U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–139 

Calendar No. 337 

DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 994 

TO EXPAND THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006 TO INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY 

AND TRANSPARENCY IN FEDERAL SPENDING, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

MARCH 27, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Acting Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Chief Counsel 

JONATHAN M. KRADEN, Senior Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 337 

113TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 113–139 

DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT 

OF 2013 

MARCH 27, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 994] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 994) to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends 

that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 6 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported .................................. 7 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 10 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 11 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 14 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (‘‘DATA Act’’) 

would require the Federal government to increase the availability, 

accuracy, and usefulness of on-line information regarding Federal 

spending. Specifically, it would expand current requirements to 

publish Federal spending information online to cover virtually all 

forms of government spending, mandate that the information appear in a form that is both easily searchable and downloadable, 

make uniform the manner in which agencies provide such data for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Pub. L. No. 109–282, (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note). 

2S. Rep. No. 109–329, at 2 (2006) (Comm. Rep). 

3 Id. at 3. 4Section 2(a)(2) of the Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note) defines Federal awards to 

include grants, subgrants, loans, awards, cooperative agreements, contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders and delivery orders above $25,000. For these Federal awards, agencies 

were required to post, among other things, the name and location of the entity receiving the 

award, the amount of the award, and basic information about the award itself. Section 2(b) then 

requires the creation of the website. 5 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–5. 

6Pub. L. No. 111–5, Div. A, § 1521, 123 Stat. 289. 

online posting, and require agency Inspectors General and the 

Comptroller General government watchdogs to audit and report on 

agency compliance with the law’s mandates. 

By making government spending information easily accessible to 

both governmental and non-governmental users, this legislation 

would facilitate increased oversight to detect and prevent waste, 

fraud, and abuse, thereby improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal spending programs. The legislation also would 

spur greater community engagement, because it would enable individuals and community groups to more easily access and understand information about how Federal tax dollars are being spent. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

A. PAST MEASURES ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY

Over the past several years, Congress and the Administration 

have taken a number of steps to increase and improve the public 

availability of information about Federal spending. Greater transparency allows taxpayers to track how their tax dollars are used 

and to understand better Federal investments in their communities. Moreover, by making spending information more easily 

available, these transparency initiatives help to both deter and root 

out fraud and waste, facilitate better decision making, and improve 

operational efficiency. 

Congress first tackled the need to make Federal spending more 

transparent in 2006, with the passage of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (‘‘Transparency Act’’).1 Before 

this legislation, there was no comprehensive, publicly accessible 

source of detailed, accurate, and timely information on Federal 

spending.2 The databases and reports that did exist were limited 

in capability and usefulness and generally not compatible with one 

another.3 The Transparency Act addressed these deficiencies by requiring the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to establish 

a single searchable website, accessible to the public at no cost, that 

would contain data about the over-$1 trillion in grants, loans, contracts and other kinds of awards that Federal agencies dispense 

each year.4 Pursuant to the Transparency Act, OMB launched the 

website—called USAspending.gov—in December 2007. 

Congress revisited the issue in February 2009, when it sought to 

ensure both Federal and public oversight of the nearly $300 billion 

in economic stimulus funds authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (‘‘Recovery Act’’).5 The Act created the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (‘‘Recovery Board’’), an independent oversight board composed of a Chairman and the Inspectors General of major agencies.6 The statute 

also required the Recovery Board to establish a website to give the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

7Pub. L. No. 111–5, Div. A, § 1526, 123 Stat. 293. 

8 Although the Recovery Board was due to sunset on September 15, 2013, the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act of 2013 extended the Recovery Board through September 2015 and tasked 

the Board with detected and remediating waste, fraud, and abuse of funds related to the impact 

of Hurricane Sandy. Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113–2, Section 

904(d). 9Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum, Open Government Directive, M–10– 

06 (December 8, 2009); OMB Memorandum, Improving Acquisition Data Quality for Fiscal years 

2009 and 2010 (October 7, 2009). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/procurement_memo/data_quality_guidance_100709.pdf. 10 Exec. Order No. 13576, 76 FR 35297 (June 16, 2011). 11OMB Memorandum, Improving Data Quality for USAspending.gov (June 12, 2013). http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/financial/memos/improving-data-quality-forusaspending-gov.pdf. 12Section 2(b)(3) of the Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note) authorizes the Director of 

OMB to designate other Federal agencies to operate the USAspending.gov website. 

public access to information about the projects funded under the 

Act.7 This website went live in the spring of 2009 under the name 

of Recovery.gov. 

The Recovery Board developed a set of standard data elements 

for Recovery Act funds so that funding could be analyzed across 

agencies and programs. The Board also created a central data analytics center to support fraud detection, audits, investigations, and 

prosecutions. However, although the Recovery Board laid the 

groundwork for future transparency efforts, its own scope was necessarily limited, as the Board’s mandate and authority extended 

only to projects funded under the Recovery Act and, as subsequently added, funds provided to victims of Hurricane Sandy.8

The Administration has also taken significant steps on its own 

to improve the transparency of Federal spending data. In 2009, 

OMB issued guidance to agencies on how to improve the quality of 

the data that agencies provide for USAspending.gov.9 In June 

2011, President Obama established the Government Accountability 

and Transparency Board to provide strategic direction for enhancing the transparency of Federal spending and to advance efforts to 

detect waste, fraud, and abuse.10 More recently, in June 2013, 

OMB issued a memorandum to agency Chief Financial Officers, requiring agencies to implement procedures to improve the quality of 

financial data reported to USAspending.gov and establishing new 

requirements for financial assistance awards.11

In February 2014, OMB transferred responsibility for the 

USAspending.gov website from the General Services Administration, which had administered the website since its inception, to the 

Treasury Department.12 Operating USAspending.gov allows Treasury to integrate this financial transparency resource into the Federal government’s overall financial management framework. This 

transition should enable Treasury to leverage the extensive financial data that it collects to significantly increase the transparency 

and accountability of the government’s financial transactions and 

improve the accuracy of data on USAspending.gov. 

B. THE DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT, S. 994

The Federal government has made Federal spending more transparent in recent years and this transparency has fostered civil engagement by enabling citizens and communities to know more 

about how their tax dollars are being spent. However, much more 

remains to be done, both in expanding the scope of the spending 

information provided, and in making the information more accurate and usable. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (‘‘DATA Act’’), 

S. 994, takes several important steps towards ensuring that the 

Federal government provides consistent, reliable, and useful online 

data about how it spends taxpayer dollars. Using the lessons 

learned through the Committee’s own oversight in this area, the 

work of the Government Accountability Office, and the experience 

of the Recovery Act, the DATA Act builds upon the foundation already laid by the Transparency Act. Specifically, it would expand 

and improve upon the spending information displayed on the 

USAspending.gov website, standardize financial data, and reduce 

the reporting burdens of those who do business with the Federal 

government. 

Posting of spending for agency operations as well as disbursements for awards. The DATA Act adds to the universe of spending 

data whose disclosure is mandated under the Transparency Act. 

The Transparency Act requires the posting of spending information 

on Federal awards, which are, generally speaking, grants, contracts, and loans made to third parties or individuals. The DATA 

Act provides a more in-depth and comprehensive view into Federal 

spending by also requiring the posting of information about an 

agency’s budget, amounts that an agency has committed to spend 

and has actually spent, amounts that have been reprogrammed or 

transferred from one appropriations account to another, and the 

amounts of funds balances that can or cannot still be used—taking 

into account the expiration of any applicable appropriations authorities. The disclosure of this information on the 

USAspending.gov website, along with information about awards, 

will provide a more complete and accurate display of Federal 

spending. 

Providing data in a more accessible and usable form. The DATA 

Act requires information disclosed on USAspending.gov to be posted in a manner that allows the website’s users to aggregate and 

download it in bulk. The Committee expects that the Treasury 

Department also will be able to improve the quality of the data 

displayed on the website and strive to provide users of 

USAspending.gov with the ability to download data sets that can 

assist in reviewing program level spending data, aid in the evaluation and review of how well Federal programs are performing, and 

support the reduction of program duplication. 

One of the lessons learned from the work of the Recovery Board 

was the importance and value of linking location data to spending 

data. Data about the location where money is being spent helps to 

foster improved engagement by communities and individual citizens who can better track and understand how Federal tax dollars 

are spent in their communities. Where practicable, Treasury should 

also work to provide information about the location where Federal 

funds are used or the service provided in each state, city, district, 

or other geographical location, and not just where the Federal 

funds were first awarded. 

Government-wide financial data standards. Executive branch 

agencies currently publish information about a vast array of programs, but in the absence of uniform definitions for various terms 

and uniform formats for presenting certain information, it is impossible to accurately compare one agency’s activities with those of another. The creation and use of government-wide data definitions 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

13Show Me the Money: Improving the Transparency of Federal Spending. Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong. 14 (July 18, 

2012) (statement of Dick Gregg, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury). 

