U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–243 

Calendar No. 531 

TAXPAYERS RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 2113 

TO PROVIDE TAXPAYERS WITH AN ANNUAL REPORT DISCLOSING 

THE COST AND PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 

AND AREAS OF DUPLICATION AMONG THEM, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

AUGUST 26, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 5 (legislative 

day, August 1), 2014 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SENcongress.#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 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
Calendar No. 531 

113TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 113–243 

TAXPAYERS RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

AUGUST 26, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 5 (legislative day, 

August 1), 2014 

Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2113] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2113), to provide taxpayers with 

an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of Government programs and areas of duplication among them, 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 .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported .................................. 4 

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 6 

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 7 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 8 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act of 2014 (S. 2113) will provide 

the public with better and more useful information on the breadth, 

cost, and performance of programs administered by the federal government. It will do so by refining existing requirements under the 

Government Performance and Results Modernization Act for agencies to create, update, and make public an inventory of their programs. Specifically, by providing a uniform definition of the term 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

1See U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Government Performance and Results 

Act, 1993 (S. 20), Together with Dissenting and Separate Views, (103 S. Rpt. 103–58), p. 2. The 

Committee on Governmental Affairs is the former name of this Committee. 2GPRA, § § (a)(1) and 2(b)(5). 

3This includes the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (P.L. 111–204), as amended by the 

Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103–356), and information technology reform legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–13) and the ClingerCohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–106). 4GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving 

Greater Results, GAO–04–38 (Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2004) p. 25. 

‘‘program,’’ better detailing the information agencies must provide, 

and requiring the inclusion of financial data about programs, S. 

2113 will give the American taxpayer a much better sense of the 

programs they are paying for and how those programs are performing. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Over twenty years ago, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (P.L. 103–62), a law premised on 

the belief that the regular and systemic measurement and reporting of how government programs are working will help those programs to work better.1

GPRA required agencies to take a number of steps to better plan 

and budget for their activities. It also required agencies to provide 

information about that planning and budgeting, so that Congress 

had the data it needed when considering changes to, or authorizing 

spending on, federal programs.2 GPRA implementation, combined 

with other statutory efforts in the 1990s addressing long-standing 

management problems,3 has provided a powerful framework for developing and integrating information about agencies’ strategic priorities, the results-oriented performance goals that flow from those 

priorities, performance data showing the level of achievement of 

those goals, and the relationship of reliable and audited financial 

information and information technology investments to the achievement of those goals.4

In the years since GPRA’s enactment, that statute has led to 

many improvements in the federal government’s performance, but 

experience in implementing GPRA has also shown that Congress 

must regularly step in to refine that law’s mandates. For example, 

in 2010, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act (GPRA Modernization) (P.L. 111–352). GPRA 

Modernization addressed weaknesses in the original GPRA by requiring: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide 

government-wide priority goals; increased frequency and enhanced 

quality of agency reporting; and improved transparency of performance reporting. Additionally, GPRA Modernization also required 

OMB to publish information about programs identified by agencies. 

This last provision required agencies to describe the purposes of 

programs meeting OMB’s inventory criteria, explain how those programs contribute to the mission and goals of the agency, and state 

the amount the program cost for the current and two previous fiscal years. The purpose of a central program list is to facilitate coordination across agencies and programs by making it easier for 

federal agencies and Congress to find programs seeking to serve a 

shared goal. A program list with detailed performance and financial information also has the potential to assist Congress in comVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:12 Aug 28, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR243.XXX SR243

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

5GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO–11–318SP (Washington, D.C.: March, 2011) p. 3. 6 Id. 

