Delivering On Government Efficiency in Spending Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary), Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee
- Last action
- Dec 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance federal government efficiency and combat improper payments by increasing transparency in federal spending and significantly expanding data-sharing capabilities for fraud detection.
What it actually does
The "Delivering On Government Efficiency in Spending Act" mandates detailed reporting and verification of federal payment information by agencies using Treasury disbursement systems. It requires public disclosure of this data, with an exemption for sensitive operations. Furthermore, the bill significantly expands the Treasury Department's access to various databases, including the National Directory of New Hires, consumer reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, select tax information from the IRS, and Social Security information, all for the explicit purpose of identifying, preventing, and recovering improper payments, particularly those involving fraud.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is a critical step towards greater accountability and transparency in federal spending, ensuring taxpayer dollars are used effectively and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. They emphasize that enhanced data sharing and verification will significantly improve the government's ability to prevent improper payments before they occur and recover those that do, ultimately saving taxpayer money.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the expanded access to sensitive personal and financial data across multiple federal agencies, citing potential privacy risks and the aggregation of vast amounts of citizen information. They may also question the effectiveness of such broad data sharing versus the administrative burden and potential for data breaches or erroneous denials of legitimate payments.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical amendments to existing statutes, but its core objectives are clear, making it accessible to a diligent reader within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), adding new 31 U.S.C. 3337(b)
Mandatory Reporting of Payment Information
This provision requires the head of any federal agency authorizing a payment through a Treasury disbursement system to provide the Secretary of the Treasury with a brief description of the payment's purpose, the appropriations account it's drawn from, and the type of activity. This information is then included in the Treasury disbursement system to enhance transparency and tracking.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is fundamental to improving transparency and accountability, allowing for better oversight of how federal funds are spent and enabling more effective fraud detection.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this adds an administrative burden to agencies, potentially slowing down payment processes without a proportional benefit, especially for routine or small payments.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for greater transparency and oversight against potential increases in administrative overhead for federal agencies.
Section 2(a), adding new 31 U.S.C. 3337(c)
Periodic Verification of Payment Data
At least once per fiscal year, certifying officials within federal agencies must evaluate whether the payment information collected under the new reporting requirements is accurate and complete. They must provide written confirmation to the disbursing official attesting to this accuracy. Additionally, disbursing and certifying officials are required to consult to improve the management of the Treasury disbursement system.
Section 2(a), adding new 31 U.S.C. 3337(d)
Public Disclosure of Federal Payment Data
Within 30 days of a payment being certified, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must direct the Secretary of the Treasury (or the head of the relevant agency) to make the collected payment data publicly available. This data will be published on the public website operated under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (USAspending.gov).
Section 2(a), adding new 31 U.S.C. 3337(e) and (f)
Exemption for Sensitive Operations and Reporting
Payments related to "sensitive operations" are exempt from the mandatory reporting, verification, and public disclosure requirements. Sensitive operations are defined as those related to domestic law enforcement or national security where disclosure would cause death or serious injury, is prohibited by law, is classified, or is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Agencies must still report aggregated information on these exempted payments in a controlled unclassified or classified annex of their budget justification materials.
Section 3(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 653(j)
Treasury Access to National Directory of New Hires
This provision grants the Secretary of the Treasury access to information in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) for the purpose of identifying, preventing, and recovering improper payments. It also allows the Treasury Secretary to redisclose this information to agents, contractors, and other authorized federal and non-federal agencies for the same purpose, with agreement from the Secretary of HHS for additional entities.
Section 3(b), amending 31 U.S.C. 3325
Enhanced Bank Account Verification for Payments
Before certifying a voucher for payment, agency heads or officers must take necessary actions to accurately disburse payments. This includes verifying the accuracy of the bank account information to which a payment is to be disbursed and comparing that information to other payment records available to the agency. The Secretary of the Treasury may issue guidance to carry out this subsection.
