HR-8463-119
Received in the Senate.
Sponsored by James Comer (R-KY)
What it does
This bill would require federal agencies to complete a checklist of verification steps — confirming payee identity, account validity, fund availability, and that the payee is not deceased — before certifying any payment voucher. It would formally establish and expand the Treasury Department's "Do Not Pay" system, a database-matching tool that screens payment recipients against federal records to flag potential fraud. It would also require first-time recipients of federal awards of $50,000 or more to submit a one-time report on how they used those funds within 180 days of receipt.
Who benefits
U.S. taxpayers broadly, who would benefit from reduced improper payments and fraud losses. Federal inspectors general and law enforcement agencies, who would gain better data and referral pipelines. Legitimate federal contractors and grant recipients, who may face less competition from fraudulent actors. State and local governments administering federally funded programs, who would gain access to the Do Not Pay system. Congressional oversight committees, who would receive new quarterly and annual performance reports. Small businesses and nonprofits that lose contracts or grants to fraudulent competitors.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies, which would face new administrative compliance burdens and implementation costs. First-time federal grant and contract recipients — including small nonprofits, small businesses, tribal governments, and new state program administrators — who would face new reporting requirements within 180 days. Individuals whose records contain errors in federal databases, who could have payments delayed or blocked based on inaccurate data matches. Privacy advocates concerned about expanded cross-agency data sharing. Agency staff who must implement new pre-certification workflows, potentially slowing payment processing timelines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government loses an estimated $175–$521 billion annually to improper payments, according to the Government Accountability Office, and that the existing Do Not Pay system lacks the mandatory pre-payment verification steps needed to catch fraud before money leaves the Treasury. They contend that codifying pre-certification requirements, expanding data-matching authority, and requiring first-use reporting closes well-documented gaps — particularly those exposed during COVID-era relief programs — and that the bill's built-in exemption process and due-process protections prevent the system from being weaponized against legitimate recipients.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding cross-agency data matching at this scale creates serious privacy risks, as errors in federal databases could wrongly block payments to eligible recipients — including Social Security beneficiaries, veterans, and disaster relief applicants — with limited recourse. They contend that the bill's streamlined computer matching agreement process reduces the Privacy Act's Data Integrity Board oversight that was specifically designed to catch systemic errors before they harm individuals, and that the 180-day first-use reporting deadline imposes disproportionate administrative burdens on small nonprofits and first-time grantees that lack dedicated compliance staff.
Constitutional context
The bill delegates significant rulemaking authority to the Treasury Secretary and OMB Director to define pre-certification requirements and expand the Do Not Pay data assets. Under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will independently assess whether those delegated rules stay within the statutory boundaries Congress set, rather than deferring to agency interpretations. The bill's cross-agency data sharing provisions also implicate the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18), which gives Congress broad authority to structure how federal funds are disbursed and verified.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch — specifically Treasury and OMB — gains expanded authority to set payment verification rules and manage a government-wide data-matching system; checks include mandatory public notice-and-comment periods before adding data assets, quarterly congressional reporting requirements, annual independent evaluations, Privacy Act compliance obligations, and criminal penalties for unlawful data disclosure.
Historical precedent
The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 previously established the Do Not Pay initiative and required agencies to review federal databases before making payments; this bill would expand and codify those requirements into a more formal statutory framework.