PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 4, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2101 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2101 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2101 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2101 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would restrict federal agencies from awarding grants when an applicant already received funding from another agency for the same purpose, with an exception for qualifying higher education institutions. It would also bar awards based on fraudulent applications. Agencies would gain electronic tools to check for overlapping grants and research, and officials would study whether artificial intelligence could help detect duplication and misuse.
the head of an executive agency may not award a grant to an applicant determined by the head of the agency or the Inspector General of the agency to have received another grant from the head of another executive agency for the same or identical purpose.
The prohibition under subparagraph (A) related to the award of grants for the same or identical purposes shall not apply to an applicant that is an institution of higher education.
The head of an executive agency may not award a grant to an applicant determined by the head of the agency or the Inspector General of the agency to have submitted a fraudulent application for such grant.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall make available to the heads of executive agencies, including the Inspectors General of such agencies, an electronic system through which the head of an executive agency may determine before awarding a grant, or through which an Inspector General of an executive agency may determine in conducting an audit or investigation, whether any applicant for such grant has received, or submitted an application to the head of another executive agency for, another grant for the same or identical purpose.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish an electronic system which contains information for all federal research awards through which the head of an executive agency may determine before awarding a grant, or through which an Inspector General of an executive agency may determine in conducting an audit or investigation, whether— (1) substantially the same research is proposed for funding in more than one grant application submitted to the same Federal agency; (2) substantially the same research is submitted to two or more different Federal agencies for review and funding consideration; or (3) a specific research objective and the research design for accomplishing an objective are the same or closely related in two or more proposals or awards, regardless of the funding source.
a report on the feasibility of leveraging artificial intelligence to rapidly identify, with respect to an application for a grant submitted to the head of an executive agency— (1) whether an applicant for such grant has received, or submitted an application to the head of another executive agency for, another grant for the same or identical purpose; and (2) waste, fraud, and abuse.
Section 1 would name the bill the Duplicative Grant Consolidation Act.
This Act may be cited as the Duplicative Grant Consolidation Act.
An agency head would be prohibited from awarding a grant if that agency's head or Inspector General determined that the applicant had already received a grant from another executive agency for the same or identical purpose. Higher education institutions would be exempt from this particular prohibition.
(A) In general Except as provided for under subparagraph (B), the head of an executive agency may not award a grant to an applicant determined by the head of the agency or the Inspector General of the agency to have received another grant from the head of another executive agency for the same or identical purpose. (B) Exception The prohibition under subparagraph (A) related to the award of grants for the same or identical purposes shall not apply to an applicant that is an institution of higher education.
If an agency head or Inspector General determined that an applicant had also applied to another executive agency for a grant for the same or identical purpose, the agency heads would have to jointly decide which agency should award it. This provision would not require that a grant actually be awarded.
In the case that the head of an executive agency or the Inspector General of the agency determines that an applicant for a grant has submitted an application for another grant from another executive agency for the same or identical purpose, the heads of such agencies shall jointly determine which agency is the appropriate agency to award the grant, if such grant is to be awarded to such applicant.
An agency head would be prohibited from awarding a grant if that agency's head or Inspector General determined that the applicant submitted a fraudulent application for that grant.
The head of an executive agency may not award a grant to an applicant determined by the head of the agency or the Inspector General of the agency to have submitted a fraudulent application for such grant.
Within one year after enactment, the Office of Management and Budget director would have to make an electronic checking system available to executive agency heads and Inspectors General. Agency heads could use it before awarding grants, and Inspectors General could use it during audits or investigations, to identify same-purpose grants or applications at other executive agencies.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall make available to the heads of executive agencies, including the Inspectors General of such agencies, an electronic system through which the head of an executive agency may determine before awarding a grant, or through which an Inspector General of an executive agency may determine in conducting an audit or investigation, whether any applicant for such grant has received, or submitted an application to the head of another executive agency for, another grant for the same or identical purpose.
