The federal spending database proposed by Senator Tom Coburn has built enough momentum to pass out of committee on a unanimous vote. S. 2590 will come to the Senate floor in this session, and it has a healthy bipartisan cadre of support. Eighteen senators have co-sponsored S. 2590, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and George Allen (R-VA). Since both caucus leaders have added themselves as co-sponsors, we can expect this to get addressed quickly with little organized opposition.

The only obstacle appears to be a difference in the already passed House version, which excludes federal contracts from the database. The House, however, may be coming around to the Senate view. Mark Tapscott reports that Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), the author of the House version, has told Congressional Quarterly that he will reconsider his previous opposition to adding federal contracts to the database:

Davis said he has softened his opposition to including contracts and does not expect that conference negotiations, should it come to that, would be difficult. ‘It’s technically harder to do, but I’m not opposed to it,' Davis said.

"Davis has taken the brunt of the criticism for excluding federal contracts because his Virginia district receives so many. The 11th District ranked 17th among House districts in federal contracts received in fiscal 2004 and 2005, according to [Gary Bass of OMB Watch]. Blunt’s district ranks relatively low in both contracts and grants.

The difference between the two versions is significant, both substantively and politically. While a database of federal grants would beat no database at all, it would exclude a great deal of spending in the federal budget, essentially painting an incomplete picture of the budget. A grants-only would not have exposed the earmark abuses involving Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, for instance, who directed federal dollars specifically to contractors with illicit arrangements for his benefit.

Politically, it would undermine the entire project. The broad coalition supporting this endeavor will fall apart under Davis’ approach. We do not often see James Dobson’s Focus on the Family on the same side as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, nor Taxpayers for Common Sense allied with Greenpeace. Liberals want to expose waste in federal contracts that benefit the private sector, while conservatives want to cut out needless grants for pet causes of fringe groups. Without both, it would be almost impossible to get Congress to pass a bill that forces transparency on their appropriation processes.

Readers can help keep interest high in the project by helping to name the new federal spending database. Visit this website to cast your vote.