Mr. Gregg also testified that the use of data standards can reduce the operational cost of government by facilitating the ‘‘movement towards greater use of shared technologies and services 

throughout government[.]’’ Id. at 69. (written statement of Dick Gregg, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury). 14Government Accountability Office, Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, GAO–13–758 at 19. See 

also, Government Accountability and Transparency Board, Report and Recommendations to the 

President (December 2011). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

gat_board_december_2011_report_and_recommendations.pdf. 15Show Me the Money: Improving the Transparency of Federal Spending. Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong. 12 (July 18, 

2012) (statement of Danny Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office 

of Management and Budget). 16Government Accountability Office, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, GAO–10–365 at 2. In June 2012, several 

members of this Committee requested that GAO conduct another review of the completeness 

and consistency of the data on USAspending.gov. Although that audit had not yet been completed at the time this report was released, preliminary data that GAO provided to Committee 

staff indicates that USAspending.gov is still plagued by inconsistent and incomplete data. 17See http://sunlightfoundation.com/clearspending/. The USAspending.gov website contains information about two types of spending: contracts and direct assistance (which consists of grants, 

direct payments, loans, and loan guarantees). These two types of spending are tracked using 

two very different reporting systems, the Federal Awards and Assistance Data System PLUS 

(which tracks direct assistance) and the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation 

(which tracks contracts). The Clearspending analysis and report focuses on direct assistance 

payments. 18 Basically, Sunlight asks the following questions of the information contained on 

USAspending.gov: How close are the reported dollar amounts on USAspending.gov to the yearly 

estimates contained in other spending reports? How many of the required fields are filled out 

Continued 

and standards for financial information will enhance the usability, 

transparency, and accountability of financial and performance information and significantly improve the ability of the government 

and the public to analyze Federal spending information.13

The Recovery Board showed the value of developing and using 

uniform data standards through its work regarding Recovery Act 

funds. The application of such standards to Recovery Act funds significantly assisted in analyzing information across different agencies and programs.14 In a July 2012 hearing on implementation of 

the Transparency Act, former Controller Danny Werfel clearly 

summed up the need for data standards when he stated: ‘‘standardization provides the key to unlocking transparency and accountability.’’ 15 The DATA Act addresses this issue by requiring the development and use of common terms, formats, and definitions for 

key financial data elements. 

Improvements in data quality. While the Transparency Act has 

provided policymakers and the public with unprecedented access to 

data on Federal spending, USAspending.gov has unfortunately 

been plagued by data quality issues, thereby limiting the usefulness of the website to improve transparency and increase accountability. For example, in 2010, the Government Accountability Office 

(‘‘GAO’’) compared a sample of data on USAspending.gov to records 

provided by the awarding agencies. The results were troubling. 

GAO found ‘‘widespread inconsistencies’’ between the two sets of 

data with each of the 100 awards that it sampled, demonstrating 

at least one blank data field or otherwise inconsistent piece of information.16

In addition, the Sunlight Foundation (‘‘Sunlight’’), which conducts an annual assessment of the direct-assistance17 spending 

data posted to the USAspending.gov website for consistency, completeness, and timeliness,18 has found widespread problems in all 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

in each record? And how long did it take the agency to report the money once it was allocated 

to a project? See http://sunlightfoundation.com/clearspending/. 19The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is maintained by the General Services Administration and provides a full listing and detailed program descriptions for all Federal assistance 

programs. 20 2011 Clear Spending report at http://2011.clearspending.com/sunlightfoundation.com/ 

clearspending/summary/index.html. 

three areas. For example, Sunlight reported that a comparison between the data on USAspending.gov and the data on a Federal 

database of domestic assistance awards19 shows substantial inconsistency, which did not improve from 2008 to 2010.20

The executive branch has taken some steps to improve the site 

and the accuracy and quality of the underlying data. However, to 

ensure sustained progress, the DATA Act includes provisions to 

hold Federal agencies more accountable for the information disclosed on USAspending.gov, by requiring the Government Accountability Office and the agency Inspectors General to conduct a series 

of reviews and audits of agency information posted on 

USAspending.gov. 

Streamlining the reporting requirements for recipients of Federal 

awards. Under existing statutes and regulations, recipients of Federal awards are required to report back to the agencies that provided the awards to help the agency and others monitor the use of 

the funds and other aspects of the recipient’s performance under 

the award. However, with better coordination among agencies, the 

reporting requirements could provide more useful data to the government and impose less burden on the reporting entities. Those 

who receive Federal awards have provided Committee staff with 

many examples of the time-consuming and burdensome process of 

reporting to Federal agencies about the contracts, grants, and loans 

these groups had received. Although it is important for agencies to 

receive information from those that they do business with or give 

grants and loans to, the reporting that is required appears to be 

highly inefficient and, in many cases, unnecessarily burdensome. 