Section 3(c), amending 15 U.S.C. 1681a(k)(1) and 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)
Treasury Access to Consumer Reports for Improper Payment Prevention
This provision amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to access consumer reports for identifying, preventing, and recovering improper payments. It also clarifies that certain actions based on consumer reports, such as changes to federal disbursements or actions by the Do Not Pay Initiative, are not considered "adverse actions" under FCRA if made to improve disbursement accuracy.
Section 3(d), amending 26 U.S.C. 6103(i)
IRS Disclosure of Tax Information to Do Not Pay System
This provision amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow the Commissioner of the IRS to provide the Secretary of the Treasury with specific return information (e.g., Taxpayer Identification Number, filing status, Adjusted Gross Income, Schedule C income, bank account and routing information, identity theft flags, filing history) for a specified number of taxable years (at least 3). This data is for enhancing the Do Not Pay working system to identify, prevent, and recover improper payments, and is to be provided in a "privacy-preserving" manner, with redisclosure authorized to other Do Not Pay system users.
Section 3(e), adding new 42 U.S.C. 235
SSA Disclosure of Information to Do Not Pay System
This provision requires the Commissioner of Social Security to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Treasury to regularly provide personally identifiable information (at a minimum, name, date of birth, and Social Security number) for purposes of enhancing the Do Not Pay working system. This data will be used to identify, prevent, and recover improper payments, including fraudulent payments.
Allows the Secretary of the Treasury to redisclose information from the National Directory of New Hires to agents, contractors, other authorized federal and non-federal agencies, and additional persons/entities agreed upon by the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS, for the purpose of identifying, preventing, and recovering improper payments.
Section 3(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(12)(B)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to define data sharing permissions within the relevant statutory framework, the breadth of redisclosure authority to potentially unspecified 'additional persons and entities' could be easily overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that broad redisclosure is necessary to enable effective cross-agency collaboration and leverage the NDNH data across various federal and state programs to combat improper payments comprehensively.
Case against: Opponents contend that expanding redisclosure authority increases the attack surface for data breaches and makes it harder for individuals to track who has access to their sensitive employment information, raising significant privacy concerns.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts all individuals whose employment data is in the NDNH, as their information could be shared with a wider array of government and private entities.
Defines "sensitive operations" as those related to domestic law enforcement or national security where disclosure would lead to death/injury, is prohibited by law, is classified, or is exempt under FOIA. Payments for such operations are exempt from mandatory reporting, verification, and public disclosure requirements.
Section 2(a), adding new 31 U.S.C. 3337(a)(4) and 3337(e)
Why it matters:It is standard practice to define terms and then apply them, but the broadness of the definition of "sensitive operations" and its implications for transparency could be missed by a reader focusing on the general reporting mandates.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a necessary safeguard to protect critical national security and law enforcement activities from being compromised by public disclosure, ensuring operational effectiveness and safety.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition is broad enough to allow agencies to shield a wide range of spending from public scrutiny, potentially undermining the bill's overall transparency goals and creating opportunities for misuse of funds under the guise of national security.
Estimated impact: Affects the transparency of an unknown but potentially significant portion of federal spending related to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement.
Requires the Commissioner of the IRS to provide specific return information to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Do Not Pay system "in a manner which preserves the confidentiality of such information."
Section 3(d)(1), amending 26 U.S.C. 6103(i)(9)(A)
Why it matters:The specific mechanism for privacy preservation is left to future implementation or regulation, which is common in legislation but can obscure the actual level of protection intended or achieved.
Case for: Proponents argue this language signals a commitment to protecting taxpayer privacy while still enabling essential data sharing for fraud prevention, implying that technical solutions will be developed to achieve this balance.
Case against: Opponents would argue that without specific statutory requirements or definitions, "privacy-preserving" is an empty promise, leaving the door open for less robust protections than implied, especially given the broad scope of data being shared.
Estimated impact: The actual impact on taxpayer privacy hinges entirely on the as-yet-undefined implementation of "privacy-preserving" measures for sensitive tax data.