Loading bill breakdown…
H.R. 9331119th CongressFinance and Financial Sector
STOP Payments Fraud Act of 2026
Sponsored by Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) · 3 active : 1 Republican, 2 Democrats
Latest action: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 692.
Where it standsBefore the House68 representatives score as swing votes
Hasn’t passed either chamber
- House: next
- Senate: not yet
- President: not yet
Summary
, via Congress.govStrengthening Transaction Oversight and Preventing Payments Fraud Act of 2026 or the STOP Payments Fraud Act of 2026
This bill establishes additional grounds for banks to pause the processing of deposited checks and wire transfers. Under current law, banks are generally required to make deposited funds available in one to two business days, depending on the type of deposit and with limited exceptions.
Read full summaryHide full summary
Under the bill, receiving banks are allowed to delay the processing of checks or wire transfers that they reasonably suspect are fraudulent. The bill allows for an initial hold that is not to exceed 10 days and an extended hold that is not to exceed 45 days. If an account is overdrawn due to a hold on a wire transfer and the depositor did not receive written notice, no overdraft fees may be applied.
The bill allows the Federal Reserve Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to determine when to apply safeguards to accounts determined to be at greater risk of fraud. Such safeguards must not apply for more than 60 days for each occurrence.
These changes take effect 60 days after the issuance of implementing rules, which must be issued within one year of the bill's enactment.
The bill also requires (1) the board and CFPB to determine whether to remove Treasury checks and cashier’s checks from expedited classification due to material losses from fraud, and (2) the Government Accountability Office to report on issues relating to the availability of funds and fraud protection.
Committees and subjects
Committees
- House Committee on Financial Services · HouseReported by · Markup by · Referred to
Subjects
- Bank accounts, deposits, capital
- Banking and financial institutions regulation
- Fraud offenses and financial crimes
- User charges and fees
Model
Directional: count only breaks toward the other partyWhy do scores change?v3default (selected)v2 model swing-v2
How the Senate breaks down
- 11Swing 70–100
- 65Middle 30–70
- 24Entrenched 0–30
Members fall into . All 100 senators have enough data to score. The bill is not before the Senate right now; these scores show where members would stand.
Key players in the Senate
Ranked by swing score, 0–100 · swing-v3, directional: only movement toward the other party counts, so members who sit further from the center than their party no longer score as swing votes.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, , and the . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.
Similar past votes, Senate
Earlier behind swing-v3’s inputLoading similar votes
Cosponsors
3 activeShow all 3 cosponsors
- Michael Lawler (R-NY-17)
- Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX-34)
- Sylvia R. Garcia (D-TX-29)
How the swing score works
Ideology gapHow far a member’s DW-NOMINATE voting score sits from their party’s median in the same chamber.
Scorecard gapHow far their Heritage Action and LCV ratings stray from their party’s average, using the groups’ votes on similar bills where available.
Cross-pressureHow strongly their district or state leans toward the other party, from our own computed partisan lean.
Similar votesHow often they voted against their own party on earlier roll calls about this bill or similar ones.
Committee bonusMembers of the committees handling the bill decide whether it moves, so they get a boost.
Cosponsor checkThe sponsor and active cosponsors have already committed, so they drop toward entrenched.
