PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Johnson from Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed written report under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/10/2016. Report No. 114-407.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Dec 9, 2016
Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2016 or the GRANT Act
(Sec. 2) This bill requires an executive agency, before awarding a competitive grant and after determining eligibility and conducting a merit-based review, to conduct an evaluation of the risk posed by an applicant to successfully carry out the grant. The evaluation shall include a review of any interagency duplication of efforts for research grants.
In conducting the evaluation with respect to an applicant that is determined to pose a relatively low risk of failing to execute the grant successfully, an executive agency shall: (1) minimize the burden on the applicant, and (2) consider any existing findings with respect to such applicant under the single audit process.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill directs the Office of Management and Budget to consult with executive agencies to upgrade grants.gov or any successor public website for finding and applying for federal grants so that the website: (1) serves as a central point of information on, and provides full access for applicants to, competitive grants; and (2) captures in one site, or provides electronic links to, other relevant databases. Executive agencies issuing a solicitation for or announcing the availability of competitive grants shall post on such website: (1) specified information about the grant opportunity, (2) detailed grant guidance and written technical assistance for applicants, and (3) selection documentation and justification. Agencies may redact personally identifiable information from a post on the website and must exclude sensitive information that would adversely affect an applicant.
The bill requires each agency to post a forecast of all non-emergency grant solicitations that it expects to issue for the upcoming calendar year.
The grants website shall:
make the required information available in its original format without charge or a license or registration requirement;
permit the information to be searched, downloaded in bulk, disseminated via automatic electronic means, and freely shared by the public;
use permanent uniform resource locators for the information; and
provide an opportunity for the public to provide input about the usefulness of the site and recommendations for improvements. Upon an applicant's request, an agency must explain the basis for an award decision of a grant exceeding $100,000 pursuant to a merit-based selection procedure.
Agency inspectors general shall review the effectiveness of an agency's conflicts of interest policy with respect to the peer review process for competitive grants in order to detect favoritism.
(Sec. 3) The Government Accountability Office shall report on: (1) the size and training of the federal grants workforce and recommendations for improving it, (2) whether a warrant system similar to that used in the federal acquisition system should be established for federal officials authorized to award grants, and (3) agency use of suspension and debarment actions against grantees during the previous three years and the level of agency resources assigned to suspension and debarment functions.
People & committees
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Johnson from Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed written report under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/10/2016. Report No. 114-407.
By Senator Johnson from Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed written report under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/10/2016. Report No. 114-407.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 723.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Star Print ordered on the bill.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 7, 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 S.2972 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 S.2972 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 S.2972 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 S.2972 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.