PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 19, 2025
Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025
This bill prohibits federal agencies, including the military, from awarding contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other types of financial assistance for three years to individuals who are convicted of specified fraud-related felonies related to the use of federal financial assistance.
Specifically, the bill requires individuals who are convicted of specified felonies arising out of agency contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other financial assistance to be included on the exclusion list for the government’s e-procurement and data and award management system (i.e., the System for Award Management). Federal agencies, including the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, may not award any form of financial assistance to these individuals for three years. The prohibition generally applies to fraud-related felonies, such as aggravated identity theft, mail or computer fraud, and embezzlement of funds.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) must notify the General Services Administration (GSA) in a timely manner when individuals are convicted of such felonies so that GSA may add these individuals to the exclusion list.
Agencies may exempt individuals from the prohibition but must notify Congress of any such exemptions.
DOJ must issue guidance on the bill's implementation.
People & committees
Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3923-3924)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3923-3924)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6916.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3923-3925)
Mr. Gill (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 38 - 2.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Aug 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.6916 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.6916 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.6916 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.6916 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.