To address this problem, the DATA Act instructs the Director of 

OMB to review the current reporting requirements for recipients of 

Federal awards to identify common reporting elements across the 

government, unnecessary duplication, and unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements. This information can be used to 

make the reporting requirements less costly and burdensome to the 

recipients and more useful to the government. In addition, the 

DATA Act requires OMB to create a pilot program in order to help 

develop recommendations for common reporting elements across 

the Federal government, to eliminate unnecessary duplication in financial reporting, and to reduce compliance costs for recipients. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Warner first introduced the DATA Act last Congress, on 

June 16, 2011. The bill, S. 1222, which was referred to this Committee, would have improved transparency of Federal spending by 

creating a new independent Commission (patterned after the Recovery Board) to act as the central hub to collect spending data, set 

data standards, and analyze the information. 

This Committee held a hearing in July 2012 to examine Federal 

efforts to increase and improve the transparency of Federal spending information. The hearing focused on the current state of transVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:42 Mar 29, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR139.XXX SR139

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

parency of Federal spending, implementation of the Transparency 

Act, lessons learned from the Recovery Act, and what opportunities 

exist to improve transparency and accountability of Federal spending. Witnesses at the hearing included: Senator Warner; Eugene 

Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Daniel Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management at OMB; and Richard Gregg, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Senator Warner testified at the hearing in support of his bill. Mr. Werfel from 

OMB discussed the executive branch’s progress toward improved 

spending transparency and efforts then underway to continue that 

progress. Mr. Gregg from the Treasury Department testified about 

Treasury’s efforts to modernize their payment processing systems. 

In September 2012, Senators Warner and Portman introduced a 

revised version of the DATA Act (S. 3600, 112th Congress), which 

incorporated a number of revisions suggested by the Administration and outside groups. 

Senators Warner and Portman again introduced the DATA Act 

this Congress, on May 21, 2013, and it was given the number S. 

994 and referred to this Committee. The Committee considered the 

bill at a November 6, 2013 business meeting. The Committee 

adopted by voice vote a substitute amendment to the bill offered by 

Senator Carper and then by voice vote ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported. Members present for both votes were Senators Carper, Levin, McCaskill, Tester, Begich, Baldwin, Johnson, 

Portman, and Ayotte. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 gives the bill the short title of the ‘‘Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013’’ or the ‘‘DATA Act.’’ 

Section 2. Purposes 

Section 2 of the bill states the purposes of the DATA Act: (1) to 

expand the Transparency Act by disclosing direct Federal agency 

expenditures and linking information about Federal awards with 

spending information about Federal agency programs for use by 

taxpayers and policy makers; (2) to provide consistent, reliable and 

searchable government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately on USAspending.gov; (3) to simplify reporting requirements 

for entities receiving Federal funds while improving transparency; 

and (4) to improve the quality of the data submitted to 

USAspending.gov by holding Federal agencies accountable for the 

data submitted. 

Section 3. Amendments to the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) 

Definitions. Section 3(1)(A) of the bill adds four new definitions 

to the list of definitions in section 2(a) of the Transparancy Act: A 

‘‘Federal agency’’ has the same meaning as an ‘‘Executive agency’’ 

under 5 U.S.C. § 105, thereby making the Act’s provisions applicable to every executive department, government corporation, and 

independent establishment. ‘‘Federal funds’’ means any funds made 

available to or spent by a Federal agency. An ‘‘object class’’ is the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

category assigned for purposes of the President’s budget to a type 

of property or services purchased by the government. A ‘‘program 

activity’’ has the meaning given under 31 U.S.C. § 1115(h), which 

is a specific activity or project as listed in the schedules of the annual Federal budget. 

Website. Section 3(1)(B) of the bill amends section 2(c) of the 

Transparency Act to require that USAspending.gov must enable 

users to aggregate any data published under the Transparency Act 

and to download the data in bulk. 

Section 3(2) of the bill strikes existing sections 3 and 4 of the 

Transparency Act and adds new sections 3 through 7 to the Act: 

New section 3 of the Transparency Act—Full disclosure of 

Federal funds 

New section 3 of the Transparency Act, as added by section 3(2) 

of the bill, would expand upon the information displayed on the 

USAspending.gov website to account for all Federal funds and accurately display all kinds of spending, not only spending on Federal 

awards. 

The Treasury Department is currently responsible for operating 

the USAspending.gov website, on which is posted information 

about Federal awards. Under new section 3, the Secretary of the 

Treasury is given the additional responsibility to post on the 

USAspending.gov website information about Federal spending generally. On a monthly basis, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of OMB, must ensure that financial information is published on the website for each Federal agency, 

component, appropriations account, program activity, and object 

class. For each of these, the published spending data must include: 

amounts of budget authority authorized, amounts obligated, 

amounts of outlays, amounts reprogrammed or transferred, and 

amounts of expired or unexpired unobligated balances. 

New section 4 of the Transparency Act—Data standards 

New section 4(a) of the Transparency Act, as added by section 

3(2) of the bill, requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the OMB Director, the GSA Administrator and agency 

heads, to establish government-wide financial data standards for 

Federal funds. 

New section 4(b) states criteria that these data standards must 

meet. These include that the standards must incorporate widely accepted existing standards, be computer-readable, include government-wide universal award identifiers for awards and for entities 

receiving awards that can track individual awards through the full 

cycle of spending, and allow for comparisons across program activities and agencies. 

New section 4(c) lays out the deadlines for implementing the 

data standards across the Federal government. First, the Secretary 

of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, has one year to issue guidance on the 

data standards. Second, after Treasury issues the guidance on the 

data standards, agencies have one year to start applying the data 

standards to their financial and payment information. Finally, 

within two years after Treasury issues guidance on the data standards, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Treasury must 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ensure that the USAspending.gov website is populated with financial information that meets these new data standards. 

Finally, new section 4(d) specifically requires that the Secretary 

of the Treasury consult with public and private stakeholders, including state and local governments, universities and contractors in 

establishing the data standards. 

New section 5 of the Transparency Act—Simplifying Federal 

award reporting 

Under existing statutes and regulations, recipients of Federal 

awards are required to report back to the agencies that provide the 

awards in order to help the government and others monitor the use 

of the funds and other aspects of the recipient’s performance. The 

purpose of new section 5 of the Transparency Act, as added by section 3(c) of the bill, is to reduce the reporting costs and burdens 

for the recipients of Federal awards. New section 5(a) instructs the 

Director of OMB to review the current reporting requirements for 

recipients of Federal awards to identify common reporting elements 

across the government, unnecessary duplication, and unnecessarily 

burdensome reporting requirements. As part of that review, the 

OMB Director is required to consult with Federal agencies and 

with recipients of Federal awards. 

New section 5(b) requires the Director of OMB, or a designee, to 

establish a pilot program in order to develop recommendations for 

common reporting elements across the Federal government, for the 

elimination of unnecessary duplication in financial reporting, and 

for the reduction of compliance costs for recipients. The pilot program, to be established within one year of the DATA Act’s enactment, must cover contracts, grants, and sub-awards that have an 

aggregate value of not less than $1 billion. The program must also 

include diverse recipients of awards, including, to the extent feasible, recipients that receive awards from multipile programs 

across multiple agencies. The pilot program also must collect data 

over a 12-month period. 

After the pilot program is completed, OMB has 90 days to provide guidance to agencies designed to simplify reporting requirements for award recipients, reduce unnecessary duplication, and 

reduce compliance costs. OMB also has 90 days after completion of 

the pilot program to submit to Congress a report on the program 

with recommendations for improving financial reporting and transparency and including recommendations for legislation to simplify 

reporting requirements for Federal award recipients. 

New section 6 of the Transparency Act—Accountability for 

Federal funding 

New section 6 of the Transparency Act, as added by section 3(b) 

of the bill, requires a series of reviews and audits by GAO and 

agency Inspectors General intended to hold Federal agencies more 

accountable for the information that they disclose on 

USAspending.gov. New Section (6)(a) requires the Inspector General of each agency, in consulation with GAO, to review and report 

on the completeness, timeliness, quality and accuracy of the data 

the agency submits to USAspending.gov. The Inspectors General 

are required to report on the first audit no later than 18 months 

after the Treasury Department issues its guidance on the data 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

standards. Subsequent Inspectors General reports are then required approximately two and four years after the first report was 

issued. For the second and third report, Inspectors General may include the findings of their data quality audits as part of the annual 

financial audit reports they are required to submit. 

New Section 6(b) requires GAO to review and report on the completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data each agency 

submits to USAspending.gov and to compare the quality of the data 

submitted by each agency across the Federal government. GAO is 

required to report on its findings in the second, fourth, and sixth 

year after the date of enactment of the DATA Act. 

New section 7 of the Transparency Act—Classified and protected information 

New section 7 clarifies that nothing in the Transparency Act, as 

amended by the DATA Act, would require the disclosure of information that is classified or otherwise protected from disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act. 

Section 4. Executive agency accounting and other financial management reports and plans 

31 U.S.C. § 3512(a) requires the Office of Management and Budget to annually submit a financial management status report and a 

revised government-wide five-year financial management plan to 

the appropriate committees of Congress. Section 4 of the bill 

amends these provisions to add requirements for OMB to—(1) publish these annual status reports and revised financial management 

plans on Performance.gov, and (2) also publish within one year 

after enactment of the DATA Act, and every five years thereafter, 

a report regarding implementation of the Transparency Act. 

