HB1771 would amend title 31 to add a new budget-data item that requires information on improper payments. Specifically, it adds a new item to the President’s budget submission, covering improper payment amounts and rates for programs and activities at each executive agency subject to improper payment reporting.
The bill also requires a narrative explaining why improper payments occurred, three-year trend data for each program, and disclosure of incomplete corrective actions and planned steps under the corrective action framework in section 3352(d). This is intended to tighten visibility into where improper payments come from and how agencies plan to fix them, within the annual budget process.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new budget-submission item (40) to Section 1105(a) requiring improper payment information for programs and activities that file improper-payment reports. The data must include a narrative on causes, three-year trends (increase, decrease, or no change), and incomplete corrective actions with planned steps under 3352(d).
Who It Affects
Executive agencies subject to subchapter IV of chapter 33, their CFOs and budget teams, and the OMB budget process staff. Congress’s budget committees will access this integrated data for oversight.
Why It Matters
Bridges budget deliberations and program integrity analytics, enabling targeted remediation and oversight by tying improper payments to the annual budget deliberations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends federal budgeting rules to require a new, explicit set of improper payment data in the President’s budget submission. For each executive agency that reports improper payments under subchapter IV of chapter 33, the submission must include: a narrative explaining why improper payments occurred, and three years of trend data showing whether the amounts and rates are rising, falling, or staying the same.
It also requires disclosure of any corrective actions that are incomplete and the steps the agency will take to address those issues, including actions already in any corrective action plan under section 3352(d). The aim is to provide a clear, annual snapshot of where improper payments are most problematic and how agencies intend to fix them, directly within the budget document used for executive-branch financial planning and oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new budget data item (40) in the President’s budget to report improper payments.
For each program with improper payments, the budget submission must include a narrative explaining causes and three-year trend data (increases, decreases, or no change).
The submission must identify incomplete corrective actions and outline steps to address improper payment issues, including actions in corrective action plans under section 3352(d).
The requirement applies to executive agencies that file improper payment reports under subchapter IV of chapter 33.
The data must use the definition of 'improper payment' as defined in section 3351 of title 31 to ensure consistency.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act’s short title as the Improper Payments Transparency Act. It establishes the legislative label that will appear in citations and references for all provisions within the bill.
Budget-submission amendment to include improper payment information
Section 2 amends Section 1105(a) of title 31 to add a new budget-information item (40) requiring information on improper payments for programs and activities that submit improper payment reports under subchapter IV of chapter 33. The data must include a narrative explanation for occurrences, three-year trend data (increases, decreases, or no change), and details on incomplete corrective actions and planned steps under section 3352(d).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Agency Chief Financial Officers and budget offices gain a standardized, higher-visibility data set for planning and remediation efforts within the budget process.
- Inspector General offices benefit from consolidated narratives and trend data that support audits and oversight.
- Congressional Budget Committees obtain integrated improper payment data to inform oversight, hearings, and policy decisions.
- Program managers responsible for high improper payment risk can prioritize remediation with clearer data and timelines.
- OMB and the broader Executive Budget Process benefit from standardized reporting that aligns budget decisions with program integrity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agency budget offices bear the upfront cost of compiling narratives, trends, and corrective-action status for each relevant program.
- Program managers face administrative overhead to document and validate required data and action plans.
- Agencies may need IT and data-management investments to support consistent measurement and reporting of improper payments.
- Inspector General offices and GAO may experience increased workload from enhanced reporting and data validation.
- OMB may incur additional administrative load to review and harmonize the added information within the budget cycle.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the desire for transparent, actionable data on improper payments with the administrative burden of producing consistent, reliable narratives and trend analyses within the budget cycle.
The bill creates a direct link between budget submissions and program integrity reporting, but it raises practical questions about data standardization, measurement, and timing. Agencies must produce narratives and three-year trend analyses for each program, and the quality of those narratives will depend on consistent data collection across programs.
The requirement could shift resources toward reporting in the near term, even as agencies work to implement longer-term corrective actions. There is potential tension between providing timely budget data and ensuring that the data accurately reflect complex program dynamics and corrective-action progress.
Finally, the bill relies on existing definitions of improper payments and existing corrective-action authorities, but it does not specify new enforcement or penalty mechanisms for non-compliance beyond the budget data requirement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.