S-2286-118
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 271.
Sponsored by Gary Peters (D-MI)
What it does
The Streamlining Federal Grants Act of 2023 would require each federal agency to designate a senior official responsible for grant management and create a government-wide Grants Council, chaired by the OMB Controller, to coordinate grant policy across agencies. It would direct OMB to issue guidance requiring agencies to develop improvement plans that simplify grant applications, use plain language in funding notices, and improve access for historically underserved applicants — including those with limited English proficiency. The bill would also require studies of the Grants.gov website and a GAO report on barriers faced by rural, faith-based, and small community organizations, with a full effectiveness evaluation due five years after enactment.
Who benefits
Nonprofit organizations — especially small, rural, faith-based, and community-based groups that have historically struggled to navigate complex federal grant processes. State and local governments, school districts, tribal governments, and institutions of higher education that receive federal grants. Individuals with limited English proficiency who would gain improved access to grant information. Federal grant program staff who would benefit from clearer, standardized procedures. Taxpayers broadly, if administrative efficiency reduces waste and improves program outcomes.
Who is hurt
Larger, well-resourced grant recipients — such as major research universities and established nonprofits — that have built expertise navigating the current system and may lose a competitive advantage if barriers to entry are lowered. Federal agency staff who would face new planning, reporting, and consultation mandates, adding to workloads. OMB and the General Services Administration, which would bear administrative costs of standing up the Grants Council and supporting infrastructure. Agencies with small grant portfolios that may still face compliance burdens before qualifying for an exemption.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal grant system distributes over $800 billion annually but remains so complex that many eligible small nonprofits, rural communities, and faith-based organizations never apply — leaving public needs unmet and funds concentrated among sophisticated repeat recipients. They contend that standardizing data, simplifying notices, and requiring plain language would lower barriers without changing eligibility rules, and that the bill's bipartisan, bicameral sponsorship reflects broad consensus that administrative friction is a solvable problem with measurable public benefit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new layer of bureaucracy — a permanent Grants Council, senior agency designees, multi-year improvement plans, and cascading reporting requirements — that may consume agency resources without guaranteeing better outcomes for grant recipients. They contend that OMB already has broad authority to standardize grant management under existing law, including the DATA Act and the Uniform Guidance framework, and that adding statutory mandates with fixed deadlines could produce compliance theater rather than genuine simplification, particularly for agencies with diverse and specialized grant portfolios.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional tension is present. Congress has clear authority under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause to set conditions on how federal financial assistance is administered. The bill does not delegate broad new rulemaking authority to agencies in a way that would raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), as it directs procedural and administrative changes rather than asserting sweeping new regulatory power.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically OMB — gains new coordinating authority over grant administration across agencies, but Congress retains oversight through mandatory biennial reports to the appropriate committees, a GAO access study, and a five-year effectiveness evaluation.
Historical precedent
The DATA Act of 2014 similarly required standardized data reporting across federal financial assistance programs and established OMB coordination mechanisms, providing a direct procedural analogue to this bill's approach.