7Statement of Gene Dodaro (Comptroller General of the United States), Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Management Matters: Creating a 21st Century Government (March 12, 2014), GAO–14–436T, p. 7. 

paring similar programs across different agencies and assessing 

whether there is duplication, overlap, fragmentation, or inefficiencies within government programs. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its first annual report on duplication 

in 2010, ‘‘needed information on program performance is not readily available; the level of funding in agency budgets devoted to 

overlapping or fragmented programs is not clear; and the implementation costs that might be associated with program consolidations or terminations, among other variables, are difficult to predict.’’ 5 Reviewing 44 duplicative employment training programs in 

that same report, GAO explained that ’’the extent to which individuals receive the same services from these programs is unknown 

due to program data limitations.’’ 6

The first program inventory was published in May 2013 on 

www.performance.gov, a website established by OMB. GAO immediately expressed concern that the program inventory did not meet 

the requirements under the GPRA Modernization Act and that the 

inventory therefore would not enable Congress to compare similar 

programs government-wide. In testimony before this Committee, 

the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, reported that GAO’s preliminary review of the inventories yielded 

concerns about the usefulness of the information being developed 

and the extent to which it would assist executive branch and congressional efforts to identify and address fragmentation, overlap, 

and duplication.7 Among the problems identified by GAO were 

OMB’s guidance for developing the inventories, which allowed 

agencies flexibility to define their programs in various ways, including by outcomes, customers, products/services, organization 

structure, and budget structure. As a result, agencies—and even 

the components within an agency—took different approaches to define their programs. The variation in how agencies defined their 

programs limited comparability among like programs. Additionally, 

federal budget and cost information was not available for all programs. 

The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act was introduced to ensure that 

future program inventories will reflect what this Committee and 

Congress envisioned when GPRA Modernization was passed. Instead of requiring OMB to provide agencies with guidance on how 

to define a program for the purposes of the program inventory, the 

legislation itself defines the term ‘‘program,’’ thereby providing for 

uniformity of reporting. The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act also requires agencies to identify and publish the specific statute authorizing each program and any regulations specific to the program, 

and to provide links to any evaluation, assessment, or program performance reviews by the agency, an Inspector General, or the Government Accountability Office for the preceding five years. For any 

program that provides grants or other financial assistance to individuals or entities, agencies are also required to publish an estimate of the number of individuals served by the program and beneficiaries who received financial assistance under the program, an 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

8The original co-sponsors of S. 2113 are Senators Ayotte, Begich, Burr, Chambliss, Collins, 

Cruz, Enzi, Flake, Hatch, Inhofe, Ron Johnson, McCain, McCaskill, Paul, Portman, Risch, Scott, 

Vitter, and Warner. 

estimate of the number of full-time equivalents who administer the 

program, and the number of full-time equivalents who administer 

or assist in administering the program whose salary is paid in part 

or full by the federal government through a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or another form of financial award or assistance. 

In order for Congress and the public to get a complete picture of 

a program, the Committee believes it is important to link a program’s performance information with its financial information. On 

September 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), landmark 

legislation which fundamentally changed the way that federal 

spending was reported to the public. 

In order to further refine and improve the financial reporting required under FFATA, the Committee and Congress passed the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) (P.L. 113– 

101), which was signed into law by President Obama on May 9, 

2014. The DATA Act requires the federal government to increase 

the availability, accuracy, and usefulness of on-line information regarding federal spending. Specifically, it requires federal agencies 

to publish spending information online to cover virtually all forms 

of government spending, mandates that the information appear in 

a form that is both easily searchable and downloadable, and makes 

uniform the manner in which agencies provide such data for online 

posting. The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act would require that program inventories also include, to the extent available, financial information for each program required to be reported under the 

DATA Act or a direct web link to the information. When fully enacted, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act will result in detailed financial and performance information for every federal program, all 

in one place. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On March 12, 2014, Senator Coburn and nineteen original cosponsors 8 introduced S. 2113, the Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act of 

2014, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered the bill at a business meeting on May 

21, 2014, at which point the legislation had 37 total cosponsors. 