Section 5. Funding 

Section 5 of the bill allows the Treasury Secretary to use funds 

from the Treasury Franchise Fund to implement this Act. The 

Treasury Franchise Fund is a revolving fund through which certain 

offices at the Treasury Department provide financial management, 

procurement, and other administrative services to Treasury bureaus and to other Federal agencies on a reimbursable, fee-for-service basis. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. The Committee agrees with the 

Congressional Budget Office that S. 994 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (‘‘UMRA’’). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

DECEMBER 5, 2013. 

Hon. TOM CARPER, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for S. 994, the DATA Act. 

This version supersedes the cost estimate transmitted on December 

4, 2013. It corrects an error in referring to the bill number: we mistakenly referred to the Data Act as S. 944 in the previous estimate. 

There is no change, however, in the estimated costs of the legislation. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 994—DATA Act 

Summary: S. 994 aims to make information on federal expenditures more easily accessible and transparent. The bill would require the U.S. Department of the Treasury to establish common 

standards for financial data provided by all government agencies 

and to expand the amount of data that agencies must provide to 

the government website, USASpending. In addition, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) would be required to conduct a 

two-year pilot program to make it easier for federal contractors and 

grant recipients to comply with federal reporting requirements. S. 

994 also would require OMB, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), and the agencies’ Inspectors General (IGs) to submit additional reports to the Congress. Finally, the legislation would designate the Treasury Franchise Fund as the source of funding for 

the bill’s implementation. 

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $300 million over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. The legislation also could affect direct spending by 

agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, payas-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net 

increase in spending by those agencies would not be significant. 

Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

S. 994 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); any 

costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions for receiving federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 994 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government) and all other budget functions that use the Treasury Franchise Fund to acquire services. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014– 

2018 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Collection and Reporting of Federal Data: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 35 50 75 75 50 285 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 32 53 75 75 50 285 

Other Reporting: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 1 3 4 3 4 15 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 1 3 4 3 4 15 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 36 53 79 78 54 300 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 33 56 79 78 54 300 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted in fiscal year 2014, that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated near the start of each subsequent fiscal year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for similar activities. 

Collection and reporting of financial data 

The federal government uses many databases to monitor and 

track agency spending. For example, three major databases—the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Federal Assistance Award Data System, the 

General Services Administration’s Federal Procurement Data System, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

website, Grants—contain information about federal grants and contracts. That information on federal spending is also available 

through OMB’s website, USASpending, which displays award 

amounts for all federal contracts, grants, and loans. The Recovery 

Accountability and Transparency Board’s website, Recovery, also 

provides information on federal spending, but it includes detailed 

information only on activities initiated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 

S. 994 would expand the USASpending website to include all federal spending. The Treasury Department would be required to establish standards for developing and reporting data on all federal 

spending, including the use of common data elements for financial 

and payment information for entities receiving federal funds across 

all government computer systems, so as to allow data from multiple systems to be compared. In addition, OMB would be required 

to conduct a two-year pilot program aimed at improving the transparency of financial reports by consolidating and eliminating certain information and reducing compliance costs for recipients of 

federal funds. After two years, OMB could expand the pilot program to cover all federal agencies and would recommend future actions to improve financial reporting. 

Information from OMB, the recovery board, selected agency IG 

offices, and other federal agencies indicates that the federal government currently collects much of the information that would be 

needed to create a comprehensive database on federal spending as 

required under S. 994. In addition, the Treasury Department and 

OMB have taken steps under current law to standardize some 

reporting requirements and to improve the quality of the financial 

information provided by all government sources, including 

USASpending. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

1Government Accountability Office, Federal Data Transparency; Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increase, GAO–13–758 (September 

12, 2013) www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-758. 

However, not all of that financial information is standardized, accurate, or readily available as would be required under the bill. For 

example, a recent GAO report indicates that agencies expend significant time, effort, and resources to develop financial information 

that they should be able to provide on a daily or recurring basis.1

GAO also notes that federal agencies use inconsistent definitions in 

developing, tracking, and reporting on federal spending, so creating 

a consolidated system probably would be difficult, time consuming, 

and expensive. Finally, because many of the government’s computer systems for managing financial information were designed to 

serve multiple purposes, changing them while preserving their 

multiple purposes would be expensive. 

CBO expects that improving the government’s current efforts to 

collect and report on financial data would involve the coordinated 

efforts of more than 20 major federal agencies. We estimate that 

those new efforts would include modifying numerous computer systems and further standardizing financial data, training personnel, 

conducting the proposed pilot program, and improving communications between agencies and recipients of federal funds. Based on information from agencies, OMB, and the recovery board, as well as 

GAO reports on the performance and history of modifying major 

federal IT systems and conducting audits of federal agencies, CBO 

estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $2 million 

to $3 million annually per agency, totaling $285 million over the 

2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. 

S. 994 would authorize the use of the Treasury Franchise Fund 

to implement the legislation. Using that fund the Treasury Department provides accounting, procurement, travel, human resources, 

and information technology services on a reimbursable, fee-for-service basis to federal agencies. Under S. 994, federal customers would 

reimburse the fund for the new costs of programs to improve the 

collection and reporting of financial information. Those estimated 

discretionary costs are reflected in this cost estimate. 

Other reports 

S. 994 would require IGs and GAO to prepare a number of reports. IGs would be required to review the spending data provided 

by their respective agencies and report their findings to the Congress. GAO would be required to review the IGs’ reports every two 

years. Based on information from selected IGs and the costs of 

similar reports, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions 

would cost $15 million over the 2014–2018 period, primarily for individual IGs to add this reporting requirement to their current financial statement audits, assuming the availability of appropriated 

funds. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. S. 994 could 

affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting the 

bill would not affect revenues. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 994 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The bill would change the way state, local, and tribal governments 

report on their use of federal funds. Some of those changes could 

increase, and others could decrease the costs that such governments would incur to comply with conditions of federal assistance. 

However, conditions of assistance (and their costs) are not intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Previous CBO estimate: On November 13, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2061, the Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2013, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on May 22, 2013. 

Both pieces of legislation are aimed at improving financial reporting within the government, but H.R. 2061 also would authorize the 

recovery board to continue its activities for two more years beyond 

2015 (when its current authorization expires). 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

S. 994, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to 

be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 

italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman). 

FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND 

TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006, AS AMENDED 

Public Law 109–282, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended by Public Law 110–252, title VI, 

6202(a), June 30, 2008, (31 U.S.C. 6101 note) 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 2. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ENTITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL 

FUNDING. 

(a) DEFINITIONS. In øthis section¿ this Act: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ has the 

meaning given the term ‘‘Executive agency’’ under section 105 of 

title 5, United States Code. 

ø(2)¿ (3) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) FEDERAL FUNDS.—The term ‘‘Federal funds’’ means any 

funds that are made available to or expended by a Federal 

agency. 

(5) OBJECT CLASS.—The term ‘‘object class’’ means the category assigned for purposes of the annual budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 

Code, to the type of property or services purchased by the Federal Government. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

(6) PROGRAM ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘program activity’’ has the 

meaning given that term under section 1115(h) of title 31, 

United States Code. 

ø(3)¿ (7) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) WEBSITE.— 

* * * * * * * 

(4) shall be updated not later than 30 days after the award 

of any Federal award requiring a posting; øand¿ 

(5) shall provide for separate searches for Federal awards described in subsection (a) to distinguish between the Federal 

awards described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i) and those described 

in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii)ø.¿; 

(6) shall have the ability to aggregate data for the categories 

described in paragraphs (1) through (5) without double-counting data; and 

(7) shall permit all information published under this section 

to be downloaded in bulk. 

* * * * * * * 

øSECTION 3. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. 

øNothing in this Act shall require the disclosure of classified information. 

øSECTION 4. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

øNot later than January 1, 2010, the Comptroller General shall 

submit to Congress a report on compliance with this Act.¿ 

SECTION 3. FULL DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, 

and every month thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 

shall ensure that the information in subsection (b) is posted on the 

website established under section 2. 

(b) INFORMATION TO BE POSTED.—The information to be posted 

shall include, for each Federal agency, component of a Federal 

agency, appropriations account, program activity, and object class 

(including any subcomponent of an object class), and other accounts 

or data as appropriate— 

(1) the amount of budget authority authorized; 

(2) the amount obligated; 

(3) the amount of outlays; 

(4) the amount of any Federal funds reprogrammed or transferred; and 

(5) the amount of expired and unexpired unobligated balances. 

SECTION 4. DATA STANDARDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 

with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General Services, and the heads of Federal agencies, 

shall establish Government-wide financial data standards for Federal funds, which shall include common data elements for financial 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

and payment information required to be reported by Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The data standards established under subsection (a) shall, to the extent reasonable and practicable— 

(1) incorporate widely accepted common data elements, such 

as those developed and maintained by— 

(A) an international voluntary consensus standards body; 

(B) Federal agencies with authority over contracting and 

financial assistance; and 

(C) accounting standards organizations; 

(2) incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, 

platform-independent computer-readable format; 

(3) include Government-wide universal identifiers for Federal 

awards and entities receiving Federal awards; 

(4) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting 

principles; 

(5) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary; 

(6) produce consistent and comparable data, including across 

program activities; and 

(7) establish a standard method of conveying the reporting 

period, reporting entity, unit of measure, and other associated 

attributes. 

(c) DEADLINES.— 

(1) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2013, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall issue 

guidance to Federal agencies on the data standards established 

under subsection (a). 

(2) AGENCIES.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which 

the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, each Federal agency shall collect, report, and maintain financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). 

(3) WEBSITE.—Not later than 2 years after the date on which 

the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall ensure that the data standards established 

under subsection (a) are applied to the data made available on 

the website established under section 2. 

(d) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult 

with public and private stakeholders in establishing data standards 

under this section. 

SECTION 5. SIMPLIFYING FEDERAL AWARD REPORTING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, recipients of 

Federal funds, including State and local governments, and institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall review the information required to be reported by recipients of Federal awards to identify— 

(1) common reporting elements across the Federal Government; 

(2) unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

(3) unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards. 

(b) PILOT PROGRAM.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act 

of 2013, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 

or a designee of the Director, shall establish a pilot program relating to reporting (in this section referred to as the ‘pilot program’) to facilitate the development of recommendations for— 

(A) common reporting elements across the Federal Government; 

(B) the elimination of unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and 

(C) the reduction of compliance costs for recipients of 

Federal awards. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The pilot program shall— 

(A) include a combination of Federal contracts, grants, 

and subawards, the aggregate value of which is not less 

than $1,000,000,000; 

(B) include a diverse group of recipients of Federal 

awards; and 

(C) to the extent practicable, include recipients who receive Federal awards from multiple programs across multiple agencies. 

(3) DATA COLLECTION.—The pilot program shall include data 

collected during a 12–month reporting cycle. 

(4) REPORTING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.—Each recipient of a Federal award participating in the pilot program 

shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget any requested reports of the selected Federal awards. 

(5) TERMINATION.—The pilot program shall terminate on the 

date that is 2 years after the date on which the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget establishes the pilot program. 

(6) AGENCY GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

on which the pilot program terminates under subsection (b)(5), 

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall provide guidance to the heads of Federal agencies regarding how 

to simplify the reporting requirements for recipients of Federal 

awards to reduce unnecessary duplicative reports and to reduce 

compliance costs, as appropriate. 

(7) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after the 

date on which the pilot program terminates under subsection 

(b)(5), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

and the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a report on the pilot program, which shall include— 

(A) a description of the data collected under the pilot program, the usefulness of the data provided, and the cost to 

collect the data from recipients; and 

(B) recommendations for— 

(i) consolidating aspects of Federal financial reporting to reduce the costs to recipients of Federal awards; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(ii) automating aspects of Federal financial reporting 

to increase efficiency and reduce the costs to recipients 

of Federal awards; 

(iii) any legislative action required to simplify the reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards; 

and 

(iv) improving financial transparency. 

SECTION 6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. 

(a) INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with paragraph (2), the Inspector General of each Federal agency, in consultation with the 

Comptroller General of the United States, shall— 

(A) review a statistically valid sampling of the spending 

data submitted under this Act by the Federal agency; and 

(B) submit to Congress and make publically available a 

report assessing the completeness, timeliness, quality, and 

accuracy of the data sampled and the implementation and 

use of data standards by the Federal agency. 

(2) DEADLINES.— 

(A) FIRST REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the 

date on which guidance is issued under section 4(c)(1), the 

Inspector General of each Federal agency shall submit a report as described in paragraph (1). 

(B) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—On the same date as the Inspector General of each Federal agency submits the second 

and fourth reports under sections 3521(f) and 9105(a)(3) of 

title 31, United States Code, that are submitted after the report under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall 

submit a report as described in paragraph (1). The report 

submitted under this subparagraph may be submitted as a 

part of the report submitted under section 3521(f) or 

9105(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code. 

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency 

Act of 2013, and every 2 years thereafter until the date that is 6 

years after such date of enactment, and after review of the reports 

submitted under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall submit to Congress and make publically available a report assessing and comparing the data completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data submitted under this Act 

by Federal agencies and the implementation and use of data standards by Federal agencies. 

SECTION 7. CLASSIFIED AND PROTECTED INFORMATION. 

Nothing in this Act shall require the disclosure to the public of— 

(1) information protected from disclosure under section 552 of 

title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Freedom 

of Information Act’); or 

(2) information protected under section 552a of title 5, United 

States Code (commonly known as the ‘Privacy Act of 1974’), or 

section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE 

Subtitle III. Financial Management 

CHAPTER 35. ACCOUNTING AND COLLECTION 

Subchapter II. Accounting Requirements, Systems, and 

Information 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3512. Executive agency accounting and other financial 

management reports and plans 

(a)(1) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 

prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress 

and make available on the website described under section 1122 a 

financial management status report and a governmentwide 5–year 

financial management plan. 

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) * * * 

(C) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, and every 5 years 

thereafter, the Director shall make available on the website described under section 1122 a report regarding the implementation 

of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note). 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS