H.R. 8428House bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateGovernment Operations and Politics

Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act

Sponsored byGlenn GrothmanR-WI-6Introduced Apr 22, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 9, 2026) Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Apr 22, 2026

This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury to establish and maintain a mandatory antifraud and improper payment prevention training program for federal employees whose roles involve federal financial assistance or oversight of federal programs. The program must also be made available to state, local, and tribal governments to train relevant personnel.

Under the bill, federal agencies must ensure that all federal employees in roles involving oversight of federal programs or federal financial assistance complete the training every two years. (Such positions include program administrator or officer, financial administrator or manager, disbursement certifying official, auditing official, and grants manager.) The Office of Personnel Management shall certify and maintain records of completion.

Treasury must also provide the program and related technical assistance to state, local, and tribal governments for training employees who are responsible for the administration of federally funded programs. Federal agencies may make completion of the program a condition of a federal grant or award.

The program curriculum must include comprehensive instruction on specified topics, including (1) identifying fraud and improper payment risks in federal programs; (2) using government-wide antifraud data sharing and other payee validation programs; and (3) reporting mechanisms for suspected fraud, waste, and abuse.

No later than two years after the date of the bill's enactment, Treasury and OMB must provide Congress with a report on program implementation.

Finally, Treasury may prescribe any regulations necessary to implement and administer the training program.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On , as Amendeddecisive vote

    House · Jun 8, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    3930

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

13 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay24d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
14
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea18d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
8
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea23d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
9
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay24d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
10
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Yea17d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
9
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea20d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
-1
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay22d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
8
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Nay29d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
8
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Yea25d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
-1
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay22d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
10
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Nay25d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
6
avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea18d ago
Has this been introduced in a previous Congress? Feels familiar, and if it died before, I'd like to know why.
-1
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Nay24d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
Your position on H.R. 842841% Yea · 27 VoteWire users