The Committee adopted a substitute amendment offered by Senator Coburn and then ordered the underlying bill reported favorably, both by voice vote. The substitute added a definition for the 

term ‘‘program’’ for the purposes of the program inventory and 

specified the information that agencies must provide for each program. Members present for the vote on the amendment and on the 

bill were Senators Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, McCaskill, Tester, 

Begich, Coburn, Johnson, Portman, and Enzi. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1: Short title 

The short title of the bill is the ‘‘Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act.’’ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

Section 2: Cost and performance of Government programs 

Definition of Program. This section defines the term ‘‘program’’ 

for the purposes of 31 U.S.C. § 1122 (the provision establishing the 

requirement for OMB to publish an inventory of agency programs) 

as an organized set of activities by one or more agencies directed 

toward a common purpose or goal. 

Website and Program Inventory. This section directs the OMB Director to publish a program inventory that identifies each program 

of the federal government on the website where performance information is posted pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act. Additionally, this section requires the program inventory to include: (1) any activity that is commonly referred to as a program; (2) any activity specifically created by law, 

or referenced in law, as a program; (3) each program that has an 

application process; (4) each program for which financial awards 

are made on a competitive basis; and, (5) any activity identified as 

a program activity in a budget request. The listing for each program must also state the specific statute that authorizes the program and any regulations specific to the program. Any program 

that provides grants or other financial assistance to individuals or 

entities is also required to include an estimate of the number of individuals served by the program and beneficiaries who received financial assistance under the program, an estimate of the number 

of full time equivalents who administer the program, and the number of full-time equivalents whose salary is paid in part or full by 

the federal government through a grant, contract, cooperative 

agreement, or another form of financial award or assistance who 

administer or assist in any way in administering the program. Programs listed in the program inventory must also include web links 

to any evaluation, assessment, or program performance reviews by 

the agency, an Inspector General, or the Government Accountability Office that was issued in the preceding five years. Finally, 

to the extent available, financial information for each program that 

is required to be reported under section 3(b) of the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note), 

as amended by the DATA Act, is also required to be included in 

the program inventory. In lieu of republishing this financial information, a direct web link to such information is also allowed. 

Guidance. This section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance that will assist agencies in 

identifying the program activities listed in the President’s budget 

submission to Congress that correspond with programs identified 

in the program inventory that is required by this legislation. Additionally, the OMB Director is authorized to issue guidance to agencies on how to more closely align programs in the program inventory for purposes of the budget that the President submits to Congress. 

Section 3: Regulations and implementation 

Regulations. This section requires the OMB Director to issue regulations or other guidance to implement this legislation within 120 

days after enactment of this Act. 

Implementation. This section requires the provisions in this legislation to be implemented no later than one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

JULY 31, 2014. 

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 cost estimate for S. 2113, the Taxpayers RightTo-Know Act. 

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. 2113—Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act 

Summary: S. 2113 would amend federal law to increase the 

amount of information about federal programs that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) provides online. The legislation 

would require that each program administered by a federal agency 

be described on the agency’s website, including the number of people served by or benefiting from the program, the number of federal 

employees and contract staff involved, and links to reviews of the 

program including those by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and Inspectors General. 

Based on information from several agencies, CBO estimates that 

implementing S. 2113 would cost $60 million over the 2015–2019 

period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting 

the bill could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through 

annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by 

those agencies would be negligible. Enacting S. 2113 would not affect revenues. 

S. 2113 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2113 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within all budget functions that include 

spending on administrative activities for government programs. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015– 

2019 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................... 20 20 10 5 5 60 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 20 20 10 5 5 60 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2014, that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated each year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for federal salaries and expenses. 

Under current law, agencies regularly produce information on 

program management, budgets, strategic plans, and annual perVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:12 Aug 28, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR243.XXX SR243

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
7 

formance. A recent amendment to the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies to describe every program they administer. Consequently, CBO expects that some of the 

provisions in S. 2113 would codify or only slightly modify current 

requirements. 

However, the legislation also would expand the definition of a 

federal program to require agencies to report each governmental 

activity as an individual program, along with the number of federal 

employees and contract staff involved. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance lists more than 2,200 federal programs, projects, 

services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the 

public, although some programs may be listed more than once. 

