U.S. Wealth WatcherCelebrating Political Fortunes
HR 8464 · 119th CongressIntroducedVoted Jun 10, 2026

Pausing suspicious government payments

Sponsored by James Comer

The vote
218-200
+18 margin
Worked the bill
In the distance
Summary

What the bill does

This bill gives federal agencies new power to temporarily stop or split up a payment if they suspect fraud. It sets rules for when and how agencies can pause payments, requires them to tell the payee why, and limits the pause to 30 days unless the payee challenges it, in which case the agency must decide within 7 days.

Why it matters

The stakes

People and businesses that get money from the federal government could see their payments delayed if an agency flags a possible fraud risk. The bill aims to cut down on improper payments, but critics worry it might slow down legitimate payments.

The vote

How the chamber split

218 yea · 200 nayPassed · 13 not voting
218 yes
200 no
Voted yes218
Rep 211Dem 6
Voted no200
Rep 0Dem 200
See how each member voted· all 418
Voted yes · 218
Aaron BeanR · FL
Andy BarrR · KY
Andy BiggsR · AZ
Ann WagnerR · MO
Ben ClineR · VA
Brad KnottR · NC
Brian JackR · GA
Chip RoyR · TX
Cory MillsR · FL
Don BaconR · NE
Gabe EvansR · CO
Jeff CrankR · CO
Jeff HurdR · CO
Jim JordanR · OH
Joe WilsonR · SC
John JamesR · MI
John JoyceR · PA
Keith SelfR · TX
Kevin HernR · OK
Mike BostR · IL
Mike CareyR · OH
Mike EzellR · MS
Mike FloodR · NE
Mike KellyR · PA
Pat FallonR · TX
Randy FineR · FL
Ron EstesR · KS
Sam GravesR · MO
Tim MooreR · NC
Tom ColeR · OK
Tom EmmerR · MN
Tony WiedR · WI
Vince FongR · CA
Young KimR · CA
Voted no · 200
Adam GrayD · CA
Adam SmithD · WA
Al GreenD · TX
Ami BeraD · CA
Dave MinD · CA
Derek TranD · CA
Dina TitusD · NV
Ed CaseD · HI
Gabe AmoD · RI
Glenn IveyD · MD
Grace MengD · NY
Greg CasarD · TX
Gwen MooreD · WI
Ilhan OmarD · MN
Jason CrowD · CO
Jim CostaD · CA
Joe NeguseD · CO
Josh RileyD · NY
Judy ChuD · CA
Mark PocanD · WI
Mike LevinD · CA
Nellie PouD · NJ
Paul TonkoD · NY
Raul RuizD · CA
Ro KhannaD · CA
Susie LeeD · NV
Ted LieuD · CA
The debate

What each side says

Supporters
  • It gives agencies a clear legal way to stop suspicious payments before the money goes out, which could save taxpayer dollars.bill
  • The bill requires agencies to act quickly and tell payees why their payment is paused, so people are not left in the dark.bill
  • It protects government workers from being personally sued if they pause a payment in good faith, so they are not afraid to stop fraud.bill
Critics
  • The bill gives agencies too much power to hold up payments based on vague 'fraud-risk indicators,' which could delay money that people and businesses rely on.bill
  • It does not require strong proof of fraud before pausing a payment, only a 'sufficient reason' based on a risk indicator, which could lead to many legitimate payments being stopped.bill

Each point links to its source. The views are attributed to those sources, not stated as ours.

Lobbying filings, contributions, and votes are public records shown side by side. The further down the chain, the further the money is from this bill. This page does not assert that money caused any vote.