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 modify the rules and processes governing how federal grant programs are administered. It would likely simplify application, reporting, and compliance requirements for entities that receive federal grant funding. The specific mechanical changes would apply across federal agencies that distribute grants to states, localities, nonprofits, and other recipients.
Who benefits
State and local governments that receive federal grants would benefit from reduced administrative burden and compliance costs. Nonprofit organizations, universities, and research institutions that depend on federal grant funding would benefit from simplified application and reporting processes. Smaller organizations with limited administrative staff would particularly benefit if paperwork requirements are reduced. Federal agency staff may benefit from clearer, more uniform grant management procedures.
Who is hurt
Federal oversight staff and inspectors general whose monitoring role may be reduced if compliance requirements are loosened. Taxpayers broadly, if reduced reporting and oversight requirements make it harder to detect waste, fraud, or misuse of federal funds. Larger grant-management consulting firms whose services may be less in demand if the grant process becomes simpler. Competing grant applicants who currently benefit from detailed documentation requirements that level the playing field.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current federal grant system imposes excessive administrative costs on recipients — particularly small nonprofits, rural governments, and under-resourced institutions — that divert time and money away from the actual programs grants are meant to fund. They contend that duplicative reporting requirements, inconsistent rules across agencies, and burdensome application processes create barriers that prevent qualified organizations from accessing federal funds. Streamlining these processes, supporters say, would allow grant dollars to reach communities more efficiently, reduce overhead costs for both recipients and federal agencies, and make the grant system more accessible to a wider range of applicants, including those in underserved areas who lack large administrative departments.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that existing grant compliance requirements exist for good reason: they protect taxpayers by ensuring federal funds are spent as intended and create an auditable record that deters fraud and misuse. They contend that reducing reporting and oversight requirements could make it easier for grant recipients to misuse public funds without detection, and that the administrative burden critics cite is a necessary cost of accountability. Opponents also argue that "streamlining" may disproportionately benefit larger, well-connected organizations that already navigate the system effectively, while doing little for the smallest recipients. They further warn that weakening oversight structures could undermine the ability of inspectors general and Congress to conduct meaningful oversight of how billions in taxpayer dollars are spent.
Constitutional context
Federal grant programs are authorized under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8), which gives Congress broad authority to spend for the general welfare and attach conditions to federal funds. The Tenth Amendment limits Congress's ability to directly commandeer state governments but permits conditional grants (South Dakota v. Dole, 1987). Changes to how agencies administer grants touch on post-Loper Bright (2024) questions about agency interpretive authority, since courts now independently review agency rules rather than deferring to agency interpretations. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports Congress's authority to set uniform grant administration rules across the executive branch. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) is relevant if the bill delegates broad rulemaking authority to agencies without clear congressional direction.
Checks and balances
This bill would primarily affect executive branch agencies, which administer federal grants. By setting uniform grant rules through statute, Congress would assert legislative authority over grant administration procedures that agencies currently govern through regulation. This could reduce agency discretion in setting their own grant rules, shifting some authority from the executive branch back to Congress. If the bill delegates new rulemaking authority to a central office (such as OMB), it could consolidate executive power over grant policy within the White House rather than dispersing it across individual agencies.
Historical precedent
The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 previously standardized distinctions between grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) similarly modified federal grant reporting requirements. OMB's Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), consolidated in 2014, represents the most recent major administrative streamlining of federal grant rules across agencies.