What This Bill Does
H.R. 8107 would require the Comptroller General, through the Government Accountability Office, to produce an assessment within 2 years identifying the program areas and administrative practices that pose the greatest risk to the integrity of federal funds administered by state and local governments and pass-through entities. The report would focus on vulnerabilities tied to waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments, and it would also point to best practices, federal tools, and recommendations for Congress and agencies. The bill does not create a new grant program or set aside money; instead, it creates a recurring oversight requirement aimed at state- and local-administered federal programs. It applies broadly to federal funds administered under programs subject to audit under chapter 75 of title 31, U.S. Code.
- GAO must submit an assessment within 2 years of enactment and periodically afterward.
- The report must identify high-risk program areas and administrative practices at the federal, state, and local levels.
- The bill specifically targets risks tied to waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments.
- GAO must assess best practices that have reduced risk and practices that have not been effective.
- The assessment must include recommendations to improve eligibility determination and enrollment processes.
Who This Bill Affects
For most people, this bill would not directly change eligibility for any benefit or program, but it could indirectly affect how state and local agencies administer federally funded programs they already run. If you receive benefits or services through a state-administered federal program, the main effect would be the possibility of tighter eligibility checks, improved enrollment systems, and more attention to preventing improper payments and fraud.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Taxpayers and budget watchdogs They are likely to support the bill because it directs GAO to identify where federal dollars are most vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments. A focused assessment could help Congress and agencies target oversight where it is most needed and improve stewardship of public funds.
- State and local administrators seeking clearer guidance Administrators may support the bill if it leads to better federal tools, technical assistance, and evidence-based best practices. A consolidated GAO review could help them learn which controls and enrollment procedures actually work and which ones add burden without improving integrity.
- Members of Congress focused on program integrity Supporters in Congress may see the bill as a practical way to gather cross-program evidence and identify systemic vulnerabilities. The requirement to include recommendations for agencies and Congress gives lawmakers a roadmap for future oversight or legislative fixes.
- State and local agencies with limited staff They may worry that the bill will increase scrutiny and create more reporting or compliance pressure without providing new funding. Even though the bill relies on existing materials, the resulting recommendations could push agencies toward more complex eligibility and enrollment procedures.
- Program advocates for low-income beneficiaries They may be concerned that a stronger emphasis on improper payments could lead agencies to tighten verification and enrollment rules in ways that make it harder for eligible people to get benefits. The bill does not add beneficiary protections, so the practical effect could be more administrative friction for applicants.
- Officials concerned about duplicative oversight Some may argue that GAO, inspectors general, auditors, and state oversight bodies already review these issues, so another mandated assessment could duplicate existing work. They may question whether the bill adds enough new authority to justify the additional federal reporting requirement.
Key Implications
-
““submit to Congress an assessment ... not later than 2 years after the date of enactment””
GAO would have a deadline to deliver the first report within two years, so Congress would get a structured review on a set schedule rather than waiting for ad hoc oversight findings.
-
““program areas and administrative practices ... present the greatest risk””
The bill is aimed at identifying the most vulnerable parts of state- and local-administered federal programs, which could steer future oversight and reforms toward the highest-risk areas.
-
““more susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments””
This language shows the bill is focused on program integrity. In practice, that can mean more attention to verification, documentation, and controls in programs that move large amounts of federal money through states and localities.
-
““recommendations ... including recommendations to improve eligibility determination and enrollment processes””
This could lead to changes in how people apply for or qualify for benefits in federally funded programs, especially where eligibility mistakes or enrollment errors have been a problem.
-
““rely, to the extent practicable, on existing oversight, audit, and investigative materials””
The bill tries to build on current audit work rather than start from scratch, which may limit cost and duplication but also means the assessment will depend heavily on what existing records already show.
Latest Status
June 9, 2026
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.