A Senate hearing has been scheduled for July 18 to discuss the need for publicly available information surrounding federal spending and how the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590) will create this transparency. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security, announced the hearing to focus on legislation he introduced with Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Tom Carper (D-DE), and John McCain (R-AZ). The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that a single searchable website provide free public access to information about contracts, grants, loans, and other forms of federal assistance. Coburn and Obama are rumored to be working with OMB to strengthen the bill. One controversial provision still being debated deals with collecting grant and contract information from sub-recipients. Currently, the federal government does not collect information about sub-grants or most subcontracts. Increasingly, federal grants are going to intermediary groups that re-grant funds, as is the case with many faith-based grants. Tracking subgrants would increase accountability; however, to do so would also be extremely difficult. State and local governments, which receive the largest share of grants, commingle federal funds with their own, making it difficult, if not impossible, to track sub-recipients. How Coburn and Obama will resolve this issue remains unclear. Information about federal spending is largely divided into two government databases. The Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS) provides information supplied by federal agencies regarding most types of federal spending. FAADS, however, does not include federal contracts and expenses within the federal government, such as spending for salaries. The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) provides access to information supplied by most federal agencies regarding federal contracts. Unfortunately, both databases have serious deficiencies and neither provides comprehensive information as some agencies are not required to report. The Census Bureau provides FAADS data for free in quarterly downloadable files. While it is easy to download these files, it is very difficult to search within them for specific information. Users must have significant computer expertise and resources to access one quarterly file, let alone multiple quarters. The FPDS data was administered by the General Services Administration until 2003, when the agency awarded a five-year, $24.3 million contract to Global Computer Enterprises Inc. of Reston, Virginia, to replace an antiquated procurement data collection system starting in 2004. The new system, called FPDS-NG (NG is for Next Generation), seems to focus primarily on providing an electronic vehicle for reporting and integrating agency procurement systems. Little to no emphasis appears to have been placed on public access to the data. Access to information about federal spending has been gaining attention recently. The House has passed a bill that calls for an online, searchable database of federal assistance, but not federal contracts. According to The New York Times, Rep. Thomas Davis (R-VA), a sponsor of the House bill, justified not addressing public disclosure of contracts in his bill by claiming that contracts are "more self-policing" and less "susceptible to abuse" than grant, because they are "awarded in a much more competitive environment." Interestingly, OMB Watch analysis found that, in Fiscal year 2004, 53 entities received grants or cooperative agreements worth $152.2 million in Davis' congressional district. In that same year, 899 entities received $3.9 billion in contracts in his district and of those contract dollars at least $670 million was awarded without competitive bids. In fact, Davis' district is among the top 10 recipients of contract dollars but receives a relatively small share of federal assistance awards (e.g., grants, loans). Maybe if such data were publicly available, comments from politicians, such as those from Davis, might have more context.