What changed between these versions
A substantive amendment. v2 introduces an entirely new section (Section 3) focusing on reforms to annual compliance reports by Inspectors General, directing OMB and CIGIE to revise guidance with a focus on financial loss. It also clarifies and expands reporting requirements for executive agencies regarding improper payments, notably adding a requirement for Federal-State coordination meetings and moving a key estimate review responsibility.
Overview
A significant number of changes are present, including a major new section and numerous modifications to existing provisions. · v2 expands and clarifies the focus on fraud prevention and financial loss to the Government, particularly by introducing new reporting and coordination requirements and refining existing definitions and reporting scopes.
The most significant change in v2 is the addition of a new Section 3, which mandates reforms to the annual compliance reports by Inspectors General, requiring OMB and CIGIE to revise guidance to emphasize improper payments resulting in financial loss. Additionally, v2 introduces a new requirement for annual Federal-State coordination meetings on program and payment integrity and shifts the responsibility for reviewing statistically valid estimates from a new general requirement to a specific reporting element. The bill consistently refines the language to focus on "financial loss to the Government" across various reporting and prevention mandates.
Major additions
This entirely new section mandates reforms to the annual compliance report by Inspectors General of executive agencies. It requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to revise, rather than develop, guidance for these reports. The revised guidance must specifically focus on improper payments that result in financial loss to the Government, update estimation methodologies, and ensure Inspectors General include assessments of agency compliance. It also updates cross-references within the existing statute to reflect other changes in the bill and removes a specific clause from 31 U.S.C. 3353(a)(4)(B).
This addition significantly strengthens the oversight role of Inspectors General by explicitly directing them to prioritize financial loss in their compliance reports and ensuring their guidance is updated to reflect the new focus of the ZOMBIE Act. It formalizes and enhances the framework for fraud prevention and accountability.
This new subparagraph requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury to convene annual meetings with State officials. These meetings are intended to review fraud prevention performance, share best practices, and identify ongoing coordination challenges in programs administered by State or local governments on behalf of the Federal Government.
This addition establishes a formal mechanism for intergovernmental collaboration on fraud prevention, recognizing the critical role of State and local partners in administering Federal programs. It aims to improve program integrity and reduce financial loss by fostering shared learning and addressing systemic challenges.
This new subclause requires that reports from executive agencies include a recommendation to the head of the executive agency on whether the agency's statistically valid estimate of improper payments should be reassessed and reestablished.
This addition ensures that the accuracy and relevance of improper payment estimates are regularly reviewed and updated, promoting more precise measurement and targeting of fraud prevention efforts. It formalizes a feedback loop for improving data integrity.
This instruction adds "that result in financial loss to the Government" after "improper payments" in 31 U.S.C. 3352(d)(4).
This modification consistently applies the bill's core focus on financial loss to the Government to the specific actions and strategies agencies must report on to reduce improper payments.
This instruction adds "that result in financial loss to the Government" after "improper payments" in 31 U.S.C. 3352(d)(5) and makes a minor punctuation change.
Similar to the change in 3352(d)(4), this ensures that the reporting on actions to prevent improper payments in specific circumstances (e.g., high-dollar payments) is explicitly tied to those causing financial loss.
This adds "that result in financial loss to the Government" after "improper payments" or "improper payment" in multiple subparagraphs (A), (C), (D), and (E) of 31 U.S.C. 3352(f)(2).
This ensures that the Inspector General's review of agency compliance with improper payment requirements is consistently focused on those payments that lead to financial loss for the government, aligning with the bill's central objective.
Deletions
v1 included an instruction to insert a new subparagraph (A) into 31 U.S.C. 3352(b)(1). This new subparagraph would have required the Director to review each statistically valid estimate of improper payments and make a recommendation to the head of the executive agency on whether the estimate should be reassessed and reestablished.
The deletion removes a general requirement for the Director to review and recommend reassessment of improper payment estimates. While a similar requirement is reintroduced in v2 as a specific reporting element (see major additions, Section 2(b)(3)(C)(iv)(III)), its removal from this general oversight section streamlines the responsibilities and places the recommendation within the agency's reporting framework rather than as a standalone directive to the Director.
Modifications
This change specifies that the information on financial loss should be included "in the accompanying materials to" the improper payments information, rather than simply "with" it. This provides more precise guidance on reporting format for executive agencies.
Before
v1 instructed to strike "information with" and insert "resulting in financial loss to the Government with".
After
v2 instructs to strike "information with" and insert "resulting in financial loss to the Government in the accompanying materials to".
