PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to House Rules
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 19, 2010
Grant Accessibility and Transparency Enhancement Act of 2010 - Requires the President to establish the National Commission on Earmark Reform to: (1) study the laws and practices related to replacing earmarks with a full grant making process; and (2) develop a plan to transition from congressional member-directed earmarks to a grant making process.
Requires the Commission to propose legislative or regulatory changes to implement: (1) a grant making application and review process under which a panel of subject area experts reviews and awards grant funding on a merit-based system; and (2) a specific governance structure for all grant functions, including grants management, within the federal government.
Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish the Office of Grant Making within OMB to: (1) direct and coordinate the development of the expert grant award panels and the specific recommendations of the Commission; and (2) be responsible for maintaining Grants.gov.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prescribes requirements to streamline the role of federal agencies in the grant making process.
Requires all federal grants, both formula and discretionary, from all grant making agencies to be posted on Grants.gov.
Requires the Director to ensure that duplication of effort and dual systems related to online federal grant activity are no longer in effect by merging USASpending.gov into Grants.gov.
Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to make it out of order in both chambers to consider any legislation or accompanying report that contains any congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.
People & committees
Rep. Sestak, Joe [D-PA-7] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Rules
Referred to House Budget
Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.5775 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.5775 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.5775 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.5775 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.