Yesterday the House, under suspension of the rules, passed H.R 5060 - a one-sided bill sponsored by Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom Davis (R-VA) that would require all domestic grants made by the federal government to be posted to a new free, searchable public website. Despite intense efforts, OMB Watch and other partners were unable to get the bill sponsors to add language requiring federal contracts data to be including in a simliar fashion - as a much better and more genuine Senate bill would require. OMB Watch is strongly supportive of the Senate bill.

Even at this point, it's unclear why Mr. Blunt and Mr. Davis believe disclosure of federal spending on grants requires transparency to the public, but federal spending on contracts does not? What exactly are they afraid will be reveiled? What are they hiding?

Disclosure, transparency, and access to government information are themes of good government properly ordered regardless of political ideology or party affiliation. Sens. Coburn and McCain - the Republican sponsors of the Senate bill realize this, as do the 43 conservative organizations who pledged their support to the Coburn effort. Federal contracts need to be disclosed to the public.

We previously blogged on an effort by Sens. Coburn and Obama (and Carper and McCain) to establish a comprehesive website the public could search for information on federal financial assistance, including federal contracts and grants, by Jan. 1, 2007.

OMB Watch has circulated an endorsement letter for the legislation that currently has 32 organizations signed on. The National Taxpayers Union circulated their own endorsement letter, attracting additional support from conservative circles.

We hope the bill will be marked up in the Homeland Security and Government Affair Committee sometime in July.

UPDATE: The National Taxpayers Union has an updated version of its letter posted this afternoon with over 40 groups! Kudos to NTU and their partners!

Does welfare reform work? Do food stamps really feed the needy? Are government assistance programs really helping those in need? How effective is our social safety net?

Congress certainly doesn’t want to know. Right now, the House Appropriations Committee is considering a Bush recommendation to terminate a program designed to answer these questions.

In 1984 the Census Bureau initiated the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIPP. SIPP’s purpose is to “collect source and amount of income, labor force information, program participation and eligibility data, and general demographic characteristics to measure the effectiveness of existing federal, state, and local programs.” It is an invaluable tool used to determine how well (or how poorly) government assistance programs deliver on their promises.

Good governance requires good information, and since Congress isn’t interested in the former, one can conclude it’s not interested in the latter. Researchers seeking to understand low-income families and the programs designed to help them have very few places to turn when they look for data, and SIPP is unique in its depth, scope, and quality of data. In other words, it is THE place researchers (inside and outside the government) go to when they look for basic (and more complex) information about government assistance programs.

At $32 million per year, SIPP is a veritable bargain because of the quality and amount of information it supplies to policymakers. The existing FY2007 Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill calls for just enough funds to wrap-up data collection for this year, effectively ending the program. However, Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) is proposing to add $10 million to keep the program in existence. It isn’t full funding, but it’s enough to ensure that the program continues.

UPDATE: Rep. Serrano was successful!