HR-4418-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Robert Scott (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would create a new federal entitlement program providing subsidized child care for children under age 6 who are not yet in kindergarten. Starting October 1, 2026, every eligible child in a participating state would be entitled to receive assistance for child care services, with family copayments set on a sliding scale based on income — ranging from zero for families at or below 85% of state median income up to 7% of income for families above 150% of state median income. The federal government would cover 90% of direct child care costs, with states covering the remaining 10%, and would appropriate an open-ended entitlement plus $20 billion for grants to localities and Head Start agencies and $1.3 billion for federal administration through fiscal year 2031. The bill would also require states to establish quality-tiered provider systems, mandate minimum wages for child care workers equivalent to elementary school educators with similar credentials, and prohibit participating providers from suspending or expelling children.
Who benefits
Families with children under age 6, particularly low- and moderate-income families currently spending a large share of income on child care. Children in foster care, kinship care, or experiencing homelessness who receive priority access. Children with disabilities who would be served in inclusive settings. Dual-language learner families and families in underserved or rural areas. Child care workers, who would receive wage increases tied to elementary educator pay scales. Child care providers, who would receive startup grants, quality grants, and facilities grants. Head Start agencies receiving additional funding. Tribal communities and U.S. territories, which are explicitly included. Parents pursuing education, job training, or health treatment, whose children would qualify as eligible.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would bear the cost of an open-ended federal entitlement with no explicit spending cap. States that choose to participate would be required to contribute matching funds and meet extensive new administrative, licensing, wage, and quality requirements — potentially straining state budgets. Child care providers who do not meet new licensing and quality-tier standards within the transition period could lose eligibility. Private-pay, higher-income families above 150% of state median income would receive no direct subsidy. Competing private child care markets could be disrupted if subsidized providers crowd out unsubsidized ones. Religious child care providers could face restrictions on use of facilities grants for buildings used primarily for worship or sectarian instruction. Taxpayers in states that opt out would not benefit but would still contribute federal tax revenue to the program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that child care costs have reached crisis levels — the average annual cost of center-based infant care exceeds $15,000 in most states, consuming more than 20% of median family income — and that the absence of affordable care forces parents, disproportionately mothers, out of the workforce. They contend the bill addresses both a labor supply problem and an early childhood development gap, citing decades of research showing that high-quality early care produces long-term gains in educational attainment and economic productivity. By tying provider reimbursement to actual costs and mandating living wages, supporters argue the bill would stabilize a chronically underfunded sector where low pay drives high turnover and undermines quality.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new open-ended federal entitlement with no explicit cost ceiling, potentially adding hundreds of billions in mandatory spending at a time of elevated federal deficits, and that the 90% federal match gives states little incentive to control costs. They contend that mandating wages equivalent to elementary educators — without equivalent credentialing requirements — could dramatically inflate program costs and reduce the number of available providers willing or able to comply. Critics also argue that the bill's extensive federal quality, licensing, and wage mandates effectively convert a nominally state-administered program into a federally directed one, raising concerns about federal overreach into an area traditionally governed by states and families.