This ensures that the table of sections in chapter 33 of title 31, United States Code, is updated to reflect the new heading of Section 3352, maintaining consistency across the legal text.
Before
v1 instructed to insert "resulting in financial loss to the Government" and strike "reduce improper payments" inserting "reduce such payments" in the heading.
After
v2 includes the same changes but adds "(and by conforming the item relating to such section in the table of sections in chapter 33)" to both instructions.
Executive agencies now have the option to combine the triennial report on risk assessments with other required reports for high-priority Federal programs, potentially reducing administrative burden while maintaining reporting frequency.
Before
v1 instructed to strike "Each executive agency shall publish an annual report" and insert "Not less than once every 3 years, the head of each executive agency shall publish a report".
After
v2 includes the same change but adds ", which may be included in a report required under subsection (b)(2)(F) by such head with respect to a high-priority Federal program or activity," after "publish a report".
This change alters the organizational structure of 31 U.S.C. 3352(b)(1) by not creating a new initial subparagraph (A) as v1 proposed. The specific requirement for the Director to review estimates, which was v1's new (A), is instead moved to a reporting requirement in 31 U.S.C. 3352(b)(2)(E)(i)(III) in v2.
Before
v1 first redesignated subparagraphs (A) and (B) as (B) and (C), then inserted a new (A), and then modified the new (B) and (C).
After
v2 directly modifies the existing subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 31 U.S.C. 3352(b)(1) without redesignating them or inserting a new (A). The substance of the modifications to (A) (inserting "and activities" and "that result in financial loss") and (B) (inserting "and financial loss associated") is consistent with v1's intent for those specific clauses.
Executive agencies are now required to provide a much more detailed and analytical report on the effectiveness of their actions to reduce improper payments resulting in financial loss, including a direct comparison of actions to the magnitude of the problem and specific timelines. This increases accountability and transparency regarding fraud prevention efforts.
Before
v1 only changed the punctuation of 31 U.S.C. 3352(d)(6) from a period to "; and".
After
v2 completely rewrites 31 U.S.C. 3352(d)(6) to require "a description of how the level of planned or completed actions by the executive agency to address the causes of the improper payments that result in financial loss to the Government matched the level of improper payments that resulted in financial loss to the Government, including a breakdown by category of such improper payments and specific timelines for completion of those actions; and".
This modification broadens the scope of payment integrity controls that the Secretary of the Treasury must identify and publish information on, ensuring that post-payment controls are also considered alongside pre-award and pre-payment measures. This provides a more comprehensive approach to payment integrity.
Before
v1 instructed to strike "prepayment and postpayment" and insert "pre-award and pre-payment".
After
v2 instructs to strike "prepayment and postpayment" and insert "pre-award, pre-payment, and post-payment".
Scope
Meaningful expansion or narrowing — Changes are scattered throughout Section 2, which amends the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, and include a significant new Section 3. — v2 represents a meaningful refinement and expansion of the policy direction, intensifying the focus on fraud prevention and financial loss to the Government, particularly through enhanced reporting, guidance, and intergovernmental coordination. — The changes interact significantly with existing provisions by consistently applying the "financial loss to the Government" definition across various reporting and oversight requirements. The new Section 3 directly amends an existing section of title 31, United States Code, and the re-positioning of the estimate review requirement affects how agencies approach their compliance.
Impact analysis
Executive agencies
Procedural change and increased accountability.
Agencies are now explicitly required to focus their improper payment reporting and prevention efforts on those payments that result in financial loss to the Government. They must also provide more detailed analytical reports on the effectiveness of their fraud prevention actions.
Inspectors General of executive agencies
Increased responsibility and clarified focus.
Their guidance for annual compliance reports must be revised to specifically emphasize improper payments resulting in financial loss, and they are tasked with assessing agency compliance with these new standards.
State and local government officials administering Federal programs
Increased collaboration and information sharing.
They will now be required to participate in annual Federal-State coordination meetings with OMB and Treasury officials to discuss fraud prevention performance, share best practices, and address challenges.
Federal programs with improper payment estimates
Procedural clarification and enhanced data integrity.
The requirement for reviewing and potentially reassessing statistically valid estimates of improper payments is now explicitly placed within the agency's reporting framework (31 U.S.C. 3352(b)(2)(E)(i)(III)), rather than as a general directive to the Director.
Secretary of the Treasury
Expanded scope of responsibility.
The Secretary is now required to identify and publish information on payment integrity controls that include "post-payment" measures, in addition to pre-award and pre-payment.