Using information from OMB and selected agencies about the costs 

to implement GPRA, CBO estimates that assembling such information about each government activity that provides benefits or services to the public would cost less than $1 million annually per 

agency, or $60 million over the 2015–2019 period. Most costs would 

occur over the first three years to identify the programs and develop the necessary information for posting. 

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. Enacting S. 

2113 could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through 

the appropriation process, but CBO estimates that any change in 

net spending would not be significant in any year. Enacting S. 2113 

would not affect revenues. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2113 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On August 22, 2013, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for H.R. 1423, the Taxpayers-Right-To-Know Act, as 

ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 24, 2013. The two pieces of legislation 

would affect the management of information about federal programs. However, the bills have different definitions of a federal 

program and different reporting requirements. Those differences 

are reflected in the CBO cost estimates. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Michael Hirsch and Leo 

Lex; Impact on the Private Sector: John Rodier and Patrice Gordon. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

VI. 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 

the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments, or private entities. The enactment of this legislation would not have significant 

regulatory impact. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING STATUTE MADE BY THE BILL, AS

REPORTED

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). 

UNITED STATES CODE 

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE II—THE BUDGET PROCESS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 11—THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND 

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

* * * * * * * 

Section 1101. Definitions. * * * 

§ 1122. Transparency of programs, priority goals, and results. 

(a) TRANSPARENCY OF AGENCY PROGRAMS. (1) DEFINITION OF PROGRAM.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘program’ means an organized set of activities 

by 1 or more agencies directed toward a common purpose or 

goal. 

(2) øIN GENERAL.—Not later than October 1, 2012, the Office 

of Management and Budget shall¿ WEBSITE AND PROGRAM IN- VENTORY.—The Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget shall— 

(A) ensure the effective operation of a single website; 

(B) at a minimum, update the website on a quarterly 

basis; and 

(C) øinclude on the website information about each program identified by the agencies.¿ include on the website— 

(i) a program inventory that shall identify each program of the Federal Government, which shall include— 

(I) any activity that is commonly referred to as 

a program; 

(II) any activity specifically created by law, or 

referenced in law, as a program; 

(III) each program that has an application process; 

(IV) each program for which financial awards 

are made on a competitive basis; and 

(V) any activity identified as a program activity 

in a budget request; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
9 

(ii) for each program identified in the program inventory, the information required under paragraph (3). 

(3) INFORMATION.—Information for each program ødescribed 

under paragraph (1)¿ identified in the program inventory required under paragraph (2) shall include— 

(A) øan identification of how the agency defines the term 

‘‘program’’, consistent with guidance provided by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, including the 

program activities that are aggregated, disaggregated, or 

consolidated to be considered a program by the agency;¿ 

the program activities that are considered a program by the 

agency; 

(B) a description of the purposes of the program and the 

contribution of the program to the mission and goals of the 

agency; øand¿ 

(C) an identification of funding for the current fiscal year 

and previous 2 fiscal yearsø.¿; 

(D) an identification of the specific statute that authorizes the program and any regulations specific to the program; 

(E) for any program that provides grants or other financial assistance to individuals or entities, for the most recent 

fiscal year— 

(i) an estimate of the number of individuals served 

by the program and beneficiaries who received financial assistance under the program; and 

(ii) an estimate of— 

(I) the number of full-time equivalents who administer the program; and 

(II) the number of full-time equivalents whose 

salary is paid in part or full by the Federal Government through a grant, contract, cooperative 

agreement, or another form of financial award or 

assistance who administer or assist in any way in 

administering the program; 

(F) links to any evaluation, assessment, or program performance reviews by the agency, an Inspector General, or 

the Government Accountability Office (including program 

performance reports required under section 1116) released 

during the preceding 5 years; and 

(G) to the extent available, financial information for each 

program required to be reported under section 3(b) of the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note), or a direct link to such information for a specific program on the website established 

under section 2 of that Act. 

(b) * * * 

(c) * * * 

(d) * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN