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 · Apr 22, 2026
Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act
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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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.
People & committees
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6] · R–WI
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 - 0 (Roll no. 209). (text: CR H3934-3935)
House roll call 209 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 393 - 0 (Roll no. 209). (text: CR H3934-3935)
House roll call 209 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3975-3976)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8428.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3934-3936)
Mr. Gill (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 0.
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: Sep 19, 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.8428 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.8428 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.8428 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.8428 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.