Technical corrections only. The text of H.R. 6916 in v3 is identical to v2, with the only changes reflecting the bill's procedural status as having passed the House and been referred to the Senate. No substantive policy changes were made between these versions.
Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent individuals and associated entities convicted of federal fraud or related felonies involving federal funds from receiving new federal contracts or financial assistance for three years, with a waiver option and enhanced information sharing.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal agencies from entering into, renewing, or extending contracts, or providing grants or other financial assistance, to individuals convicted of certain federal felonies related to federal funds. The prohibition also applies to entities where such an individual is a beneficial owner, for a three-year period following the conviction. It establishes a waiver process for agency heads, requires congressional notification of waivers, and mandates updates to the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions list.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances government integrity and protects taxpayer dollars by preventing individuals who have defrauded the government from receiving future federal funds. It creates a clear deterrent against misuse of federal resources and streamlines the process for excluding bad actors, thereby ensuring accountability and public trust in federal programs and spending.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the three-year prohibition, even with a waiver, could be overly broad, potentially impacting individuals who have served their time and are seeking rehabilitation, or entities whose primary operations are legitimate despite a beneficial owner's past conviction. Concerns could also be raised about the discretion of the waiver authority and the potential for inconsistent application across agencies.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(a)
Prohibition on Federal Contracts and Financial Assistance
This provision prohibits federal agencies from awarding new contracts, renewing existing ones, or providing grants or other financial assistance to individuals convicted of specific federal felonies related to federal funds. The prohibition also extends to entities where such an individual is a 'beneficial owner.' This restriction applies for a three-year period following the conviction date and only to convictions occurring after the bill's enactment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safeguarding taxpayer money and ensuring that individuals and organizations with a history of defrauding the government are temporarily excluded from receiving new federal funds. It acts as a strong deterrent against fraud and promotes integrity in federal spending.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that a blanket three-year prohibition could be overly punitive, especially for entities where the convicted individual's role might be minor or where the entity itself has reformed. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for unintended economic impacts on legitimate businesses due to a single individual's past actions.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for accountability and fraud prevention with potential impacts on rehabilitation and the operations of entities that may otherwise be legitimate.
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(b)
Agency Head Waiver Authority
This provision grants federal agency heads the authority to waive the three-year prohibition on a case-by-case basis if they determine such a waiver is 'justifiable.' Immediately after making a waiver determination, the agency head must provide written notification to Congress, including the justification for the waiver.
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(c)
Notification and Exclusion List Updates
This provision mandates that the Attorney General notify the Administrator of General Services (GSA) in a timely manner about individuals convicted of covered felonies. Upon receiving this notification, the GSA Administrator is required to promptly update the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions list to include these individuals, making their prohibited status publicly accessible to all federal agencies.
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(d) and (e)
Implementation Guidance and Federal Acquisition Regulation Updates
This provision directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance for the implementation and compliance with the new requirements within one year of enactment. Additionally, it mandates that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) be revised as necessary to implement the provisions of this section.
Defines 'beneficial owner' as an individual who directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over an entity or owns/controls not less than 25 percent of its ownership interests. It also lists specific exclusions, such as minor children (if parent/guardian info is reported), nominees, employees whose control is solely employment-derived, individuals with only inheritance rights, or creditors (unless they meet the substantial control/25% ownership criteria).
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(g)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end of a section. However, this definition is crucial for determining the scope of the prohibition beyond the directly convicted individual, making it highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue this detailed definition is essential to prevent convicted individuals from circumventing the prohibition by operating through shell entities or by holding significant, but not direct, control. It ensures the spirit of the law is upheld.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition, particularly the 'substantial control' clause, could be open to interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent application or challenges in identifying all beneficial owners, especially in complex corporate structures. The 25% ownership threshold could also be seen as arbitrary.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of the prohibition beyond direct recipients to include entities controlled or substantially owned by convicted individuals, impacting a wider range of businesses.
Specifies a list of federal felony statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 666, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1956, 1957, and 15 U.S.C. 645) that trigger the prohibition. These generally relate to fraud, false claims, theft, bribery, money laundering, and conspiracy involving federal funds.
Section 2(a), amending 31 U.S.C. 3337(g)(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to reference existing statutes rather than re-writing them. However, the specific scope of the bill's impact hinges entirely on this list, which is not immediately obvious to a lay reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing specific statutes ensures legal precision and targets felonies directly related to the misuse or theft of federal funds, aligning the prohibition with the bill's intent to prevent fraud.
Case against: Critics might argue that without a clear, plain-language summary of these felonies within the bill, the public and even some agency personnel might not fully grasp the scope of the prohibition. There could also be debate over whether the list is comprehensive enough or if it includes offenses that are too broad for the bill's stated purpose.
Estimated impact: Defines the precise scope of criminal conduct that triggers the three-year federal funding ban, directly affecting individuals convicted of these specific offenses.