Overview
Title
To amend title 31, United States Code, to include information on improper payments under Federal programs, to change the treatment of certain Federal programs with respect to susceptibility to significant improper payments, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure the government keeps track of when they accidentally spend money wrong, like giving too much or too little. It asks for better reports so everyone knows where the mistakes are and how they plan to fix them.
Summary AI
The bill H. R. 8343, titled the “Enhancing Improper Payment Accountability Act,” seeks to amend title 31 of the United States Code. It aims to improve transparency and accountability by requiring information on improper payments in federal programs to be included in the President's budget submission. The bill also mandates that federal agencies identify new programs with significant financial risks related to improper payments and report on their anti-fraud efforts, implementation of financial controls, and strategies to manage fraud risks.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
To amend title 31 of the United States Code, the House the has proposed H. R. 8343, also known as the "Enhancing Improper Payment Accountability Act." This bill aims to introduce tighter controls and accountability regarding improper payments across federal programs. It proposes amendments that would require more comprehensive reporting on improper payments and aim to improve fraud detection and prevention within federal agencies.
General Summary of the Bill
The bill seeks to include more detailed information on improper payments in the President's annual budget submission. This involves highlighting any federal programs missing reports on improper payments and explaining why these reports were not submitted. It also requires federal agencies to identify new programs or activities that may be highly susceptible to improper payments, particularly those with significant outlays during their first few years. Furthermore, the bill mandates each federal agency to submit an annual report on anti-fraud efforts, detailing their progress on implementing necessary controls, identifying potential fraud risks, and establishing strategies to prevent fraud.
Significant Issues
One of the key issues identified in the bill is the increased administrative burden on federal agencies. Section 2, for instance, enhances reporting requirements without outlining consequences for non-compliance or providing resources to support these new obligations. This can strain agencies' capabilities to effectively fulfill their responsibilities.
Additionally, Section 3 poses a challenge due to its vague criteria for identifying programs expected to have significant outlays. The lack of specificity could lead to inconsistencies in reporting, with some agencies either over or under-reporting their outlays. Moreover, the language in this section, including complex references to other paragraphs, may lead to misinterpretation, creating challenges in implementation.
There is also concern with the bill's short title, which some may find too vague to clearly signal the bill’s content or objectives. This could lead to misunderstandings among stakeholders about the bill's focus.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact:
For the general public, the successful implementation of this bill could enhance transparency and accountability in federal spending. By ensuring a more robust mechanism for detecting and reporting improper payments, taxpayers might see more efficient use of federal funds, potentially leading to better public services.
Impact on Federal Agencies:
On the flip side, federal agencies might face significant challenges due to the increased administrative workload. The lack of specified consequences for non-compliance and potential resource shortages could hinder their ability to meet new requirements, affecting their overall effectiveness and efficiency.
Impact on Policymakers and Legislators:
For lawmakers, this bill could serve as a means to reinforce oversight and accountability within federal programs. However, it also presents the risk of highlighting legislative goals without adequately supporting agencies in achieving them, leading to criticism about practicality and feasibility.
In conclusion, while H. R. 8343 has noble ambitions of improving financial accountability through stricter controls on improper payments and fraud, its success depends heavily on clear guidelines, adequate resources, and practical implementation strategies. Without addressing these key areas, the legislation may encounter obstacles that could limit its effectiveness and positive impact.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled the “Enhancing Improper Payment Accountability Act” outlines new financial oversight responsibilities related to improper payments within federal programs. A key component of the bill is the inclusion of improper payment information in the President's budget, which is intended to highlight Federal programs and activities where improper payments are a concern.
Financial References
Significant Improper Payments in New Programs
One of the bill's core financial references pertains to identifying new programs or activities susceptible to significant improper payments. Specifically, the bill defines these as programs or activities with outlays expected to exceed $100,000,000 in any of the first three fiscal years of operation. This is a critical area because it earmarks large-scale financial undertakings that are at risk of improper payment issues, necessitating close scrutiny and management.