The grant-checking system would have to include, at minimum, the grant recipient's name, the principal investigator, the award period, an agency contact, and an abstract.
The system shall contain at a minimum, the name of the awardee, the principal investigator, the award period, agency point of contact, and an abstract.
The Office of Management and Budget director would also have to establish an electronic system containing information on all federal research awards. It would support checks for substantially the same research proposed in multiple applications to one agency or submitted to multiple agencies, and for matching or closely related research objectives and designs across proposals or awards, regardless of funding source.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish an electronic system which contains information for all federal research awards through which the head of an executive agency may determine before awarding a grant, or through which an Inspector General of an executive agency may determine in conducting an audit or investigation, whether— (1) substantially the same research is proposed for funding in more than one grant application submitted to the same Federal agency; (2) substantially the same research is submitted to two or more different Federal agencies for review and funding consideration; or (3) a specific research objective and the research design for accomplishing an objective are the same or closely related in two or more proposals or awards, regardless of the funding source.
The Office of Management and Budget director would have to consult the Energy Secretary and the directors of the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology on a report about the feasibility of using artificial intelligence to rapidly identify duplicate grant applications or awards and waste, fraud, and abuse. The report would go to the House Oversight and Accountability and Appropriations committees and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Appropriations committees, as named in the bill.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report on the feasibility of leveraging artificial intelligence to rapidly identify, with respect to an application for a grant submitted to the head of an executive agency— (1) whether an applicant for such grant has received, or submitted an application to the head of another executive agency for, another grant for the same or identical purpose; and (2) waste, fraud, and abuse.
The term appropriate congressional committees means— (A) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Section 5 defines a “covered application” to include applications submitted after the referenced system is established and earlier applications if grant money is still being spent on that date. This is a definition; the bill's operative provisions do not use that term.
The term covered application means an application for a grant submitted to the head of an executive agency— (A) after the date on which the system is established under section 2(a); and (B) before that date, if amounts under the grant are still being expended on such date.
Section 5 defines an “applicable time period” ending when grant money is no longer being spent. For a covered application whose grant is awarded after the referenced system is established, the period would start when the application is submitted. For a covered application whose grant is awarded before system establishment, it would start on the system's establishment date. The bill's operative provisions do not use this defined term.
The term applicable time period means— (A) with respect to a covered application for a grant awarded after the date on which system is established under section 2(a), during the period— (i) beginning on the date on which such application is submitted; and (ii) ending on the date on which amounts under the grant are no longer being expended; and (B) with respect to a covered application for a grant awarded before the date on which the system is established under section 2(a), during the period— (i) beginning on that date; and (ii) ending on the date on which amounts under the grant are no longer being expended.
The bill defines executive agencies as agencies in the federal executive branch. Eligibility for the higher education exception would depend on the definition in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which is referenced but not reproduced.
(4) Executive agency The term executive agency means an agency in the executive branch of the Federal Government. (5) Institution of higher education The term institution of higher education has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.1002).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated April 4, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 14, 2025. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2025-04-04T13:32:36Z. 2025-03-14: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-03-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark status cannot be established beyond the supplied evidence.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a specific exemption from a central grant restriction.
Institutions meeting the referenced higher education definition would be exempt from the prohibition on awarding a grant after an applicant received another executive agency's grant for the same or identical purpose. This gives those institutions special treatment within the bill's main grant-duplication policy. The exception expressly addresses that prohibition, rather than granting a general exemption from the bill. The precise range of eligible institutions cannot be determined without the referenced definition.
(A) In general Except as provided for under subparagraph (B), the head of an executive agency may not award a grant to an applicant determined by the head of the agency or the Inspector General of the agency to have received another grant from the head of another executive agency for the same or identical purpose. (B) Exception The prohibition under subparagraph (A) related to the award of grants for the same or identical purposes shall not apply to an applicant that is an institution of higher education.
The term institution of higher education has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.1002).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 4, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI