight Foundation, OMB Watch, and the Project on Government Oversight, there’s a real possibility that the DATA Act might pass this year. The U.S. government is closer than it has ever been to publishing comprehensive and standardized spending data.