Relation to Identified Issues
Administrative Burden and Clarity: The requirement to identify new programs expected to exceed $100,000,000 in outlays further emphasizes the increased administrative responsibilities. However, the bill does not clearly define the specific criteria for assessing these financial risks, potentially leading to inconsistencies or manipulation in reporting. The absence of specific guidance on what constitutes detailed justifications or explanations might result in varied interpretations, impacting the bill's goal of promoting transparency.
Vague Criteria: The financial threshold set at $100,000,000 is a significant sum that should capture appropriate attention. Nevertheless, while the bill specifies financial thresholds, it leaves ambiguities in the process of monitoring and reporting, which might promote inefficiencies or wasteful spending. These issues may impair the intentions behind identifying programs most susceptible to financial mismanagement.
Additional Considerations
The financial implications outlined in the bill focus on reporting existing and potential improprieties in Federal spending exceeding $100,000,000. Although these measures are essential for oversight, the absence of clear consequences for non-compliance or failure to report improper payments correctly can dilute the effectiveness of these financial thresholds. Consequently, while the bill attempts to establish a more rigid control framework over immense public expenditures, it may fall short in its actual implementation due to these gaps and unclear directives.
Overall, careful attention must be paid to the financial stipulations outlined in this legislative piece to ensure they genuinely enhance accountability and mitigate risks associated with improper payments in federal spending.
Issues
The bill increases administrative responsibilities for agencies by mandating more detailed improper payment reports in the President's budget submission (Section 2) without specifying consequences for non-compliance or providing necessary resources, potentially straining agency capabilities and affecting accountability.
The criteria to identify new programs or activities expected to have outlays exceeding $100,000,000 during the first three fiscal years are vague (Section 3), which might lead to inconsistencies or manipulation in reporting, potentially promoting wasteful spending.
The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a 'detailed explanation' for improper payment report submissions (Section 2) may allow substantial flexibility that could undermine the bill’s objective to ensure transparency and accountability.
Section 3 uses complex and potentially confusing language relating to the identification process for new programs, such as the phrase 'notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B)', which could lead to misinterpretation and implementation challenges.
The short title of the bill in Section 1, 'Enhancing Improper Payment Accountability Act', is vague and does not provide clarity or insight into the specific reforms or changes proposed within the bill, potentially misleading stakeholders about its focus.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act indicates that this law can be referred to as the “Enhancing Improper Payment Accountability Act.”
2. Including improper payment information in Presidents budget submission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the law to require that the President's budget include information about Federal programs with missing reports on improper payments. It also asks for explanations on why these reports were not submitted and any difficulties agencies face in preparing them.
3. Identification of new programs and activities susceptible to significant improper payments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 3352 of title 31, United States Code, requires the head of each executive agency to identify new programs or activities that have or are expected to cost more than $100 million in their first three years of operation as susceptible to significant improper payments. Additionally, it updates references in the law to include this new requirement.
Money References
- Section 3352 of title 31, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) in paragraph (3)(C)(i), by striking “paragraph (1)” and inserting in its place “paragraphs (1) and (4)”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(4) NEW PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.—In addition to those programs and activities identified under paragraph (a)(1)(B), the head of each executive agency shall annually identify as susceptible to significant improper payments, notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B), any program or activity that— “(A) has or is expected to have outlays exceeding $100,000,000 in any one of its first three fiscal years of operation; and “(B) is in its first four years of operation.”; and (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking “subsection (a)(1)” and inserting in its place “subsection (a)(1) or (a)(4)”. ---
4. Anti-fraud report requirement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the law to require each federal agency to submit an annual report to Congress about their efforts to prevent fraud, detailing their progress in implementing financial controls, identifying areas where fraud could happen, and setting up measures to reduce fraud. Additionally, the report must identify the agency's main fraud management entity and its responsibilities, assess the agency's capacity to handle fraud risks, and update statuses on fraud risk profiles and anti-fraud strategies for all programs, providing reasons if such profiles or strategies are missing.